12 Voting Options in a Trump Election

February 11, 2016May 4, 2016 Tony Reinke Politics

vote

So it’s Trump v. Clinton.

And every (non-compromising) Evangelical is now asking: How then shall we vote?

From my vantage point I see 12 voting options (a list made with the help of friends):

Political apathy, skip the vote altogether because it lacks Christian priority to begin with.
Refuse to vote based on a settled conscience-based objection to the major presidential options.
Refuse to vote to send a message to a politician or a political party for reform, and vocalize the decision.**
Refuse to vote as act of “settled judgment” on America, and vocalize the decision.
Refuse to vote for president, but vote on issues and congressional races and everything else.
Vote for a third party or write-in candidate with no hope of winning, and vote on everything else.
Rally around one particular third party or write-in candidate who could perhaps be given a chance to win, and vote on everything else.
Vote for cancellation by casting a vote for the candidate opposite the one you most oppose, thereby cancelling out one of their votes.**
Vote utilitarian by choosing the major candidate by using a lesser-of-two-evils mentality.*
Vote utilitarian by choosing a major candidate based on who would appoint the best SCOTUS judges.
Vote utilitarian by choosing the major candidate who would most likely avoid global warfare and the death of civilians.
Pack up and flee before the wall is finished.***

In thinking through the options:

This strikes me as lamesauce neighbor-neglect and potentially disastrous for local issues on the ballot, not to mention for solid republican candidates running for any one of 469 congressional seats up for election in November.
Perhaps; but this again seems to ignore all the issues and all the candidates on the table.
Perhaps useful in encouraging future reforms going forward, but I think the point has been made.
This runs the risk of projecting to our culture a false gospel: Our ultimate hope is in the right Republican candidate.
Realistic.
I could do this.
Maybe; but this one candidate would need to be chosen fast and chosen unanimously and backed by all his/her closest rivals. How would this be done? Has it been done? Could this be the prime purpose of the convention?
I cannot imagine voting for someone I am not for.
Based on whose rank of evils?! Which evils get stopped? Which evils get a pass? Abortion? Gay rights? Arrogance in the leader himself? And how staunchly pro-life is Trump?
Perhaps; but it remains difficult to know how many SCOTUS judges will be selected in the next four years, maybe only one (to fill Scalia’s vacancy). After last summer I have a hard time believing SCOTUS, in any forms, is little more than a codifier of public opinion.
Perhaps the pro-life argument could extend to the candidate “least likely to lead us into war,” but if they’re also pro-abortion it’s a moot point.
Very attractive. I hear Ecuador and Panama are beautiful this time of year. In seriousness, it has been suggested to me that a presidential election catastrophe, like the one we may soon face, could help shake confidence in this nation and make it easier for young Christians to uproot, leave America, and join foreign missions work.

So I guess I like options 5, 6, 7 in this scenario.

How about you?

[Suggestions from * Justin Taylor, ** Joe Carter, and *** Joe Rigney.]

On Writing Well

January 23, 2016January 23, 2016 Tony Reinke Writing

writing

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952):

Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it. The principle runs through all life from top to bottom. Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fibre of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.

John Henry Newman, personal letter (March 2, 1868; ht: Justin Taylor):

First, a man should be in earnest, by which I mean, he should write, not for the sake of writing, but to bring out his thoughts. He should never aim at being eloquent. He should keep his idea in view, and write sentences over and over again till he has expressed his meaning accurately, forcibly, and in few words. He should aim at being understood by his hearers or readers. He should use words which are most likely to be understood — ornament and amplification will come to him spontaneously in due time, but he should never seek them. He must creep before he can fly, by which I mean that humility, which is a great Christian virtue, has a place in literary composition. He who is ambitious will never write well. But he who tries to say simply and exactly what he feels or thinks, what religion demands, what faith teaches, that the gospel promises, will be eloquent without intending it, and will write better English than if he made a study of English literature.

Antinomianism Is Not the Antidote for Legalism

January 12, 2016January 16, 2016 Tony Reinke Antinomianism, Legalism, Sinclair Ferguson

PILL

We can rejoice that Sinclair Ferguson succumbed to years of pressure to turn his three (now somewhat famous) Marrow Controversy lectures into a book, and the book is done and launches soon from Crossway under the title, The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance — Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters.

[Download the original audio files here: part 1, part 2, part 3.]

Yes, this old Scottish theological debate matters, and Ferguson’s three lectures proved life changing for me. I doubt I will ever forget the place I was walking when I first heard Ferguson explain why antinomianism is not the antidote for legalism, and why legalism is not the antidote for antinomianism. One deadly poison cannot cure another deadly poison, but each poison calls for the counterpoison of grace.

Here’s how he says it in the new book (pages 151–170):

Perhaps the greatest misstep in thinking about antinomianism is to think of it simply as the opposite of legalism. . . .

Antinomianism and legalism are not so much antithetical to each other as they are both antithetical to grace. This is why Scripture never prescribes one as the antidote for the other. Rather grace, God’s grace in Christ in our union with Christ, is the antidote to both. . . .

There is only one genuine cure for legalism. It is the same medicine the gospel prescribes for antinomianism: understanding and tasting union with Jesus Christ himself. This leads to a new love for and obedience to the law of God, which he now mediates to us in the gospel. This alone breaks the bonds of both legalism (the law is no longer divorced from the person of Christ) and antinomianism (we are not divorced from the law, which now comes to us from the hand of Christ and in the empowerment of the Spirit, who writes it in our hearts). . . .

In some ways the Marrow Controversy resolved itself into a theological version of the parable of the waiting father and his two sons.

The antinomian prodigal when awakened was tempted to legalism: “I will go and be a slave in my father’s house and thus perhaps gain grace in his eyes.” But he was bathed in his father’s grace and set free to live as an obedient son.

The legalistic older brother never tasted his father’s grace. Because of his legalism he had never been able to enjoy the privileges of the father’s house.

Between them stood the father offering free grace to both, without prior qualifications in either. Had the older brother embraced his father, he would have found grace that would make every duty a delight and dissolve the hardness of his servile heart. Had that been the case, his once antinomian brother would surely have felt free to come out to him as his father had done, and say: “Isn’t the grace we have been shown and given simply amazing? Let us forever more live in obedience to every wish of our gracious father!” And arm in arm they could have gone in to dance at the party, sons and brothers together, a glorious testimony to the father’s love.

But it was not so.

It is still, alas, not so.

The Most Famous New Year’s Day Hymn

January 1, 2016May 3, 2017 Tony Reinke spurgeon

“Amazing Grace,” by John Newton, is the most famous New Year’s Day hymn in Church history. Newton wrote and unveiled “Amazing Grace” to his Olney congregation on January 1, 1773.

The entire hymn is inspired by 1 Chronicles 17, a chapter that speaks of King David’s past, present, and future. Newton does the same, reflecting on past grace, present grace, and the hope of future grace. It is a perfect way to begin the new year.

Newton originally titled the hymn “Faith’s Review and Expectation,” but today it is more widely remembered by its first two words.

Setting the text of “Amazing Grace” alongside 1 Chronicles 17 will show just how deeply Newton’s hymn soaked up the rich biblical theology of this chapter of Scripture. Direct lines of contact are made by the terms house/home, word, and forever. Also notice the corresponding tenses of the hymn echoed in 1 Chronicles 17: past (v. 7, “I took you from the pasture”), present (v. 16, “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?”), and future (v. 26, “O Lord, you are God, and you have promised this good thing to your servant”).

While writing my book on Newton, I made this colorized chart to trace the correlations between Newton’s hymn (left) and the inspiring themes from 1 Chronicles 17 (right):

Reflecting his personal practice on New Year’s, Newton’s hymn itself provides a doxological moment in time to stop to thank God for his past mercies, his present mercies, and his future mercies.

The entire Christian life is here in Newton’s hymn:

salvation (“sav’d a wretch like me”)
trials (“many dangers, toils, and snares”)
struggles with doubts and need for divine promises (“his word my hope secures”)
protection in spiritual battle (“he will my shield and portion be”)
aging and facing death (“when this flesh and heart shall fail”)
hopes for re-creation (“earth shall soon dissolve like snow”)
anticipation for the beatific vision (“A life of joy and peace”)
and treasuring God forever (“But God, who call’d me here below, / will be for ever mine”)

[Note: The final lines, “When we’ve been there ten thousand years…,” were not penned by Newton, but found in the Afro-American worship tradition, and later added to Newton’s hymn, as documented in, of all places, Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1852 (see here).]

From the beginning to the end of this autobiographical hymn, we are introduced to the unwavering grace of God throughout the Christian’s immortal, eternal existence. Newton communicates this vision of the Christian life in catchy language very easily read and sung. Most of the words he uses (about 85 percent of the hymn) are one syllable, and that reveals much about Newton’s commitment to clarity and simplicity, traits that spill over into all his pastoral work and explain his enduring place as a spiritual luminary so many centuries after his death.

Of course, nothing from the pen of Newton endures like this hymn. Amazon.com currently sells the song in 12,700 different versions. It has been recorded in every genre, including jazz, country, folk, classical, R&B, hip-hop — even heavy metal! The popularity of the hymn is obvious at sporting events and political rallies, among other settings. It endures as one of few religious songs that can be sung impromptu in public because many people (if not most people) can recite at least the first verse by heart.

The hymn is, first, brilliant biography (of David) and, second, brilliant autobiography (of Newton). Newton is the wretch, a term he often used to allude to his own sin and to a period of captivity he endured before his conversion. But most brilliantly of all, the hymn functions as a collective autobiography for every Christian. “Amazing Grace” is perceptive biblical theology, embraced by one man deeply moved by his own redemption, articulated for corporate worship. And it is the perfect hymn to study on New Year’s Day.

Do I Need My iPhone?

December 2, 2015December 2, 2015 Tony Reinke Technology

phone

Smartphones and data plans are expensive, so do I really need them? Or can I get by without?

Since learning that I’ve paddled my way out into an oceanic book project about the smartphone, several people have asked me variations of these questions over the last few months.

Truth be told, I’m not yet working on implications, but I have started a list of questions to ask.

So do I really need a smartphone?

What does my smartphone cost me per year in the price of the device, insurance protection, covers and cases, and of course the monthly service? Is it worth it?
Do I need mobile web access to fulfill my calling in vocation or ministry? Do I need mobile web access to legitimately serve others?
Do you travel a lot? I think people who do travel extensively will ever need a smartphone for work and for navigating. Are there other ways to navigate?
If you use your smartphone to hold your shopping e-coupons, how much money would you save without a smartphone data plan?
Can my web access wait? Is my need for smartphone functionality replaceable with structured time at a laptop or desktop computer?
Can I get along with a dumbphone with calling and texting features?
Can I get along with wifi and an iPod or tablet? What would I lose?
Can I just as easily listen to audio and podcasts in other ways? Through an iPod for example.
Am I simply addicted to my phone? If so, can the problem be solved with moderation, or do I need to just cut it off?
Do I want my kids to see me gazing at a handheld screen so much as they grow up?

If you answer yes, and the smartphone is a necessity in your life, then think about certain ways that you limit your time. Have you considered:

Turning off all non-essential push notifications.
Getting accountability from others.
Telling your kids and spouse and friends to watch how your phone prohibits life and interactions.
Asking for feedback based on what they see you posting online.
And consider deleting your most time wasting apps (social media, games, etc).

But the surface has only been scratched. We all use our phones in different ways and I presume there are many more questions to be asked. Here’s where I need your help (and everyone asking these questions needs your help).

Tell us in the comments:

(A) What questions you would add to this list about whether or not to ditch the smartphone?

(B) What other scenarios in life would make a smartphone and data plan essential?

(C) For those who do legitimately need a smartphone, what other safeguards would you suggest or have found to be helpful?

Thanks for your input!

Tony