The Write Place

Recently Canon Press and St. Andrew’s College in particular released an add that is causing controversy. I have serious issue with nobody raising objection to their call to “raise the jolly roger” (the notorious skull and crossbones used by pirates).

A recent interview was done on Crosspolitic with the head of New Saint Andrews

They list several examples that (allegedly) support the use of derogatory and profane gestures. I will go through them here and show you how they actually fit a context

 ‘Have they not found and divided the spoil?—
    A womb or two for every man;
spoil of dyed materials for Sisera,
    spoil of dyed materials embroidered,
    two pieces of dyed work embroidered for the neck as spoil?’

Judges 5:30

This is the song about the downfall of Sisera at the hands of Jael. What happened with Sisera was because he was given into the hands of a women for Barak’s refusal to be a godly man and take the lead. The verse they cite refers to “A womb or two for every man” more commonly you could translate this as whore or wench (or a certain part of one).

But this is also referring to captured Hebrew women as the Syrian’s would see them. This is not condoning the use of derogatory language so much as exposing the wickedness of the Syrian’s who would use it to degrade a woman. It is a commentary on their foe and descriptive not prescriptive of how to treat others. In fact, it is an indictment on it in it’s own context, detailing how the wicked are treating the women of Israel.

At noon Elijah began to taunt them, saying, “Shout louder, for he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or occupied, or on a journey. Perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened!” 

1 Kings 18:27

Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal by citing their legends, wherein their gods are just superpowered guys who may well be busy on the toilet because the chili beans they had were too spicy. There remains debate over whether he is referring to using the toilet or not, but he is citing their own legends to point out the absurdity of their false gods. He is not calling her a B****, he is calling her an unfaithful and immoral bride.

It gets even better when the next verse starts off “So they shouted louder” and cut themselves, making loud noises to wake Baal up. The absurdity is on full display, exposed by telling their own story back at them.

³⁵ “Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the Lord: ³⁶ Thus says the Lord God, Because your lust was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whorings with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, ³⁷ therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. ³⁸ And I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged, and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy. 

Ezekiel 16:35-38

They seem to love this story because it is vivid. Israel’s infidelity is described in sexual terms, including descriptions of the body and yes it’s fluids. But ask yourself why this imagery?

Because Israel is called the bride of God. Her breaking covenant and going elsewhere is spiritually whoring herself out. It is repulsive, because it is accurate and depicting faithlessness which should be repulsive. The imagery is intentionally shocking, it’s also totally appropriate to it’s context. Israel is an unfaithful bride, and she has done this. It also doesn’t degrade Israel; it does not degrade the body either. It simply illustrates the spiritual reality of a faithless bride to her covenant Lord. This example is not an expletive but calls them to see their sin for what it is. Their judgment is proclaimed, and the punishment fits the crime. She exposed herself, so she shall be left defenseless and exposed.

¹⁸ Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, ¹⁹ saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” ²⁰ But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! ²¹ You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. ²² Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. ²³ For I see that you are in the gall^[c] of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” ²⁴ And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

Acts 8:18-25

Peter tells Simon Magus to go to hell because he asks to pay for the Holy Spirit, quite the direct opposite of what he asks for and appropriate considering it is the natural penalty for blaspheming the Holy God. The language is more akin to Peter say “Go to hell with your money.” This isn’t actually vulgar, harsh but appropriate and it addresses what Simon Magus is doing. He is committing a sin and Peter takes aim at the reality and penalty for it.

11Now, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those who are agitating you, I wish they would proceed to emasculate themselves! 

Galatians 5:11-12

The Judaizers were told to cut it all off, because they were extolling the necessary salvific act of cutting into it. Paul’s point is an actual shot at actual idolatry that is clear and precise without degrading the body. It is a reductio ad absurdum, so Paul is making a good logical argument to show it’s absurdity. As any well-educated Roman citizen, Paul knew the laws of logic and rhetoric. So, he takes their argument to the logical conclusion and tells them to follow through, proving the rank lunacy of their sin.

And lastly perhaps their favorite thing to take out of context

⁸ Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ

Philippians 3:8

The argument goes Paul’s words translated rubbish are clearly (and it seems only) possible to say is a four-letter word.

Well, strong’s concordance notes Skubolon as: Refuse, dregs, dung. Neuter of a presumed derivative of eis and kuon and ballo; what is thrown to the dogs, i.e. Refuse.

The term does not mean a four-letter word. It includes those things, but it is not a swear or vulgarity. It refers to a profane thing in the strict sense, but not in the same vein as the middle finger. Can you see Paul saying, “all those things can go F**** themselves?”

What Cannon and New Saint Andrew’s are condoning is not the sound use of the laws of logic or argument. Neither is it the proper use of strong language in a way that glorifies God by calling out sin.

None of these biblically accurate examples actually degrade the body but call out the degrading idiocy and infidelity of sin and in their immediate context.

The middle finger is not a reductio ad absurdum, it is an ad hominem. Using it in an ad doesn’t even help because it doesn’t tell you what the idolatry is that would warrant it. Neither can the use of an ad hominem based on a degrading image to it be considered justifiable.

The middle finger originates with Diogenes as a means of flashing another person. Its ancient origins mean it was in use during the New Testament. The whole raises the question of what obscene gestures, if any are off limits.

If you are degrading the body in a culture that does so as well, how are you going to win the fight? Using it is vulgar degradation to the body itself, and to something sacred (sexual union, meant for marriage). Perhaps most perplexing to me is their inability to see how unrelatable it is, and untargeted.

If they want to defend it’s use, they need to mention a specific circumstance where it actually makes sense.

Their biggest mistake is assuming offending those in idolatry is the same as desecrating idols. Such a mistake makes offending a good in itself, divorced from an actual clear message about the wickedness of the idolatry.

At one point Toby Sumpter says, “I would rather have the man who goes too far than not far enough.”
There’s something missing in his defensive response, and it’s really simple.
Both of those men are sinning…

Maybe you should choose neither and do something godly yourself.

There is a difference between saying to Hell with your wickedness and F*** you because it annoys me and I making you mad is a good in itself. It’s one thing to call out the pedophiles dressed as women from hell as groomers and sodomites, it’s another to just tell them to F*** off.

Canon Press and New Saint Andrew’s have made the mistake over and over again that mocking unbelievers, in any way for their idolatry is somehow moral (at least in their practice). They admit there are wrong ways but that raises the question what would be wrong in their eyes? So far at least I have no answer, and their arguments that demand pushback from the culture are remarkably Circumcellion. This 3-4th century group couldn’t cope with the faith being accepted in the Empire and began assaulting people hoping to be killed “In Jesus’ name.” Assuming that persecution has to happen will make you look for it and justify the unjustifiable to make it happen. In Canon and New Saint Andrew’s case, it seems if they aren’t being attacked for what they are saying they don’t think they’re being faithful and doing their job. Anything becomes justified, so long as it is done to overthrow idols. But that doesn’t explain if it will, if it does, or if it honors God in how you go about doing so.

If we are not offending, we are not doing our job is a different ethos than we must offend sin where sin exists. But this does not offend sin, it offends the body by degrading it in using it with an insult. In sinning against a person, you are not confronting sin but engaging in it. You can sin against a sinner for the sin they are committing.

The church mistook meekness for weakness, love and nicety. Moscow appears to have made the mistake of going full on in the other direction. The accusation keeps being made on their part that this is essentially the only alternative to what they are doing. I hope I have shown you this ignorance is not the case.

The question they didn’t seem to ask about calling out sin is to be clear about what point are they making. In their ad, the point is simply to offend those in sin. This is a poor take, not always right, and simplistic illustrated with sinful practice on their part.

Why didn’t they just use biblical examples in their ad? Why praise symbols of violence like the Jolly Roger, fornication and nakedness like the middle finger, both of which are frankly sin?

Worst of all, why double down on any of it?

“Crass” language serves a purpose (I’m not a Victorian, if you want to talk to a Victorian find someone else). Overcorrecting on nice by being unnecessarily harsh to the point of having a message, not about the sin but the good of offending is inexcusable. Being offensive for the sake of it exposes nothing but your own failures.

What you can see different in the biblical examples is they are clear, precise, and call out the instigator for his wrongdoing. Like all manipulators, Woke and the Left (but I repeat myself) instigate by sounding nice but doing evil all to the strategy of causing a reaction.
“Your real action is your opponent’s reaction” is the central strategy of the left known as “mid-level violence.” The problem then for Cannon press and New Saint Andrew’s becomes obvious in practice, they are making themselves reactive and offensive just the way their opponents like it.

Canon Press has obliged by being unclear, general, and pointlessly offensive so long as it makes the leftists feel insulted. They are overcompensating from the “niceness” bug that is killing us by playing into the hands of the left by unclearly, needlessly cruel means that are just as certain to kill the church.

Let’s face it, much like what happened with the GOP establishments refusal to fight an ongoing war in the culture led to Trump, the churches’ failure led to the rise of men like those at Canon Press and New Saint Andrew’s. Any fighter feels better than no fighter, but not all fighting is good. Good weapons are fatal, but the wrong weapons are even more so.

Defiance of sin with sin, is still sin. It seems like the only place they are drawing the line is at being too nice. I hope I am wrong and hope to hear where they would draw such a line, but have they left anybody with any reason to believe that they do?

Listen to this exhortation to control your strength (which is the real definition of meekness).

¹⁹ Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; ²⁰ for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. ²¹ Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

James 1:19-21

Edit:
It’s a fundamental difference to describe sin in it’s ugly, repulsive truth, or to describe things relating to the body or sexual sin. It’s fundamentally another thing to use degrading language and coarse jesting.

This is also the ad hominem, it does not attack sin but things and persons who God created.

Telling someone they are a harlot and the seriousness of their sin is not the same as flipping her the bird and telling her to get F*****. This should be central to how we interact with image bearers in rebellion.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Ephesians 5:3-5