1. The final paragraph really says what this is all about: waging war and partying when we win. Sorry, that’s not the kind of church I’m interested in being part of.

    • Johne Cook says:

      I think the first sentence of the last paragraph is completely fitting. I think the last sentence isn’t. I don’t see Jesus celebrating after he flipped the moneychanger’s tables. (I mean, it’s a good line, but it’s not what I see in scripture.)

    • Happened to be passing through and saw the pushback on Mike Duran’s concluding line.

      I figured there might be some pushback. 🙂 To pushback on the pushback, I’d simply ask this:

      Is it unbiblical to suggest celebrating over anti-Christian enemies?

      Is this suggestion Unbiblical, as opposed to foolish, or merely looking bad in front of certain non-Christians we know or imagine will recoil from such a picture?

      If this suggestion is unbiblical, then David and other Psalmists themselves behaved in unbiblical ways, writing—often in very artful and poetic ways—about how God’s people might rejoice when Israel’s enemies get their comeuppance.

      But in fact the suggestion by itself is not unbiblical. It might be unwise, in front of certain people we know (or imagine). But if someone says this is sinful, that’s rather a legalistic standard.

      • Daniel says:

        I agree with almost the entirety of Duran’s article. In a pluralistic society such as ours, (nearly) every interest group has a right to attempt to influenceculture. Christians have gotten mad at secularists for doing so; and secularists are now mad at Christians for doing so. It seems, like Duran suggests, that secular forces are saying, ‘We can do it because we’re right, but you can’t!’

        I haven’t read The Guardian’s articles, but if the quotes above are an accurate picture of the entirety of their reporting, then, yeah, it’s a pretty ironic take.

        However, “Drinking the tears of our oppressors…” did throw me at the end. (It’s the only reason why I scrolled down to the comments, lol.) That type of language feeds anti-Christian sentiment.

        Just because something occurs in the Bible (e.g., is biblical) does not mean it is right for all people in all times and places. Because David was the leader of what was essentially a theocracy where God = Government, the enemies of David/Israel were the direct enemies of God. Hence, celebrations of the defeat of those enemies was warranted and expected.

        The only unmitigated example we have in the Bible is Jesus himself. Just because something is biblical does not mean that it is Christ-like. Jesus’ kingdom (our kingdom) is not of this world. And we shouldn’t engage with this world in a way that Jesus wouldn’t. He never gloated over the failure and silliness of his human enemies. It is, in fact, wise to ‘not gloat when your enemy falls or rejoice when they stumble’ (Prov. 24:17) or drink the tears of our oppressors. (Thinking of secular cultural forces in Western society as oppressors is a stretch anyway.)

        Our true rejoicing ought to be in Christ who ‘disarmed the rulers and authorities [those supernatural forces of evil operating against us], and made a public example of them [exhibiting them as captives in His triumphal procession], having triumphed over them through the cross.’

        I suppose I agree with you on a technicality: the suggestion to ‘drink the tears of our oppressors’ (such as they are) is biblical. But only because such behavior appears in the Bible, and is engaged in by (imperfect) heroes of our historic religious lineage. But that does not mean it is right or Christ-like in any way.

    • Randy Streu says:

      This is almost absurd in its reductionism.

  2. Dave says:

    😂😂😂😂 better give your gold then! Can I have some? 😂😂😂
    But for real now I have a few questions if you can and want to engage on them if not well that’s ok love you all my brothers and sisters and let not the world have its way with any of you! God bless you all!

  3. Steve says:

    I have bought N.D.Wilson’s books which were fun and Christine Cohen’s Winter King. I will continue to buy future books by them, which her new one is about to release. Canonball has sent their podcasts etc which I haven’t been into. But no one has a problem with secular media attacking our beliefs, pushing their agendas on Christians. Freedom of Speech is for everyone, not just Woke people.

  4. Sarah says:

    It’s still a war, and I’d never say otherwise. But I’d say that in order to win, love is the only way. No I didn’t grow up in the sixties, and I’m no hippy. But think about Christ. Did he come with a sword? Like some fantasy character like Link from the Legend of Zelda? No. One day he will. But back in the day, he came with his love. Because of his love, he died for us. It’s like in all the stories, a hero laying down his life for the world. Love is what makes a difference. If we show the world our love, not to conquer, but to show how much their Creator cares for them, then and only then, will we make a difference.

    There is a battle ahead. The question is, are we ready to give our all? To show what love truly means?

    • Thank you, Sarah and Daniel. Yes, exactly. I’m seeing way too much “war-waging” rhetoric coming out of purportedly Christian niches of our society, and it conflates rather unfortunately with secular “John Wayne” culture to create something that could end up being truly horrific. Do we really want to launch the American Crusades?

      To answer your question, Stephen, “Is it unbiblical to suggest celebrating over anti-Christian enemies?” I would say this:

      Who judges who is anti-Christian, and who isn’t?

      We war not against flesh and blood…

      • Scripture is the standard for judging this.

        My question, however, remains unanswered.

        It’s certainly healthy to challenge Christians who are entirely too chickenhawk-eager for a “culture war.” But when you don’t regard the Bible’s poetic-martial language about God’s people confronting evildoers in some way—not just vague spiritual threats, but actual evildoers—then you are failing to steel-man the opponent’s argument. Furthermore, I daresay we fail to follow such a pietistic standard on our own. Who among us has not celebrated the downfall of an abusive and/or criminal professing evangelical leader? Scripture does encourage some measure of rejoicing when unjust oppressors are defeated. This does influence Christians’ response to worldly oppression, not just in acidic political rhetoric, but even in hymns and Christmas songs.

        • Sarah says:

          I think perhaps a distinction could be made here. We should be thankful when evil is pushed back, and even rejoice. I sure am. But here is the thing, what about the person? As mentioned above, our battle isn’t against our fellow humans, but something darker and pervasive. Yes, we all make choices, and we reap what we sow. However, I can’t help but separate the evil and the person. My heart aches when I hear of another Christian leader ensnared by sin. Another battle has been lost. I hope and pray for redemption.

        • Daniel says:

          I think I tried to answer your question: no, it’s not unbiblical to suggest celebrating over the downfall of one’s enemies — simply because celebrating over one’s enemies is in the Bible.

          However, in the context of Duran’s article, who are we defining as enemies? Secular critics? (If these secularists are important to us simply because they criticize us, then why would we care about their downfall? Let them criticize and let’s see who’s right in the end — if they don’t convert first. And what does that downfall look like? The Guardian refusing to publish their next hit piece?)

          Again, in the context of this article, who are the enemies of Christianity? Any publisher or movie/tv production company that does not have explicitly pro-Christian aims? Marvel Studios? Any artist or writer who is not Christian and who tries to influence the world according their views?

          Dividing the world into the strict binary of pro-Christian/anti-Christian or religious/secular is imprudent and forces us into the persistent view of the other as enemy, and ourselves as victims.

          Also, while there may be the case for some overlap, I don’t think it’s wise to equate, say, a secular film production with rape or racism. If a serial rapist is captured and sent to jail, celebration might be justified. But are we supposed to applaud if House of Gucci bombs at the box office?

          And you are right: “we fail to follow such a pietistic standard on our own.” Many people do express glee or celebration over the downfall of a Christian leader who has been secretly doing evil for a long period of time. I’ve seen it a lot among what some would call “progressive Christians” and “exvangelical” believers on social media. I’m not sure if such behavior is right. Just because they do it doesn’t make it right in that or any other case.

  5. notleia says:

    Okay, except Doug Wilson is an objectively terrible person. Is Doug Wilson really the hill you wanna die on?

  6. Jay DiNitto says:

    Christians don’t need to ask their permission, approval, or forgiveness. Artistic tools aren’t anyone’s to own in the first place. If gatekeepers of the arts even claim to have moral scruples with it, that’s their personal problem. They don’t hold the keys to the confessional.

    Playing by their rules will just mean Christians will just have to keep playing by their rules. And the Church will be hated for its weakness every step of the way.

  7. David Hall says:

    Jesus Christ is Lord. He was raised from the dead by God, the Father. This means Christ owns everyone and everything in the entire universe. His followers are wise to use each and every platform possible to proclaim the complete and absolute authority of Christ over all the nations. Only God can see the motive. Who am I to question your motives?


What say you?