The Price of RPGs 2

I’ve begun work on lowpoly models for the purpose of “remastering” Prelude to Nightmare in 3D, as a prelude to potentially making Dronefu.

Meanwhile, I continue to mull over the idea of making 2D RPGs.

Doing pixel art RPGs in a beat-em-up perspective appeals greatly to me. It pairs well with my art style. Pixel art palette shaders are child’s play. And I do have an interest in turn-based combat mechanics; it just poorly correlates to the standards of the JRPG genre.

Last Legend Zero was cancelled because I didn’t have a story. Without that, I didn’t have a game. And my abortive attempts at a card based interface or an adventure game may have suffered from the fact that I overcomplicated things. But whenever I go back to Last Legend Zero footage, I have to wonder, why am I not making something simple that uses this style?

I love the look of this. I think I love it more than I love the low-poly look, and more than I love the hand-drawn look. If I just simplified my objectives for the first game, so I don’t run out of steam before I have a game..

Sure, it’s not going to sell as well as HD art. But feels more my style. It feels more true.

February is the month of me lurching back and forth from project to project like an inebriated teeter totter. I may stay on 3D today. Or I may lurch back to the Last Legend engine. I’ll probably do some dishes while I mull it over.


Forgiveness is Virtuous

The College Loans thing has come back up, as it will keep returning until either debtors are enslaved openly in America, or else the debt is forgiven, presumably by some socialist takeover that brings on mass starvation.

I prefer neither option.

My favorite “plan” to deal with the Student Loan Crisis is as follows: declare that most college degrees to be scams. Seize the university endowments to pay the debt. Forgive the students.

I am led to believe this would cover the debt without having to dip into tax money. The Universities are bastions of the Left. There is nary a Right-winger who wouldn’t claim that most degrees aren’t fraudulent. Advocating this and, indeed, enacting it, would win the hearts and minds of many brainwashed children who are currently en route to imposing the Communist Revolution, and our homebred version of the gulags. And both I, and many others who advocate it would without hesitation agree to many of the stipulations that the so-called Right insists it would have to have.

  • “Well then, those degrees are revoked.” Certainly. It’s not as though they are furnishing the jobs they were billed as providing.
  • “If you aren’t smart enough not to sell yourself into slavery, you shouldn’t vote.” By all means. Revoke the franchise from those so forgiven.
  • “The federal loan program would have to be ended to prevent it happening again.” We are in complete agreement.

And yet, it is a mark of the “Right’s” commitment to losing that the mere mention of delivering this relief pushes them into shrieking fit for any vampire confronted with a crucifix.

“Why should my taxes pay for the forgiveness?” But I never proposed that they should.

“You just aren’t willing to cut Netflix and work two jobs like me.” I don’t have Netflix, and moreover, my debt is not at issue. Even if I get my way, mine will be paid off before it ever happens.

“If your student loan gets forgiven, what about my car loan?”

And now we have landed on something meaty. Something meaningful. Something I’ve been wanting to get around to.

Yeah. Let’s forgive that too.

You see, the Church has historically been against usury. That is, lending money at interest. At all.

Now this business of student loans is cast as a political and economic argument. These are not my area of expertise. My interests are drawing, writing, storytelling, programming games. On subjects outside my expertise, I defer to religion. In fact, I defer to religion even within my expertise. If I say one thing, and Jesus says another, I am wrong and Jesus is right. Period.

And what does religion tell me about debt, forgiveness, and usury?

Well, the theocracy of Israel is forbidden to loan at interest to their countrymen, and they are to forgive all debts every seven years.

I eat bacon and shellfish. I am not under the Mosaic Covenant. But I am not about to say I am wiser or more righteous than God. So the idea that it is morally superior to make men pay their debts is out the window.

You cannot be more just than God. Simple as. Nor more wise.

Which undercuts another argument, namely that debt forgiveness would create perverse incentives. Surely, God knew the incentives when He devised the Mosaic Covenant.

And of course, we are taught to pray “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”

Even supposing we paid for student loans out of our taxes, do you really intend to stand before Christ and say “I was unwilling to pay for my neighbor’s freedom, but I’d sure like you to pay for mine!”

“But Jesus is talking about moral debts, not financial debts!”

So, if I take your money, that has no moral component? Balderdash. Anyway, the idea that monetary debt has no moral component certainly undercuts the line “No one put a gun to your head and forced you to sign. You agreed to pay that.”

Either it is not immoral for me to refuse to pay, or “forgive their moral debts” applies to financial debts. You can’t have it both ways.

So yeah. I think student loans and car loans should be forgiven. Maybe once every seven years. Maybe through some process like bankruptcy. I’m not a theonomist. I’m not committed to reinstating Moses in America.

But I am saying if your argument for your system is that it is more righteous than Moses’s, or more wise, then you are flatly wrong.

“But our economy can’t work like that!”

You underestimate my willingness to appear an utter gibbering moron if it means doing what Jesus says. I am certain that a country who makes “foolish” financial decisions because that is what Christ would command will somehow find a way to daily bread.

The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Anything that claims to be wisdom and is not founded in God-Fearing, cannot be wise.

Anyway, our economy is crumbling already. The Horseman of inflation rides among us. And our country will continue to be accursed so long as it murders infants and enslaves children.

Politics and Economics

Now, I do think there is an argument that can be made for forgiveness that is political and a couple that are economic.

A country’s true economy, I would argue, is measured in whether men are taking wives and having children. By murdering half my generation, the Boomers have doomed America to darker winters for a long time. By selling the remaining half to the banks, they have made the coming winters darker and longer still.

Our house is on fire. To pull out of this nosedive, we need normal men and woman raising families. To make this happen, we need to get normal men and women out of debt.

This is one economic argument. Let us suppose that the only possible way to forgive student loans is with taxes. Let us suppose we don’t do it.

There will be fewer goods and services in the years to come because there will not be the human capital to furnish them. Nor the brain capital to maintain the automation needed to furnish them.

The second economic argument is that building an economy on debt is as foolish as centrally planning an economy, and for the same reasons. The ability to take imaginary money out of the bank and buy real things with it disrupts the healthy mechanisms of supply and demand. Our currency isn’t just inflated by the money printers. It is also inflated by credit cards.

To be sure, we have food, and communists have starvation. So to say our system is as bad as, say, Venezuela’s is objectively false. But I think it is still bad, and will all blow up in our faces.

The political argument I have already made above. Men have gone to college, been told that capitalists are evil, and had every evil for which capitalism is blamed done to them by the colleges. If we let them be, if we let Bernie and his ilk continue to enchant them, they will put us all in gulags, and then everyone gets to starve to death. But if we forgive the debt, and fix the blame where it belongs, perhaps another path becomes available.

I am neither a politician nor an accountant. I believe these arguments, but I am not really able to defend them.

But That’s Not the Point

The point is forgiveness is objectively good and laudible and I cannot and will not claim otherwise so long as I hope for salvation in the Blood of Christ.

My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me.

That’s not how my religion works. That’s not how ANY religion works.

Every now and again, I find myself uttering that phrase.

You see, every day I come across men who seem to believe that my religion is a therapeutic or a crutch. A tool I use to deal with the world.

It can serve these purposes. But it is not my religion because I find it helpful. On the contrary, several times a day I find it profoundly unhelpful. Rather, it is my religion because I think it is true.

I think a man really rose from the dead. And because He really rose from the dead, His claims about reality take precedence over the claims of historians, scientists, and other philosophers by a country mile.

I may have misunderstood the Resurrected Man, to be sure. Though He claims to be merciful and the author of language itself, so I trust that any misunderstanding is either willful on my part, or else temporary. Hopefully always the second, even if the first. But because He Lives, I am no fool for favoring His account even if evidence seems to point the other way.

Man or Rabbit

C.S. Lewis once addressed the question of whether you can lead a good life without being a Christian. His essay, Man or Rabbit? formed the foundation of my habits of thought. For in it, he he repeatedly returns to hammering home the same concept.

One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human.

I don’t give two figs whether Christianity is useful or not. I care whether it is true. I follow it in my own mangled, befuddled way because I am convinced it is true. If it were false, I would rather believe what was true, whether it was Odinism, Atheism, or Taoism.

And while I am pleased to be a believer now, I have not always been. For long decades of my life, I was convinced that Jesus was the Christ, the Risen Son of God, and I wished it were not so. But even then, I did not discard it.

I am not much of a man. I will not win many fistfights. I have not earned a great deal of money, or skillfully managed my affairs. My foes have many vectors to mock me.

But at least I am no rabbit. I am devoted to that which I am persuaded is true. I swear fealty to the God who lives. And if I learn different, I will not abandon my faith easily or lightly, but I will abandon it. I will take up the true faith.

I am dead serious. I have already switched from revivalist non-denominationalism to Confessional Lutheranism, and come within a hand’s breadth of swimming the Tiber. I am not devoted to my tradition because it is my tradition. I am devoted because I believe it to be true.

Diversion: The Paucity of Pagans and Pragmatists

Now, every week or so, some gentlemen on social media says that to save the West, we should abandon Christianity and become Odinists. After all, Odinists fight. Odinists can stand against the SJWs.

I rather suspect that the proportion of Odinists with blue hair greatly exceeds the proportion of blue haired Christians. But even if it were not so, even if Odinists always fight and Christians always lay down and die, I would hold there is one and only one reason to become an Odinist: that Odin is really and truly king of the gods, and Jesus is not.

If Odin is imaginary and Jesus is imaginary, which I strongly suspect to be the real belief of most Odinists I meet, then the manly thing to do is own up to it. “I am playing make-believe for the psychological and social benefits.”

Well, I make children’s books. I play make-believe professionally. There is nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with calling it a religion.

A religion is a practice spawned by an honest assessment of reality. It is service to the gods because they are gods, not because they are cool. A real Odinist really sacrifices real goats to really Odin. He doesn’t just braid his beard and wear a meowmeow amulet for funsies.

When a man tells me “give up your faith, mine is far more practical”, he tells me he believes lies on purpose for their benefits. In short, he tells me he is not a man.

A beast may be stronger than me. Elephants are. A beast may be wealthier than me. The housecats of elite widows are.

The dignity of manhood may be improved by strength or funds or cleverness. But without it, you are simply not a man.

Beliefs Have Consequences

As soon as we have realised this, we realise something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don’t should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one’s actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. The one believes that men are going to live for ever, that they were created by God and so built that they can find their true and lasting happiness only by being united to God, that they have gone badly off the rails, and that obedient faith in Christ is the only way back. The other believes that men are an accidental result of the blind workings of matter, that they started as mere animals and have more or less steadily improved, that they are going to live for about seventy years, that their happiness is fully attainable by good social services and political organisations, and that everything else (e.g., vivisection, birth-control, the judicial system, education) is to be judged to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ simply in so far as it helps or hinders that kind of ‘happiness’.

Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. Again, where the Materialist would simply ask about a proposed action ‘Will it increase the happiness of the majority?’, the Christian might have to say, ‘Even if it does increase the happiness of the majority, we can’t do it. It is unjust.’ And all the time, one great difference would run through their whole policy. To the Materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.

The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can’t both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction.

– Man or Rabbit? C. S. Lewis, emphasis mine.

A week or two ago, an anti-“Critical Race Theory” activist by the name of James Lindsay went around claiming the plain teachings of John 1, accepted by Papists and Lutherans, Greeks and Baptists alike, are that old heresy, Gnosticism, thereby setting himself up as a great defender of the Faith he doesn’t hold.

When Christians of every stripe questioned his theology, he got butthurt and salty and went around talking about how Christians could Save the West if they only stop being Christians.

Now. I am in favor of his crusade against CRT. I am a uniquely bitter foe of the vicious, abusive, racist policies of the American Government School.

But Mr. Lindsay seems to believe people choose religion the way they choose socks. Because they like the color and fit.

And maybe for many men, that is true.

But that’s not how religion works.

I would like to Save the West. I am fond of flush toilets and video games. When the collapse comes, I am ill-suited to be the local warlord. When the Stasi come to my door, I expect to die offering a futile token resistance.

But in the long run, the West is nothing; Christ is everything.

Moreover, the only Christians who could Save the West are those who believe the West is nothing; Christ is everything.

You cannot get the benefits of religion without really believing. And if you really believe, you will have to act in accordance with what you believe.

Deep down, Mr. Lindsay believes, or acts as though be believes, that everyone is secretly an atheist, who affects religion because it is practical.

But, Mr. Lindsay, if that is so, why do you want to be yoked with such dishonest men? Or if I have charged you falsely, and you think we really do serve the Risen God Man (in our own minds, anyway), why should we obey you and not Him?

And Thus, I am Unconcerned By the Dying Church

Many a man forecasts the death of the Church if it doesn’t do this or that.

Many a man within the Church on my side laments that the church has become emasculated. Toothless.

I feel your pain. I wish to see a righteous army stand undaunted against the foe. I wish to be part of this. To hold the line. To reconquer. To rebuild.

Which of you wants to tell the King of Creation that His Bride needs more chest hair?

If Christianity is true, Christ will preserve His Church, weak though she is, foolish though she is.

If Christianity is false, the church deserves to die. Because lies deserve to die.

The health of the Church is not my problem. Only the health of the local Church, in which I am a member, which I am to love as my own body. And my duty there is not to make sure they have rock bands to attract the youth, nor even specifically to protect them against rock bands (though that is more my wont). It is to hear the Word and repeat it. To be shriven. To take the Sacrament. And to love my neighbor as myself.

You know, I really do believe all that crazy stuff happened. That the sun stood still for Joshua. That Jonah was swallowed by a big fish. That a virgin conceived and gave birth. That water became wine and that wine becomes blood.

Because I really do think that a man died and returned from death. And what He says goes. Even if it doesn’t make sense to me.

Even if it’s utterly impractical.

And because I really believe all that, I have to live my day-to-day life as if it were true, even though it seems foolish to those who believe differently.

That’s how my religion works.

That’s how every religion works. You either act in accordance with it, or else you’re larping.

Faith and ADHD

There’s a guy in my circles on the interwebs, name of Jeff Hendricks. He’s got the ADHD. So do I. He’s got the religion. So do I. He’s got the article about it.

Well, now so do I.

My experience is almost completely different, so being as arrogant as anyone, I’m going to use him as a springboard to talk about myself. Perhaps between the two angles, you’ll find something of value.

Buckle in my friends. I am about to hold forth at length. And I suspect my fellow Chaos-monkeys are unlikely to make it all the way to the end.

Continue reading “Faith and ADHD”

Against Apologetics

I love apologetics. I love the study of why, in fact, Christianity is true. I love piling up historical evidence after historical evidence. Of understanding Textual Criticism.

My faith was preserved in my youth, when I deeply desired to apostate, by the writings of C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. The wounds my college teachers inflicted on my faith were salved by the balm of Peter Kreeft and James Patrick Holding. And to this day, I think Irenaeus’s Against Heresies is hilarious.

I think every Christian child should be armed with an understanding that our Myth is the True Myth. That they should not be going out in the world unprepared for the attacks that will come their way.

So why am I coming out against Apologetics?

I am not. But I would that my brothers would put it in it’s proper place.

Every apologetics ministry cites as its theme verse 1st Peter 3:15. But let’s look at it in context. It’s a long bit. But please, please, read it all. We’re going to start partway through 2, and go into 4. But if you want to do even better, read the whole letter. I triple-dog dare you.

Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or to governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evildoers and for praise to those who do well. For this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

Servants, be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the wicked. For it is commendable if someone endures pain, suffering unjustly, because of conscience toward God. For what glory is it if, when you sin, you patiently endure beating? But if, when you do well, you patiently endure suffering, this is commendable with God.

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps, who did not sin, “neither was deceit found in his mouth.” Who, when he was cursed, didn’t curse back. When he suffered, didn’t threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously; who his own self bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed. For you were going astray like sheep; but now have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

In the same way, wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; so that, even if any don’t obey the Word, they may be won by the behavior of their wives without a word; seeing your pure behavior in fear. Let your beauty be not just the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on fine clothing; but in the hidden person of the heart, in the incorruptible adornment of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God very precious. For this is how the holy women before, who hoped in God also adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children you now are, if you do well, and are not put in fear by any terror.

You husbands, in the same way, live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman, as to the weaker vessel, as being also joint heirs of the grace of life; that your prayers may not be hindered.

Finally, be all like-minded, compassionate, loving as brothers, tenderhearted, courteous, not rendering evil for evil, or insult for insult; but instead blessing; knowing that to this were you called, that you may inherit a blessing.

For, “He who would love life, and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit.

Let him turn away from evil, and do good. Let him seek peace, and pursue it.

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears open to their prayer; but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Now who is he who will harm you, if you become imitators of that which is good?

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “Don’t fear what they fear, neither be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear: having a good conscience; that, while you are spoken against as evildoers, they may be disappointed who curse your good way of life in Christ. For it is better, if it is God’s will, that you suffer for doing well than for doing evil. Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison, who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ship was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him.

Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind; for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin; that you no longer should live the rest of your time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past time doing the desire of the Gentiles, and having walked in lewdness, lusts, drunken binges, orgies, carousings, and abominable idolatries. They think it is strange that you don’t run with them into the same excess of riot, blaspheming: who will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6For to this end the Good News was preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live as to God in the spirit.

Emphasis mine, verse in question in red.

In the context of submitting to authorities, and wives submitting to husbands, with the example of Christ suffering under the authorities, Peter tells us if we suffer for doing good, to count ourselves blessed, and be ready to answer anyone who asks why we put up with evil masters.

Namely: because Christ suffered for our evil.

This is not a verse that urges us to defend the faith against all comers. It is a verse that urges us to proclaim the faith when people ask why we’re acting weird.

For Apologetics

There are passages that, I think, would make good theme verses for an apologist.

Now I Paul, myself, entreat you by the humility and gentleness of Christ; I who in your presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you. Yes, I beg you that I may not, when present, show courage with the confidence with which I intend to be bold against some, who consider us to be walking according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we don’t wage war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the throwing down of strongholds, throwing down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; and being in readiness to avenge all disobedience, when your obedience will be made full.

2nd Corinthians 10: 1-6

Spiritual warfare is the war of ideas, and we fight with ideas taken captive to Christ.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore, as you go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18

The mission of the church is to baptize and teach as we go.

Therefore take up the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you will be able to stand your ground, and having done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness arrayed, and with your feet fitted with the readiness of the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Ephesians 6:13-17

The Scriptures are our sword. The gospel our sandals. The truth our belt.

But should we always give a defense to every bad argument we see on Twitter?

The Nuance of God’s Wisdom

A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools!

Don’t answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

One who sends a message by the hand of a fool is cutting off feet and drinking violence.

Proverbs 26:3-6

Solomon endorses the old adage that when you fight with a pig, you both get muddy, but only one of you enjoys it. Nevertheless, he goes both ways. When you answer a fool, you are in a lose-lose situation; choose how you want to lose.

Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you tell your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye;’ and behold, the beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

“Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives. He who seeks finds. To him who knocks it will be opened. Or who is there among you, who, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, who will give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Matthew 7:1-12: Emphasis mine

I referenced this verse when debating this point and received the reply, “I take ‘pearls’ to be the deep truths of the Kingdom, not explication of the fundamental propositional truths of scripture. Whether a man is an honest truth seeker is frequently only revealed with time.”

Interesting, that this comes right after “Do not judge” and right before “Seek and you will find.” I acknowledge that this supports the idea that when deciding whether someone is swine, to not cast pearls before, you reserve judgement rather than guilty until proven innocent. A point to the man who occasioned this post.

However, I dispute the idea that when you are pondering whether to set Holy things before dogs, the fundamental propositional truths of Scripture are not Holy! The Scriptures do indicate that some teachings are milk, and some teachings are meat, but all Scripture is God-Breathed and how could the Breath of God be anything but Holy?!

It happened on one of those days, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the Good News, that the priests and scribes came to him with the elders. They asked him, “Tell us: by what authority do you do these things? Or who is giving you this authority?” He answered them, “I also will ask you one question. Tell me: 4the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?” They reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” They answered that they didn’t know where it was from. Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

Luke 20:1-8

I am not the Son of God, except in as much as He has made me. Nor, then, do I subscribe wholesale to “WWJD,” for Jesus has authority to do things He has not, in turn, given me. Nevertheless, Our Lord exercises discernment in deciding what to answer and what not to answer. Discernment He Himself commends in the passage I cited previously! So in addition to His example, we also have His command.

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt. They have done abominable works. There is none who does good.

Yahweh looked down from heaven on the children of men, to see if there were any who did understand, who did seek after God.

They have all gone aside. They have together become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one.

Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and don’t call on Yahweh?

There they were in great fear, for God is in the generation of the righteous.

You frustrate the plan of the poor, because Yahweh is his refuge.

Oh that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion! When Yahweh restores the fortunes of his people, then Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. 

Psalm 14

When the decision comes as to whether to answer a challenge to the faith, remember: those who deny God are all fools, so you are in square in Solomon’s dilemma! To be sure, we should take pity on fools and bring them the Scripture. But we are permitted to exercise discernment when answering fools!


The reality is, the Scriptures do advocate teaching, and advocate contending for the faith. But there is no command to always answer any challenge you see anywhere. In fact, there are proverbs and commands that caution us against doing so.

And, in fact, such Scriptures as I know that talk about contending for the faith don’t primarily talk about defending the truth of Scripture in public.

They talk about defending yourself against false teachers.

And they talk about proclaiming the truth into the world.

I believe (but will not exegete here) that the role of Apologetics is self-defense.

And that those verses that even I use to support Apologetics aren’t meant to support the defense of the faith. They are meant to support the offense of the faith. We are not meant to be on the back foot, we are meant to be storming the gates of Hell.

Okay, Then Why Did You Make a Big Deal of This?

Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don’t you listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the handmaid was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

For it is written, “Rejoice, you barren who don’t bear. Break forth and shout, you that don’t travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband.”

Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

However what does the Scripture say? “Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman.”

So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman.

Galations 4:21-31

Jesus did not commend the Pharisees for piling law upon law upon their brethren. Nor did Paul commend the Galatians for adopting circumcision.

The way of men, of Christian men, throughout all history, is to see God’s requirements — which we do not even keep! — and say, “that can’t be enough. There needs to be more rules.” And when Christ pays with His life for the sins we committed — the sins against His law, not the sins against our made up laws — we get antsy. “Can’t tell people about Grace. They might get the idea it’s okay to start sinning.”

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

Do you like that you don’t tell your neighbor about Jesus? Do you like that you are shamed into silence when God’s word says unpopular things like “Wive’s submit to your husbands”?

If you’re a Christian, it eats at you. If it doesn’t, your faith is fading. (Stay tuned: I can tell you what to do about it.) You want to be good. Even though you aren’t doing good things, you want to do good things.

The solution is not to make up new laws, to go beyond the words of Scripture, and make a laudable act, such as defending the faith, into a requirement. By taking Scripture out of context, no less!

When you try to be holier than God, you fail. Period.

The solution is easy, and yet in this demonic age, oh-so-hard.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the farmer. Every branch in me that doesn’t bear fruit, he takes away. Every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already pruned clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch can’t bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me. I am the vine. You are the branches. He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man doesn’t remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, you will ask whatever you desire, and it will be done for you. “In this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; and so you will be my disciples.

John 15:1-8, emphasis mine

When you make up a new law to try and keep God’s Word better, you add the leaven of the Pharisees.

When you look at your life, and realize that you are not doing what is good, and you flee to Christ’s sacrifice, and to His Word, you abide in Him. Eat the Bread. Drink the Wine. Hear the Scriptures. Pray the Scriptures.

Do not elaborate on the Law. Meditate on the Law. Your pride, your cowardice, whatever mountain is standing between you and the good you would do? You will not move that mountain with your own cussedness, let alone with verses taken out of context to create laws that do not exist.

Mountains are moved with faith. And faith doesn’t come from trying. Faith comes from asking, and from hearing the Word of God.

But seriously, every Christian teen should read Mere Christianity and The Case for Christ at minimum. The night is dark. Don’t walk out without some decent armor.

This is wisdom; not a commandment.

This is better answered here.

All my internet friends are in the Church of Rome (for the most part), so when local Roman art sensation Owen Cyclops asked some questions on Twitter, I thought I might answer ’em. My official affiliation is the church of the Augsburg Confession, which is called “Lutheran” (among other churches that believe wildly different things, but are also called Lutheran), but I am a layman enthusiast and not a trained and authorized spokesman for my church, so take this with grain of salt.


I missed the granddaddy of the whole list, which I’m going to answer above the fold. The list itself, then, will be answered below the fold.

if youre christian, what convinced you to be the particular “branch” or “denomination” that you are? since ive “figured things out” ive been focusing more on my relationship with god than on this question, but im looking to take things a little further […]

I was brought up Baptist. Officially non-denominational, but as I learn more about the history of the church and its various factions, I find it was effectively Baptist. Which is the most American denomination, and I’m pretty solidly American by blood and culture, so it fits.

In college, I didn’t know what to do with my life, and so, like a moron, instead of dropping out of school before I got any debt and trying different things, I went to a non-denominational Christian school in hopes that the Holy Spirit would help sort me. While there, I got drafted into basically a local Dungeons and Dragons group that was 90% Christian. The DM was an argumentative Lutheran who would pick theological fights with my classmates.

I, myself, enjoy watching and commenting on debate, but I do not enjoy picking or defending a side. In my experience, every person on all sides of any debate has an instinct to Strawman like crazy, and I don’t see the point in talking to someone who is ideologically unable to hear the words coming out of my mouth. But sitting on the sidelines and saying, “no, I think you went too far there,” or, “oh, damn! That’s a good point,” is a useful learning technique for me.

And I learned that the Scriptures teach that Baptism saves and the bread and wine of communion are the body and blood of Christ.

At that time, I converted to the Lutheran church. I wasn’t happy about it, but they were right and I was wrong and that was that.

A few years later, though, I realized that both Rome and the Orthodox also teach this, and I hadn’t ever given them a fair shake. I began purchasing apologetics by all sides of this three-way argument.

The case between the Lutherans and the non Sola-Scriptura churches is fundamentally hard to analyze because they admit different standards of evidence. I was 70% Lutheran but 30% really undecided until very recently because of this. If a Baptist debates a Lutheran, you both have a single authority, the sacred Scriptures, to which your arguments are beholden, and you can work hard to reject the less Scriptural argument in favor of the more Scriptural argument. But when a Roman Catholic goes, “Your name is Peter and on this Rock, mic drop,” you’re in a bit of bind because by Rome’s standards of evidence, that really is a pretty good argument, but by Augsburg’s, it’s a ridiculously paltry one. When you judge which side has the better of that discussion, you are basically choosing who wins in advance.

And that’s not reason or logic. That’s raw prejudice. But the differential evidentiary standards necessitates it. All arguments between Rome and Augsburg are and, fundamentally, must be talking past each other.

All except one: Sola Scriptura itself. Since choosing the evidentiary standard effectively chooses the church, that became the topic of greatest concern to me.

(Well, not quite. If Sola Scriptura falls, I still have to pick between Rome and the East, and frankly, the East seems more likely to me, but there you are).

And that’s what I’ve been mulling over for the last couple of years. I’m now 90%/10% instead of 70%/30% on the Sola Scriptura topic. I’ve reached a point where my best option to settle it once and for all is to do a deep dive into Patristics, but I haven’t gone for that deep dive just yet. ‘Cuz Holy Cow, there’s drinking from the firehose!

And now for the original post:

Continue reading “This is better answered here.”

A Can of Worms

Yesterday was the 500th of Martin Luther saying, “Here I stand, I can do no other unless convinced by Scripture and plain reason. God help me.”

To hear tell, social media was rife with Lutherans crowing and Romans, crowing in turn. Sculptures and woodcuts of sacred figures casting Luther out of Heaven or ushering him into Hell adorned my twitter feed.

I consider it a credit to my social media curating that I only saw a handful of the adornments, and almost none of the crowing.

Whenever my position, which is “Lutheran”, comes up, I get commentary from my Roman friends who either explain patiently why Luther was a terrible person, or else offer him as much grace as possible, but patiently explain why Luther was terribly wrong. In my youth, I frequently got into such arguments with atheists over the basic facts of history (namely that Christ arose), and I never demurred until I was content than an objective viewer would see I had clearly beaten the pants off my opposition. But I frequently demure when it comes to defending Luther and his ideas. There are two reasons for this: a greater, and a lesser. Today I would like to concern myself primarily with the lesser. But let us first briefly (ha!) address the greater reason.

I don’t actually give two figs what Luther said or did.

When reading through the Encyclopedia of Catholicism, one of their entries, I’m not sure if it was on some Lutheran thing, or on the Lord’s Supper, commented that Luther believed that the Sacrament of the Altar does not confer forgiveness of sins.

Now, I cannot with 100% confidence, tell you that this is false. I think it is false. I can assure you that if I go to my priest, he will tell me it is false. But even if it is true, it doesn’t matter.

The Scripture says “This is the new covenant in my blood, shed for the forgiveness of your sins.”

I believe the sacrament forgives sins.

Every church with which I commune teaches that the sacrament forgives sins.

Now, I suspect that Luther also, at least at one point in his life, believed that the sacrament forgives sins, because Luther wrote two catechisms that teach this very thing. And the Lutheran churches preserve these two catechisms in our book of Concord, where we lay out our dogmas and our arguments for them.

But let us suppose Luther wrote these things by mistake and actually taught what the encyclopedia claims. Or perhaps he later changed his mind, and the teachings he finally settled upon are not the teachings the Lutheran church has preserved.

Luther is not now and was not then the Pope of Lutheranism.

The fundamental distinction between the Lutheran church and Rome is our views of authority. The Father has given all authority in Heaven and on Earth to the Son. On this, all the churches agree. The Son has given Magisterial Authority to His Apostles. On this, all the churches agree.

From here there are three positions. The Enthusiasts believe that Magisterial authority was passed on to their whims, the stirrings in their guts, and to divinatory arts. Rome and the East believe that Magisterial authority persists in the teaching office of the Church. And the Lutherans believe that it died with Apostles, making the record of their teachings the final authority. This position is called “Sola Scriptura,” and it boggles my mind that a Roman will one minute attack Sola Scriptura (fair enough, as this is actually our stance), and the next minute tell me that Luther was a bad faith actor.

We didn’t call ourselves Lutherans. That’s your term for us. We went with “Evangelical” (although, sadly, the term was already taken by the time we made it to America). Every church names itself with a name that means “We’re the True Church.” Rome calls themselves Catholic. The Greeks say they are Orthodox. And the Concordians claim to be Evangelical. Well, Christ’s church is Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical. If (as I suspect) the Lutherans are correct, it is because they are catholic. If, as my homies insist, Rome is correct, it is because they are evangelical.

The proper parallels to calling the church of the Book of Concord “Lutheran” is calling the church of Rome “Papist”. Which I hold to be true, but I do not actually use the term because I do not expect to win converts by needlessly pissing in the wheaties of my brethren. I favor the term “Roman” because it is not primarily an insult and yet neither does it concede the argument.

We are men, and not the children of antifa. We have better arguments than naming ourselves “the good guys” and insisting everyone else is the bad guys by virtue of our self-chosen name.

And the name “Lutheran” obscures the nature of the Lutheran churches, specifically, that they do not count themselves beholden to Luther’s words and actions any more than they count themselves beholden to the Bishop of Rome.

And now I turn to the point of this post. The lesser issue.

Do you actually think I believe that?

Here’s the thing. For every attack on Luther, there exists an answer. I presume, for every answer there is also a rebuttal, and a rebuttal to the rebuttal. This argument has been going on for half a millennium, after all.

Luther said “Sin boldly”? He was being bombastic and hyperbolic, and his instruction taken in context cannot be read as an endorsement of sin. Luther added the phrase “Apart from works” to a specific Bible passage in his translation? That translation was not unique or original to Luther; Aquinas had also used it. Luther was antisemitic? You do realize that On the Jews and their Lies was a tit for tat answer to On the Christians and their Lies, right?

500 or so years ago, when these arguments were first spun up, somebody was arguing in bad faith. Given human nature, there was likely multiple bad faith actors, even on whichever side was correct. These days, however, the stories are passed on in good faith. Your Roman priest is not lying when he says Luther said A, B, or C, and neither is my Lutheran priest lying when he rebuts by saying Luther actually said X, Y, or Z. They are both passing on to their sheep what they learned in good faith from their teachers.

And this is why I demure. Because the argument proceeds at this point on a he-said/she-said basis. You tell me in good faith what your priest told you in good faith. I tell you, in good faith, what my priest told me in good faith.

The natural rebuttal from Rome is, “well, my priest is validly ordained, whereas yours was falsely appointed by a heretical sect.” But don’t you see? This is ultimately the very point under contention. We would not care about Luther’s teachings or character unless we were considering which church is, indeed, orthodox.

You will not convince me by loading your conclusion into your premises.

The proper step at this point, then, is to turn to the original source material. To read Luther and his foes in their context. Ideally, in the original German and Latin.

And this I will not do. Mostly, because I don’t have the time. Partly because I really, really dislike the German language. And partly because, as I wrote above, Luther is not the pope of me.

If ever I have time to do in-depth original source investigation, it seems to me far more profitable to learn Koine and read the New Testament as written rather than as translated, along with the LXX and the earliest Church Fathers. Indeed, it is my hope to eventually do so. If I am converted to Rome (or the East, which frankly I think is far more likely) or else confirmed in my current position, let it be at the feet of Peter, Paul, Irenaeus, and Clement, rather than Luther or Trent!

There is also the matter of vocation to consider. I am not a professional apologist. I do not wish to become one. It is incumbent on professional apologists to go the source and get his facts straight. It is not incumbent on all the flock to become professional apologists. Some of us have to be farmers or shopkeepers or construction workers.

If God permits, I should like to be an entertainer.

Art Under the Shadow of the Gun

I have nothing new to say. Only a new audience and a new occasion. This essay is nothing more than my ripping off of C.S. Lewis’s Learning in War Time.

I have maintained for the last decade or so that I expect my country, the United States of America, to fall apart in the early 2030s. This belief is not due to my own expertise, and I am ill suited to defend it. It is the considered opinion of historians and philosophers I trust.

Of late, however, men are starting to take my premise seriously. Except they expect the collapse much sooner. Next week, perhaps. The foundations are shaking. The public mood is turning. And being ill-suited to the task of defending my 203X date, I’ve heard a question floating around my circles:

What role has an artist in all this? Should he set down his brush and take up a gun? Or, if he holds his brush, should he seek to use his art to aid his friends and defeat his enemies? Does he adulterate his art by ignoring the Muse for the sake of propaganda? Does he fiddle while Rome burns by ignoring propaganda for the sake of the Muse?

The Christian has a more serious question. For of course, wars and rumors of wars are nothing but birth-pains to us. Every man who dies on the battlefield will rise again to live in eternal glory or eternal torment. But nations and political groups are mayflies, creatures whose lifespans are measured in mere centuries.

Should the Christian artist throw aside his brush, then, and spend all his effort tending his own soul in a monastery or nunnery, or seeking to save the souls of others as an evangelist or priest? Or if he holds on to his brush, should he seek by his art to aid the angels and defeat the demons? Does he adulterate his art by ignoring the Muse for the sake of propaganda? Does he fiddle while souls burn by ignoring propaganda for the sake of the Muse?

Clearly, whatever answer suffices for eternal matters must also be strong enough for trifling matters like a world superpower at war with itself.

And here we can cheat on our impromptu philosophy exam. We already know what the Apostles told us to do in the light of eternity: To use our gifts for the glory of God. To do whatever lies before us with all our strength, as if God and not some man had set us the task. To be content in our station, whether master or slave, though to cast off the chains of slavery whenever peaceful means to do so present themselves. To be good fathers and good sons, good soldiers and good grocers. And good artists.

Neither religion nor war can stop men from drawing pictures, composing poems, or singing songs. Art is more endemic to humanity than war. We are born in the image of a gardener king, not a warrior king. We are made in the image of a gardener God who is a warrior God — but only because a serpent invaded His garden.

Moreover, we find men who are seriously at war writing books, singing songs, and celebrating Christmas. Even when the bullets fly, we will not give up culture. That is who we are.

To set aside the brush for the gun, then, is a foolish proposal. Even if it is a good idea, we could not do it except in the extreme moment of the emergency itself. Once we have taken up the gun and marched off into combat, our hand will itch until it seizes upon a new brush, or pencil or pen, and we shall find ourselves painting in the trenches.

So much for the question of whether we ought to set our art itself aside. Now for the question of whether we ought to prioritize the muse or the mission.

Let us stop thinking for a moment of books and games, and start thinking of houses. Let us pretend we are stonemasons and carpenters. What we are asking is whether we ought to stop building houses, and instead build barracks and chapels.

The answer is situational. A carpenter hired by the army ought to build barracks as the army directs. A carpenter hired by the church ought to build chapels as the church directs. But a carpenter hired by neither ought to go on building houses, to the glory of God. The best, most beautiful houses he may, given his talents and constraints.

A cobbler serves God best not by putting little crosses on his shoes, but by making good shoes. And a storyteller serves God best not by putting little crosses in his stories, but by telling good stories.

Now you may want to tell a story that makes a theological point. Very good. C.S. Lewis wanted to do so, and the Narnia books are great art. But perhaps you want to leave all moralizing and philosophizing out of the story, except as the tale itself demands. Very good. Tolkien hated allegory so much so that he openly disdained Narnia, and Lord of the Rings is great art.

If you are a musician in the army, and the army wishes you to write a march, then by all means write a march. If you are your own man, and you wish to write a march, then by all means write a march. But if you wish to write, instead, a sea shanty, do that. You are not fiddling while Rome burns. You are making a mark on immortal souls, while the mortal things crumble.

I make it sound very grand. I am not inviting you to put on airs. What deeper mark is made on a soul than the marks a mother and a father make? And yet our culture casts these aside as unworthy pursuits. The pictures I draw are nothing, in the end, next to the diapers I have changed. The pictures were as much a product of my vanity as any gifts and callings God has given me. But a dirty diaper is a clear and unquestionable sign from Heaven that there is work to be done, and work of an unambiguous sort.

A dirty diaper very cleanly cuts through the weight of emotion around all this talk of fiddling while Rome burns. Whether bullets fly through the air, or indeed, souls hang in the balance, the thing has got to be done.

But whatever pictures I feel a need to draw, let me draw them with all my might, as unto God and not men.

Hymns and Hims

There’s a quote made the rounds of late. Something about singing hymns with the same gusto as marching songs and sea shanties — because that’s what they are.

Something like that.

Problem is most hymns are not fight songs and sea shanties. And for some, that’s fine. Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence is perfect as is. Built on the Rock the Church Doth Stand needs no improvement. It is Well With My Soul would only be worsened if it were changed. Thy Strong Word is… well, it’s already a sea shanty.

Being a convert to the Lutheran tradition, however, I am confronted with a problem. Most of the hymns were clearly originally written in German. They don’t go well in English. The poetry of the translation is good enough, but the meter of the music was plainly meant for different words.

Sometimes a German Hymn does fine directly translated. Usually, if it is full of sturm and drang. The aforementioned Built on the Rock and Lutheran Theme Song A Mighty Fortress Is Our God are good examples.

On the flip side, nearly everyone who suggests changing up the music in the divine service is trying to sneak in a Baptist-style worship service long on blue jeans and guitars and emotional manipulation and short on anything that actually confesses the catholic faith. I have fended off a couple of attempts to recruit me for such campaigns, due to the fact I have a decent ear, and can thus sing slightly better than average.

I didn’t go to all the trouble of converting just to attend a second-rate version of the church I left.

Thing is, the church has been around since at least when Cain and Abel went to make sacrifices (I would say since Adam first heard God curse the serpent), and in those 6000+ years permeated every culture there is. We have no excuse for bad music. We ought be able to skim the best of tunes and the best of poetry off the top of that great cataract of culture. We ought to have a giant book chock full of verified bangers.

I lack the training to right this wrong. But there it is, and it pains me greatly.

Anyway, I’ll be listening to sea shanties for a while. Sea shanties are the anthem of the broken spirit discovering after the breaking that somehow it has won. That is a very Christian spirit, even if the shanties tend to be long on whores and rum. And I have added “Shanty Hymns” to the list of things I’m making, even though I’ve no skill for the task.

The Adversary

Concept art for my upcoming Bible Story books.

Since my first book runs from Eden to the Second Coming, it is necessary to unify certain characters who are spoken of in different terms. That is, the Serpent of Eden is the Dragon of Revelation.

But there’s more going on here. The Hebrew that is translated “serpent” is potentially a double- or triple-entendre, implying “serpent,” “false oracle,” or “bronze” or “brass”. Some commentators believe that the description of Goliath, the giant’s bronze armor is a callback to the serpent of Eden… David and Goliath are both armored in their deity.

Continue reading “The Adversary”