SEPTEMBER 2020

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Looting, Hat-Shaming and Other Contradictions of the Left, Part 1

        by Matt Kasper

    I began working on this article back in early June after the protests began. I was going to release a version of it in July, but I thought that the situation in our country was just still too delicate for a sardonic critique.

    One other thing that held me back is that in July we had an article about the value of silence. In that article, I said “Maybe some of us are watching, waiting, allowing the dust to settle, and then considering how we can maximize the impact of our words by saying something concise, of high quality, and deployed at a strategic moment.” I guess that is why I didn’t present this article in July.

    But eventually, we do have to speak, and call out the rampant contradictions in our society, and risk offending those who probably would strive to be offended anyway.

    So, here are some of the contradictions of the left that we have seen this Summer, many of which revolve around issues of race and “justice.”

    The Gap Between Protesting and Looting. Many people protested in late May in response to the death of George Floyd by a white police officer. Many of these protestors looted, as well. Looting, robbing and arson continued for several nights in Minneapolis beginning on May 27, and then spread throughout the country over subsequent days and weeks. Reverberations of these protests continue in light of the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery and Rayshard Brooks.

    Apparently, some people believe that one injustice gives them the right to commit other injustices. We have the Constitutional right to protest; however, the original offense does not justify any crimes that follow, especially when some folks just want to capitalize on a tragedy by plundering stores and getting free stuff. The media coverage also demonstrates the inconsistency; the injustice of manslaughter is highlighted, but the injustice of mass theft is overlooked.

    Our society is so illogical that it cannot recognize that the policemen responsible for George Floyd’s death were wrong, and the looters who took advantage of the situation were wrong, as well. Probably Trayvon Martin was doing something wrong and George Zimmerman handled the situation in a wrong way; not all of these stories have a clear hero and a clear villain. Probably Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri was wrong, and police officer Darren Wilson was wrong; most people lack the discernment to not immediately pick sides. Go ahead, defend one and vilify the other; you are probably still wrong.

    Acting Racist. In other allegedly racist news, Jimmy Fallon came under fire in early June for a video that surfaced of a 2000 Saturday Night Live sketch, in which he used “black face” to portray Chris Rock, an African-American “comedian.” Accusations that this is racist or that Fallon should be taken off The Tonight Show were absurd, but the pervasive nature of these wrongful accusations demonstrates the decline of logic in our society.

    First, racism involves claiming that one race is inherently inferior to another race or to all other races. Many comments, jokes or activities involving someone from another race may be insensitive or inaccurate, but they are rarely asserting the fundamental superiority or inferiority of one race or ethnicity relative to others. It is, therefore, not racist to put on a costume and act like someone else. In fact, isn’t putting on a costume and acting like someone else exactly what the Hollywood industry is all about?

    By these same standards, when will Robert Downey Jr., apologize for playing an African-American individual in Tropic Thunder, and when will Marlon Wayans and Shawn Wayans grovel before the arbiters of political correctness for playing two white chicks in a movie called . . . well . . . White Chicks? Aren’t these people just playing other characters, and not making moral judgments about them? What, then, is wrong with what Jimmy Fallon did? How is this different than any of the dozens of other characters that he has portrayed over the years?

    So much more to say, but so little . . . wait a minute, this is my web journal, I can talk about more examples of these contradictions if I want! And I will in Part 2 below!

THE AGE OF THE EARTH: Why Genesis 1 and Psalm 90:4 Are Bad Bedfellows

    We have written several articles about why we take Genesis 1 literally, and you can see those articles in our “Eclectic Archive” here.

    Many Christians believe that the opening chapters of Genesis are metaphorical or poetic. Many believers adhere to theistic evolution or affirm with modern secular science that the earth is millions of years old.

    But the more we dive into the opening chapters of Scripture, the more we believe that they are intended to be taken as literal and historical. Many believers still affirm that all things were created by God in six 24-hour days, despite how increasingly naïve some people believe that view to be. He created all things with the appearance of age so that He could have immediate interaction with His creatures, and we don’t believe that this makes God deceptive in any way (see our article about this called “Science, God and Deceit” from the May 2020 edition).

    Some who believe that the days in Genesis 1 really represent eons or ages appeal to verses like Psalm 90:4. This verse notes that God perceives or understands time differently than we do: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.” They then leap to 2 Peter 3:8, which seems to be borrowing this concept about time from Psalm 90:4. Since Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 discuss time and days, why shouldn’t we use Psalm 90:4 to interpret Genesis 1?

    This kind of “leap” from Genesis 1 to Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 may make someone feel like they have an iron-clad argument that the world is actually millions of years old. However, they are also “leaping” over several important layers of interpretation.    Context is extremely important in the interpretation of any verse or passage. When looking at a verse, one must consider where that verse is situated in the chapter, in the book of the Bible that it is in, and in the area of Scripture (such as early narrative literature, minor prophets, or epistles). One must consider the genre of the book that it is in (such as poetry, prophecy, or story) and the point that is being made in the original context where the verse is found.

    For instance, Psalm 90:4 is in a poetic passage and in a book of poetry. Of course, not all poetry is figurative, but there certainly tends to be more figurative and metaphorical language in poetic sections than in narrative sections. The passage of a millennium is compared in this verse to a night watch, and it is likened to a flood, sleep, and new grass in v. 5. These are similes and comparisons in the immediate context; they are not intended to suggest that the word “day” in other parts of Scripture should not be taken as actual 24-hour periods.

    The book of Psalms is a book that employs metaphors and similes frequently. In these cases, it is not trying to portray scientific accuracy. However, Genesis 1-3, and really the entire book of Genesis, is history. It still uses metaphors occasionally, just like we all do in normal life and speech. However, it is narrating actual history, using days, weeks and years in literal ways. We dealt with the literary genre of these early chapters of Genesis in our article, “Is Genesis 1-3 Poetry or History?” from the September 2018 edition. However, it is worth revisiting the question, if Genesis 1 is poetry and symbolic but Genesis 7-8 about Noah or Genesis 12 about Abraham are literal, then when does Genesis stop being figurative and become literal and historic?

    Some don’t think that Genesis 1-3 is poetry, but that it describes the literal creation of all things. Their only caveat is that the “days” are figurative, representing ages or eons, rather than actual days. Obviously, we disagree with their assessment of the word “days.”

    But this points to an odd interpretive inconsistency: why take the references to time (“day,” “evening,” and “morning”) figuratively, but take everything else literally? They want to take day figuratively, but they don’t take “sun” figuratively; they believe that Genesis 1 refers to the creation of our literal sun. Is “water” figurative, too? Does it stand for the Holy Spirit? Or the flowing blessings of God? Or are the references to “water” referring literally to water even though references to “day” are not about literal 24-hour days? We take everything else literally in Genesis 1, that God made a literal sun, literal stars, literal animals, and eventually made literal people, and yet the multiple time markers, like “day,” “evening,” and “morning” are somehow figurative. This doesn’t seem like consistent interpretative methodology.

    Also, we need to consider that Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 portray how God perceives time, not how He communicates it. It is not necessarily that time moves faster or slower for God or for us, but that we as finite creatures perceive time differently than He does. For an eternal God, centuries and millennia are perceived as brief relative to the way temporally-locked creatures like us understand the passage of time. And, while this may be an interesting theological discussion, that doesn’t mean that these verses should be used to argue that the “days” in Genesis 1 are eons or ages rather than 24-hour days.

    Since we’re on the subject, I will add that Psalm 90:4 and Revelation 20:1-7 are bad bedfellows, too. Revelation 20 also mentions the term one thousand years pointing to the millennial reign of Christ after the Great tribulation and before the eternal state. Some point to 2 Peter 3:8 since it also refers to end time events, and suggests that the thousand years in Revelation 20 should be taken figuratively. However, Revelation 20 is portraying a literal future condition in a genre that takes numbers pretty seriously (like detailing the 140,000 in Rev 7:4-8, or the listing of seven churches in Rev 2-3, seven seals in Rev 5, seven trumpets in Rev 8-9, and seven bowls in Rev 16). Also, the term “thousand” is repeated in six consecutive verses in Revelation 20:2-7, signaling that this was not a throw-away metaphor, but the author intended for us to take this time-span literally.

    Psalm 90:4 and similar verses like 2 Peter 3:8 present fascinating theological truths, but should not be used to impose an interpretation on a different genre, such as historical narrative in Genesis 1-3.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Looting, Hat-Shaming and Other Contradictions of the Left, Part 2

    We are continuing from Part 1 above to discuss contradictions that we have seen from the liberal side of the aisle in recent months.

    I’m not saying that any of the rest of us are perfect; contradiction threatens any ideological camp. However, when these contradictions come up, we should acknowledge them, admit them, and correct them. It’s just that the left seems uniquely incapable of admitting their contradictions.

    Anyway, here are a few more.

    Hat Shaming. An individual wearing a MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) hat was harassed at a grocery store in Peachtree City, GA in early May. It seems like these kinds of episodes occur frequently. This particular “disturbance” was serious enough that someone called the police, but the harasser left before the police arrived. Similarly, a man named David Sunderland was allegedly fired recently for wearing a Trump hat. These situations are evocative of how Nick Sandmann and some of his classmates were labeled as racists not merely because they were confronting an American Indian protestor, but because they were wearing MAGA hats.

    A quick internet search demonstrates how the media portrays those who wear a hat in support of a candidate that wants to make America as great as it can be. One CNN article from early 2019, referring to the incident with Nick Sandmann, was simply titled, “Why Trump’s MAGA hats have become a potent symbol of racism.” A February 2020 Newsweek article asserts in its title that “Finding Parents’ MAGA Hats Will One Day Be Equivalent of Discovering Their ‘Ku Klux Klan Hood’.” It makes me wonder why MAGA hats are portrayed as racist, offensive, and unacceptable, but hats with female parts on it are celebrated as a legitimate political statement?

    A Noose You Can Lose. The news cycle moves so fast because the left has to cover up all its mistakes, mis-information, and overreaction.

    Do you remember the story in June about how Bubba Wallace, an African-American race car driver, allegedly discovered a noose hanging in his stall at Talladega? The race-sensitive media lit up about this allegedly racist threat against Wallace. However, an FBI investigation discovered that the noose was just an ordinary handle for pulling down an overhead door. In fact, it was reported that this handle had been there since the previous Fall. This was clearly a case of fake news, or, as Ben Shapiro called it, “Fake Noose.”

    Shapiro, a Jewish conservative, has received many legitimate threats on his life and family. He noted that Wallace should have been thrilled that this turned out to be a mistake. But, instead, Wallace went on CNN and insisted to Don Lemon that this was a noose, and a clear racist threat; he and the liberal media simply couldn’t let go of the racism implicit in the story, even though the story was a fiction. Shapiro summarized the reaction that Wallace should have had: “No noose is good noose!”

    The connection between these stories is the inconsistency of the left. Fake nooses, looting, hat-shaming and Fallon-shaming are just symptoms of how leftist politicians and pundits allow contradiction. One black man was killed by a white cop, and this is all over the media. However, many black people die every day in Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore, and these are never mentioned because those cities have high-profile Democratic mayors. Where is “Black Lives Matter” when young black men slaughter other young black men?

    Also, did you notice how quickly stories like the one about Jimmy Fallon or Bubba Watson came and went? It is like the media wants to keep stoking tensions without reporting on how previous stories were resolved.

    We are all hypocrites by nature. But now, we are starting to see that the inconsistency and the double-standards of many people in politics and media have no reasonable and logical end. These rampant inconsistencies create a house of cards, and this way of thinking breeds a society and culture that will become completely unsustainable.