Matthew 11:21 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! These were more Jewish than Tyre and Sidon in Jesus' time, yet, Jesus picked these two not just because they were Jewish, but because they were the hardest to reach. I posted this on Facebook as a reminder in evangelism in USA.
There were many reasons, good and bad, when I said I wish to do missionary work in the Middle East. One of them is because it's easier. Easier than especially America. I said it to people whom I thought matters so that I know I won't be alone. This only shows that America is, though a Christian influenced nation, but certainly not a Christian nation. America is a Christian Cult nation. Yet, I always find myself alone in this. Perhaps not anymore, with folks like Shahriq Khan (or the likes of it, since I don't know him well enough).
This is a qualitative challenge, not a quantitative one. That is why I can compare USA to the Middle East and any other parts of the world and rate accordingly. This is not about how much guts you've got to evangelize. This is not about how many people you could bring to Christ. This is not about whether you preach the Gospel or not or got orthodoxy nailed down in your head and speech. This is about if you are able to perceive and dare to challenge the cult of Ameristian and the atheistic byproduct of their heresies.
Of course, as a side effect, declaring this is also a way to wipe the smirk off the faces of those who do mission works outside of the United States, particularly Americans. This is not to diminish mission works everywhere else in the world, but to refocus them to reflect on why they do what they do. Nevertheless, many have tried to start with evangelizing in America because they live here, and failed due to the qualitative challenge, but they do not admit their failure, so they moved out to do ministries outside of America to show that they've been "promoted" in their ministries in the pagan strange lands. Yet, they would not be able to sustain their work in America either vision (they would have to tolerate Ameristianism) wise or stability (no one would support their radical view should they follow Matthew 11:21) wise.
FedEx Shipping Label Expiration date: Was told once by FedEx that FedEx labels (i.e. return labels) don't really expire, but could never truly verify it. I thought there was a time an old label was rejected as if it's recycled and used elsewhere before. Nevertheless, I can verify now at least a label printed 7/15/2025 can still be used in 5/19/2026, at my SP work.
5/18/2026 Monday
It's rather concerning when of the detained immigrants, only 5% have convictions of crimes, thought it is a popular exhortation from liberal Christians (not referring to Holy Post Media), it is a serious problem when Christians do not heed one central command of the Bible, the part about loving your neighbor. It's the only way to see the Gospel. To distract oneself from this with diverting to topics like toxic empathy is to actually derail from the Gospel in spite of fluency in the Gospel narratives:
I've often joked about MoMa. Although, not understanding much of the artists' artworks, I was more amused by the guests at the museum (or such museums). It seems that they understood the art but I would be skeptical all of them truly understood it. A simply test can obviously be done by hanging my glasses on a wall or something somewhere near an art piece and count how many guests took time to marvel at my hanging glasses.
Nevertheless, I do remember two workshops of Dr. William Edgar of Westminster Theological Seminary (retired 2022). One was years ago when Rev. Laura Lin invited him (her professor in seminar, I believe) to CCCNY to give a lecture on art, and I almost fell asleep with some of the modern pieces he was talking about. I believe he brought up Damien Hirst's infamous piece 1991, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (a 14-foot tiger shark preserved in a tank of formaldehyde), but I forgot what Dr. Bill Edgar was talking about. I do remember that he didn't like Beethoven's 9th Symphony as a hymn to be sung in church: He would not sing Henry van Dyke's "Joyful, Joyful, We adore thee" adaptation of the Ninth Symphony's last movement "Ode to Joy". I forgot who asked him that question and I don't even remember if I had asked it. And I also remember he indirectly rebuked Becky's question regarding having a neural attitude towards the ethnics of working with LGBTQ+ folks in the art world. Whether I remembered much or not, I still appreciate Rev. Lin for inviting him for the talk. The second being his publicly available class on the Aesthetics (downloaded to my library drive).
Now, I am reminded of Bill Edgar's lessons in arts after coming across David Tong's Facebook post, and we had a few exchanges:
DT: Saya tidak mengerti Modern Art (MA). Bagi saya MA adalah penolakan terhadap nilai universal mengenai keindahan.
Me: pergi tanya Dr. Bill Edgar
DT: Timothy Law tanya apa? Bill Edgar juga tidak setuju "art" kayak ini.
Me: David Tong MA pada umumnya. Bukan itu yang dia katakan ketika Rev. Laura Lin mengundangnya ke CCCNY untuk lokakarya tentang Seni terakhir kali. Lelucon ini sebenarnya ditujukan kepada mereka yang berpura-pura mengerti seni kayak ini padahal sebenarnya tidak. Bukan kamu yang saya maksud. Saya juga suka mengikuti karya-karya "art" Anwar Jibawi 😃. Saya juga tidak menyangkal dominasi sekuler dari seni semacam itu.
DT: Timothy Law ini mungkin sudah bukan MA, tapi Post-Modern Art.
Me: David Tong setuju - Postmodern art, yang bahkan bisa lebih lucu (seperti video Anwar Jibawi), Mzm 2:4, 52:6. Namun saya yakin Dr. Edgar akan menyukai "Sand Column" Roman Signer 😜
PS: I had Nadia checked my Indonesian grammar after using Google Translate's help. She was impressed enough to think I used AI to do this.
But here's the Google AI research I did later:
=============================
Prompt: what does william edgar of Westminster theological seminary say about modern art
William Edgar, an apologist and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, views modern art as a powerful but religiously charged reflection of human culture. He argues that abstract and modern art can be reconfigured for Christian purposes, reflecting God's truth and pointing viewers back to the Creator. [1, 2, 3, 4]
His specific perspectives on modern and contemporary art include:
Abstraction as a Tool: Edgar points out that Christians should not fear abstraction, which is prominent in modern art. Instead, they can reconfigure its insights to create works that glorify God and tell the Christian story.
Revealing Truth: Rather than dismissing secular art, he looks for redemptive threads in it. For example, he has noted that even puzzling installation or environmental art—such as Christo's massive nylon landscape projects—can point viewers toward the meaning and intentionality of the world's Creator.
Beyond Utilitarianism: Building on the legacy of thinkers like Hans Rookmaaker, Edgar rejects the idea that art must strictly be a utilitarian tool or platform for direct evangelism. He believes creativity is part of being made in God's image, and that art has inherent value.
Spiritual Non-Neutrality: He maintains that art is never completely neutral. Whether the artist acknowledges it or not, their work is deeply shaped by a spiritual worldview, making it an excellent lens for cultural apologetics. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Prompt: william edgar on modern art?
William Edgar, a noted Christian apologist and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, views modern art as a profound barometer of humanity's deepest beliefs. He argues that art exposes society's underlying presuppositions, revealing our spiritual search for transcendence in an increasingly secularized world. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Perspectives on Modern Art
Benevolent Lordship: Edgar champions the "cultural mandate". He believes humanity is called to enjoy and develop the world, treating modern art as an avenue to express both the beauty of God's creation and the profound tensions of a fallen world.
The Search for Meaning: Rather than dismissing modern art as purely irrational, Edgar analyzes it as a response to cultural crises. He frequently engages with how secularization and the loss of traditional absolutes influence artists, driving them to find meaning in new ways.
The L'Abri Connection: Heavily influenced by his time with Francis Schaeffer at L'Abri, Edgar believes that apologists must understand art and popular culture to effectively reach skeptics. He sees modern art as a vehicle for uncovering the deeply spiritual, often unstated questions people are asking. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Core Themes
Surrogate Transcendence: Edgar notes that because humans are inescapably religious, those who reject traditional faith often find "surrogate forms of transcendence"—such as science, literature, and art—to fill the void. Modern art is a prime example of this.
The Gospel as Answer: Ultimately, Edgar believes that the Christian gospel provides an answer to the fragmentation and despair sometimes found in avant-garde works, arguing that the good news of Christ applies to every area of cultural and artistic vision. [1]
Prompt: So he does not reject Modern Art as against Christianity?
No, William Edgar does not reject modern art as against Christianity. Instead, he views it as a valuable expression of human experience that Christians should thoughtfully engage with rather than dismiss.
Why Edgar Embraces Modern Art
Common Grace: He believes God grants creative gifts to all people, meaning secular artists can still capture profound truths and beauty.
Cultural Mandate: He argues Christians are called to engage with culture, not flee from it, making art a key space for cultural involvement.
Honest Expression: He values modern art for honestly exposing the brokenness, doubt, and search for meaning in a secular world.
Bridge to Truth: He treats art as a cultural mirror that helps Christians understand the deep spiritual questions their neighbors are asking.
Prompt: Would William Edgar say: Modern Art is a rejection of the universal value of beauty?
No, William Edgar would not say that modern art is a blanket rejection of the universal value of beauty. Instead, he argues that modern art redefines beauty and shifts its focus from superficial charm to a deeper, more honest aesthetic reality. [1, 2, 3]
Rather than viewing the departure from classical ideals as a simple "rejection," Edgar's framework suggests a more nuanced understanding: [1]
1. Broadening the Definition of Beauty
Edgar argues against limiting beauty to simple symmetry or traditional, pleasing aesthetics. In his lecture Beauty Reconsidered, he favors broadening "beauty" into a comprehensive aesthetic sense. Under this view, art is aesthetically satisfying if it is rooted in reality and well-crafted, even if the subject matter is jarring, unconventional, or heavy. [, 2]
2. The Aesthetics of a Broken World
From a biblical perspective, Edgar recognizes that the world is fallen. Therefore, art that reflects fragmentation, grief, or chaos isn't rejecting beauty; it is honestly depicting the absence of shalom (peace and wholeness). To Edgar, an artwork that effectively captures the existential weight of a secularized society is "praiseworthy" because it tells a profound truth about human experience. [1, 2]
3. A Challenge to "Kitsch"
Edgar and his contemporaries (deeply influenced by Dutch art historian Hans Rookmaaker) often see modernism as an antidote to sentimental, superficial Christian "kitsch". They argue that sanitized, artificially "pretty" art can actually distort reality. Modern art, by contrast, forces viewers to look past superficial decorations to confront deeper realities. [1, 2]
Summary of Edgar's View
If an artwork is chaotic or challenging, Edgar does not interpret it as a war on the concept of beauty itself. He views it as a provocative aesthetic expression that either highlights the brokenness of the world or acts as a "surrogate transcendence," searching for ultimate meaning in a secular age.
Prompt: what would he say about post-modern art?
William Edgar views postmodern art with a mix of deep philosophical critique and pastoral empathy. While he appreciates modern art for its honest, painful search for meaning, he treats postmodernism as a more cynical shift that requires a different kind of Christian critique.
Drawing from his writings on aesthetics at Westminster Theological Seminary and his background in presuppositional apologetics, his view breaks down into several core assessments:
1. Critique of "The Taboo on Beauty"
Edgar points out that postmodernism—driven by deconstruction and post-structuralism—created an academic and artistic "taboo on beauty." He notes that in postmodern circles, declaring an object beautiful is often met with ridicule or dismissed as socially insensitive.
The Postmodern View: Postmodernists believe focusing on beauty is a distraction from political injustice or a weapon of the powerful to enforce a false harmony.
Edgar’s Response: Edgar argues that while justice is crucial, separating beauty from art is a mistake. True beauty and justice are both rooted in the character of God, meaning they should complement, rather than oppose, one another.
2. From Serious Modern Angst to Playful Irony
Edgar notices a major psychological shift between modern and postmodern artists.
Modern art was often filled with a tragic, earnest grief over the loss of meaning (think of the existential despair in Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko).
Postmodern art, by contrast, stops grieving. It accepts that there is no absolute truth and turns to irony, pastiche, and cynicism (think of Andy Warhol's pop art or Marcel Duchamp’s repurposed objects).
Edgar's Take: He would argue that postmodern irony is a defense mechanism. By mocking everything and refusing to take anything seriously, the postmodern artist tries to avoid the painful reality of a meaningless universe.
3. Deconstruction as a Spiritual Cry
True to his training under Francis Schaeffer, Edgar does not simply condemn postmodern art's cynicism; he diagnoses it as a spiritual symptom. When postmodern art deconstructs "grand narratives" (the idea that there is one overarching story or truth to the universe), Edgar views it as a logical dead-end. Without a foundational truth, art becomes nothing more than a superficial manipulation of symbols and political power plays. He would say this fragmentation exposes a culture desperately in need of the ultimate, cohesive narrative found in the Gospel.
4. The Loss of the Individual
Postmodern art often rejects the idea of the "lone genius" creating original work, preferring instead to copy, parody, and collage existing media. Edgar would warn that this tendency risks eroding the concept of the individual made in the image of God. If an artist is merely a "manipulator of signs" rather than a true sub-creator, the dignity of human creativity is diminished.
Summary of His Stance
Where Edgar sees modern art as an honest cry of despair, he sees postmodern art as a cynical shrug of shoulders. He would urge Christians to look past the defensive irony of postmodern art, recognize the deep hunger for truth beneath its skepticism, and boldly reclaim beauty and objective meaning in their own cultural contributions.
Prompt: Would he say that postmodern art is a rejection of the universal value of beauty?
Yes, William Edgar would argue that postmodern art represents a deliberate rejection of the universal value of beauty.
Unlike modern art—which he believes merely redefined beauty or grieved its loss—postmodern art actively attempts to deconstruct and dismiss the very concept of objective aesthetic value.
His assessment of this rejection relies on several core insights:
1. The "Taboo" on Aesthetic Value
Edgar observes that postmodern theory places an academic and artistic "taboo" on beauty. In postmodernism, beauty is not seen as a universal, God-given value. Instead, it is treated as a social construct used by those in power to enforce cultural preferences or distract from political injustice. To a postmodernist, claiming something is "universally beautiful" is an oppressive attempt to colonize taste.
2. A War Against Ideals
Edgar's mentor, Francis Schaeffer, noted that culture moves through stages of fragmentation. In the postmodern stage, art shifts from exploring deep realities to actively mocking them. By prioritizing irony, shock value, and parody, postmodern art explicitly rejects classical ideals like harmony, proportion, and transcendent truth.
3. The Collapse into Relativism
Because postmodernism denies objective truth, it naturally denies objective beauty. Edgar would argue that when art reduces beauty to a purely subjective matter ("beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder"), it strips beauty of its universal value. Without a standard rooted in the character of God, beauty ceases to be a meaningful reality and becomes a mere tool for political or psychological manipulation.
Summary of Edgar's Distinction
Modern Art: A painful, honest struggle to find beauty and meaning in a fractured world.
Postmodern Art: A cynical rejection of the idea that universal beauty or absolute meaning even exist.
Prompt: What would he think about Roman Signer's Sand Column work?
William Edgar would likely view Roman Signer’s Sand Column (Sandsäule) as a fascinating, deeply honest parable of human limitation and gravity, rather than a cynical piece of postmodernism. [1, 2, 3, 4]
For context, Signer’s piece involves stacking 8 to 12 plastic buckets filled with sand. A tiny hole in the bottom bucket allows sand to slowly leak out until the structural equilibrium shifts and the entire tower collapses. [1, 2]
While a typical critic might dismiss this as a meaningless viral stunt, Edgar’s unique theological framework would interpret it through a few distinct lenses: [1]
1. An Honest Expression of Creation and Fall
Edgar argues that good art must tell the truth about the world, which includes acknowledging both the order of creation and the reality of decay.
The Physics of Creation: Signer does not use magic tricks; he relies on the real laws of nature—gravity, friction, and time. Edgar would appreciate this as a respectful engagement with the physical reality God designed.
The Certainty of Collapse: The slow, inevitable collapse of the column serves as an excellent visual metaphor for the biblical concept of the Fall—the reality that human structures, pride, and life itself are fragile, temporary, and bound to return to dust. [1, 2, 3, 4]
2. Modern Angst vs. Postmodern Irony
Even though the piece utilizes everyday plastic buckets, Edgar would separate Signer's work from the deconstructive cynicism of postmodernism. [1]
Postmodern art often relies on a "cynical shrug" or a mean-spirited parody of truth.
Signer’s work, by contrast, functions as a poetic and almost tragic "sculptural event". There is a serious, focused anticipation as the viewer waits for gravity to take over. Edgar would see this suspense not as a joke, but as an honest meditation on the transience of human endeavors. [1, 2, 3]
3. A Rejection of Sentimentality
As a critic of "Christian kitsch" (art that makes life look artificially perfect), Edgar would applaud the raw realism of the Sand Column. It does not offer a fake, happily-ever-after visual harmony. Instead, it forces the viewer to watch a systematic breakdown. To Edgar, confronting the reality of instability is far more artistically honest than producing safe, decorative art that ignores the world's brokenness. [1, 2]
Summary of Edgar's Verdict
Edgar would not call the Sand Column a rejection of beauty. He would extend his concept of "broadened beauty" to it, finding aesthetic value in how perfectly and elegantly the installation captures the truth of time, entropy, and human fragility. He would likely use it in an apologetics lecture to show how even a stack of leaking sand buckets can point to humanity's deep awareness that our earthly foundations are unstable. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Prompt: look at how Edgar distinguishes "high art" from simple performance art
William Edgar rejects the rigid division between "high art" and lower cultural forms, choosing instead to distinguish art based on its structural integrity, intent, and ability to reflect truth. Rather than using "high art" as a weapon to dismiss performance art, Edgar evaluates interactive or ephemeral works by looking at how well they fulfill the purpose of human creativity. [1, 2, 3, 4]
When evaluating a piece of performance art versus a traditional masterwork, his distinction relies on several theological and aesthetic criteria:
1. Density vs. Social Class
The Traditional Elite View: Conservative cultural critics often define "high art" by its medium (e.g., oil on canvas, opera) and associate it with upper-class institutions, while dismissing street theater, pop music, or experimental performance art as "low" or vulgar.
Edgar’s View: In critiques published through platforms like Andy Naselli's cultural reviews and his own essays, Edgar argues that this divide is artificial. He states that "high art" is often simply characterized by a greater degree of formal density (complexity of structure), but that doesn't mean it possesses a greater depth of meaning than popular or performance-based mediums. [1, 2, 3]
2. "Sub-Creation" vs. Mere Shock Value
Edgar uses J.R.R. Tolkien’s concept of sub-creation—the idea that because God is the Ultimate Creator, human beings honor Him by shaping and ordering raw materials into a cohesive framework.
Simple Performance Art: If a performance piece is just a "simple stunt" designed purely to shock, mock, or deconstruct without building anything (such as standard postmodern shock art), Edgar views it as a failure of the creative mandate. It lacks the craftsmanship and substance required to truly engage human desire and intellect.
Valuable Performance/Installation Art: If a performance art piece uses real physical laws, time, and deliberate structure to communicate a profound reality (like Roman Signer’s Sand Column or the community-focused textiles analyzed in scholarly art discourse), Edgar lifts it out of the "simple" category. He views it as a legitimate aesthetic event because it functions with structural integrity and tells the truth about human existence. [1, 2]
3. Traces of Grace vs. Self-Indulgence
Edgar heavily emphasizes looking for "fragments of grace" across all cultural tiers. [1]
For Edgar, a performance is meaningful if it connects with human suffering, exhibits physical dexterity, or highlights a cry for justice—principles he expands upon in his theological book Created and Creating.
A performance piece degenerates into "simple" or poor art when it abandons communication altogether, becoming an entirely self-absorbed, narcissistic exercise that refuses to point to any transcendent truth or common human experience. [1, 2]
Summary of the Distinction
Edgar does not believe that a piece must be housed in a museum or painted on canvas to be considered "high" or valuable art. He distinguishes between them by looking at the seriousness of the artistic intent. If a performance art piece is a well-crafted, honest engagement with reality, it carries the same spiritual weight as a classical masterpiece. [1, 2, 3, 4]
I can explain how Edgar applies this to jazz and blues music (which was once dismissed as "low art" but carries incredible formal density), or look closer at his critiques of Christian kitsch.
===============================
Modern art and postmodern art represent two distinct eras and philosophical approaches to creativity, spanning from the late 19th century to the late 20th century. While modern art actively sought to build a new world through logic, original forms, and idealized beauty, postmodern art dismantled those ideals using skepticism, irony, and the recycling of past styles. [1, 2, 3]
Modern art operated on the belief that art could uncover universal truths. Artists used logic, form, and abstraction to speak to deep, shared human realities.
Postmodern art rejected these "grand narratives". It argued that truth is highly subjective, constructed by culture, and deeply tied to societal power dynamics. [1, 2, 3, 4]
2. The Artistic Genius vs. The Death of the Author
Modernists revered the concept of the artist as an original genius. The direct touch, emotional intention, and technical mastery of the painter were paramount.
Postmodernists actively deconstructed authorship. They utilized mechanical reproduction (like silk-screening) and corporate imagery to strip away the idea of the "unique masterpiece". [1]
3. Pure Aesthetic vs. Irony and Appropriation
Modern art strove for clarity, elegant simplicity, and structural purpose. If a piece was a painting, it leaned into the purity of flat paint on canvas.
Postmodern art thrived on irony, sarcasm, and "the thing in quotes". It freely stole, borrowed, and recontextualized existing corporate logos or classical paintings to mock historical seriousness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Sand Column (also known as Sand Bucket Sculpture) by Swiss contemporary and postmodern artist Roman Signer. [1, 2]
This piece features eight to twelve stacked buckets filled with sand. The bottom bucket has a tiny hole in the side, causing the sand to slowly leak out. As the sand escapes, the column gradually tilts, loses its center of gravity, and inevitably collapses onto the floor in a cascading crash. [1, 2]
Signer's ephemeral sculpture explores themes of temporality, physics, and the natural forces of movement. It challenges the traditional permanence of sculpture by making the act of decay and destruction the actual artwork. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The Reformed Christians today (especially in the West, particularly in America) are known to be lack of evangelistic, if not anti-evangelism. It's a sad thing. Some blame this all to way to John Calvin. The defense would be that Calvin had to deal with Rome and worked hard correctly what Rome has perverted in Biblical and Systematic Theology. But there were hints of John Calvin being very zealous for evangelism.
One of such I came across recently from a Facebook post:
"If we have any humanity in us, seeing men going to perdition, ... ought we not be moved by pity, to rescue the poor souls from hell, and teach them the way of salvation?" [1, 2] (From a sermon on Deuteronomy 33)
I am taking Reformed21's (GRII) Fokus Q&A (by Pdt. Hendry Ongkowidjojo) more seriously as when I use Google Gemini to summarize them, there are some useful terms not seen much in the West, both in English and in Malay/Indonesian:
The Role of Laypeople: The video pushes back against a "clericalist" view (where only priests interpret). While experts/pastors are necessary for deep training, the goal is for the laity to become mature enough to study and even teach [20:59]. [Clericalist is very common not just in the Catholic Church or other religions, but in Protestant Christianity as well, where the pastors are viewed as the only ones with answers in the Bible. WCF 1.7 speaks of the Perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture: All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves… yet those things which are necessary to be known… are so clearly propounded… that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.]
The speaker’s focus on genre and original context [01:29] is the standard Reformed method of interpretation.
Literary vs. Literal
Reformed View: One must seek the sensus literalis (the literal sense), which includes understanding when the author is using metaphors, poetry, or historical narrative.
External Source: Louis Berkhof’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation is a classic Reformed text that mirrors the speaker's points on distinguishing between "Proverbial" and "Didactic" literature.
The "Priesthood of All Believers" vs. Church Order: The video navigates the tension between the "Priesthood of All Believers" and the need for trained "Teaching Elders."
Reformed View:Unlike the Roman Catholic view of the time, Reformers believed all Christians are "priests." However, they also believed in the divine office of the ministry. God gives "Pastors and Teachers" (Ephesians 4:11) to the church to prevent "winds of doctrine" [18:54].
Analysis: The speaker clarifies that while we are all equal in Christ, we are not all equal in function or gift. This is why "Elders" must be "apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2) [32:21].
Moral Law vs. Ceremonial Law: The discussion on pork [10:49] touches on the Threefold Use of the Law (Moral, Ceremonial, Civil).
Reformed View: Dietary laws are "Ceremonial" and were fulfilled/abrogated by Christ. The "Moral Law" (The Ten Commandments) remains binding.
External Source: John Calvin, in the Institutes, explains that the ceremonial laws were "shadows" that vanished when the "substance" (Christ) appeared.
How Christians should vote in politics, drawing from Proverbs, Phil Vischer concluded:
"The righteous are willing to disadvantage themselves to advantage the community; The wicked are willing to disadvantage the community to advantage themselves."
The above clip comes from episode 720 of Holy Post Media: The Casino-fication of the Church and Mark DeYmaz. These are useful terminologies from the episode:
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD) is a term coined by sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton in 2005 to describe the most prevalent, de facto religious worldview among American youth and young adults. It is not a formal religion, but rather an umbrella of watered-down spiritual beliefs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
The term is broken down into three core concepts:
Deism: The belief in a Creator God who exists, orders the world, but generally steps back and stays out of people's daily lives—unless needed to solve a problem. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Moralistic: The central belief that the ultimate goal of life is to be a good, nice, and fair person.
Therapeutic: The belief that the purpose of religion is to feel good about oneself, be happy, and achieve subjective well-being.
The following is where MTD is used:
The Video’s Stance: The hosts argue that the church has become a tool for personal "wellness" or political mobilization, hollowing out the slow formation of Christian character [36:56].
Reformed Analysis: This aligns with the Reformed critique of "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism." Reformed theology emphasizes that the Church is a covenant community where the primary goal is the glory of God, not the satisfaction of the individual. In The Westminster Confession of Faith, the "chief end of man" is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, which contradicts the "casino-fication" model where God is a means to a personal jackpot.
External Source: Sociologist Christian Smith’s research on "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" supports the video's claim that modern religion often functions as a utility for personal happiness rather than a transformative faith.
Single Event Upset (SEU), where alpha particles from uranium or thorium affect the 0 & 1 bits in microchips which are on such small enough scale that this could happen. This was discovered in 1978 by Intel, and manufacturers have been careful since. This is not easily discovered by mere thinking and could have become trade secrets:
5/14/2026 Thursday
Trump's visit to China has gotten the world watching (amidst tariff war, Putin vs. Ukraine, Iran vs. USA, Strait of Hormuz, AI chips, Soya beans, Apple, Taiwan, etc.). China is predictably playing the cool(er) head. Stephen Chan posted a photo of the meet, which I fixed with ChatGPT, and then Chan reposted my fix in a new post on Facebook, what an honor LOL. A.I. photo doctoring has gotten a long way, I didn't ask it but it actually sharpens/clarifies the image incredibly well, not sure if it's just plain photoshop edition technique or ChatGPT actually used external photos of the presidents for the enhancement. ChatGPT seems to do a better job here, while Microsoft's Copilot turned these heads a tad scary with blank eyes and such. The only problem is, ChatGPT couldn't do well when I asked it to have the presidents holding hands, so I had to cover it with something, such as Aladdin's Cartoon snapshot:
From the video below, I came across this learning: Mongol Empire 1300AD can be broken into 4 primary states (khanates) with respective successors:
Google AI: The Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate, Ilkhanate, and Yuan Dynasty are the four primary successor states (khanates) that emerged from the fragmentation of the Mongol Empire after 1259. They represent the division of Genghis Khan’s vast territory into autonomous, regional empires ruled by his descendants, which continued to share cultural and trade connections. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Yuan Dynasty (East Asia):Established by Kublai Khan, grandson of Genghis, this became the center of the empire, with its capital in modern-day Beijing. It held nominal suzerainty over the other three khanates.
Golden Horde (Northwest):Founded by descendants of Jochi (Genghis’s eldest son), this khanate controlled Russia and the Kipchak Steppe, flourishing from the mid-13th to the end of the 14th century.
Ilkhanate (Southwest):Established by Hulegu, another of Kublai's grandsons, this khanate controlled Persia and Iran, often fighting with the Golden Horde and the Chagatai Khanate.
Chagatai Khanate (Central Asia):Ruled by the descendants of Chagatai (Genghis’s second son), this state controlled Central Asia and focused on maintaining traditional Mongol nomadic customs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
While initially unified under one supreme leader, the empire fragmented due to civil wars, separating into these four distinct entities that eventually collapsed or were absorbed, with the Ilkhanate failing first and the Chagatai lasting the longest.
5/13/2026 Wednesday
Interesting heads up by Allie Beth Stuckey about the upcoming Christopher Nolan film: The Odyssey. It should be disappointing with the blackwashing (black woman playing Helen of Troy, Transgender Ellen Page playing Achilles, etc.) But mainly, what I learned from this episode is that ABS likes The Hamilton musical show @58:19.
2nd time joining Christian Underground (by Pastor Greg Armstrong, Alex, Shahriq Khan). This time it's led by Pastor Greg, which seems better than last week's by Alex (slow, seemed tired). And though it's long, learned a lot about Islam and how to evangelize to them. Tons of documents they have prepared via Skool and groups joining. This time, I recorded 2nd half of the session via ShareX on top of Granola notes, as it's definitely worth it.
5/12/2026 Tuesday
Though I would still doubt that Trump was trying to turn his Oval Office in the Whitehouse into the Holy of Holies, Skye has a good take on the Golden Calf in that technically Israelites weren't worshipping a false god because Aaron called it Yahweh, just not worshipping the right way, just like the pastors mentioned in this video as claiming: We worship "Jesus", not Trump, whose statue is not the golden calf:
Open Source Icons: These 11 sites to be bookmarked...So I bookmarked. This is useful for free use of icons anywhere, particularly in website designs: 1. Lucide
I should really start pre-read the Sunday Service's Bible reading before hand, now that it's made available online.
An interesting contrast between Pastor Dan & Pastor Chris' sermons, today, Pastor Dan in his sermon @45:08 (my own recording) said: "You don't like your job? Don't just assume that God wants you to find a new one. Seek His will. Don't despair and become bitter. Cry out to your God..." vs. I don't have evidence but I've heard enough of Pastor Chris's (of GCC) sermons to know that he would say something similar with a different direction in "You don't like your job? Maybe it's time to look for a new one...". Now of course these are subtly relativistic, but one has to wonder the philosophy of life each of these preachers hold to differently. One strives for God, while you have to wonder if the theology of the cross is missing in the other one.
Though not my cup of tea with the lower quality CCM, in addition to no display of song titles or name of writers, I should at least play around them with SUNO to learn chords and theories.
Today, it's CityAlight's Ancient of Days (It seems Crossroads use CityAlight music a lot):
2. Hillsong's Cornerstone:
3. Phil Wickham's Living Hope:
4. Kim Walker-Smith's Jesus Paid it All:
5. Ascend the Hill's Be Thou My Vision (oh God be My Everything):
This entry documents everything related to the Christian Underground Ministry which I find fascinating as a resource for evangelizing Muslims.
One of Allie's best podcast for sure, this interview with Shahriq Khan:
It's the first time I heard of this guy. Nabeel Qureshi was mentioned in the interview. But Khan is rather zealous of reaching the Muslims, even the hardcore Islam scholars. And his unique technique, not sure if it's developed by him or his other fellow co-workers (Pastor Greg Armstrong, Alex Kerimli, etc.) who run a sort of global ministry (online?) called Christian Underground.
And the unique approach Khan claims was to use only Torah against only Qur'an. Pointing out various odd stories the Qur'an mixed up about the Torah in order to show that there's no reason for the Torah to be corrupted, which consequently could only mean that the Qur'an is corrupt. I would say that this approach is close to the Islamic Dilemma: a theological argument, primarily posed by Christian apologists, highlighting a contradiction between the Quran's affirmation of the Bible (Torah and Gospel) and its denial of key biblical doctrines.
They do run a rather active online community, free sign up at https://www.skool.com/christ. They also seem to be very dedicated to what Khan's motto seems to be: Why deport Muslims? Why hate them? why not convert them?
I just went on their first interactive stream today and Alex (later Armstrong) was giving the lecture on the Passover (the Qur'an completely lacks this concept) and the fact that Qur'an said that Moses took the Israelites out of Egypt without Pharaoh's permission. And I also tackled deeper, primarily with the help of A.I. on this fascinating topic.
If it's good, I'll summarize their Master Key of Deconstructing the REAL 5 pillars of Islam and Constructing the Biblical 5 pillars:
Islam: 1. The Torah was Corrupted 2. The Quran and the Torah have the Same Author (God) 3. Abraham and Ishmael travelled to Mecca and Built the Kaaba 4. Ishmael is the Father of the Meccan Arabs and Muhammad was an Ishmaelite 5. Muhammad Followed in the Pattern of Previous Prophets and Received his Revelation Similarly to Moses
Biblical: 1. Original Sin 2. Blood Atonement is Necessary 3. Theophanies 4. The suffering Servant 5. The Gospel
And of course, there's already attempt to debunk their work.
Learned a few things (Thanks to Google AI's help):
The two main kinds of suras (chapters) in the Qur'an are Meccan and Medinan, classified by whether they were revealed before or after the Prophet Muhammad's migration (Hijrah) to Medina. Meccan suras focus on faith and the afterlife, while Medinan suras address social, political, and legal issues.
Meccan Suras (Makkiyyah): Generally revealed earlier (86 total). They are usually shorter, with shorter verses, focusing on belief in Allah, Paradise/Hell, and stories of past prophets.
Medinan Suras (Madaniyyah): Revealed after the Hijrah (28 total). They are typically longer and deal with laws, community organization, family life, and rules of war.
On the Passover, since I took a look today, it's interesting that according to Google AI, a Muslim scholars would argue that the lack of Passover in Quranic Exodus was intentional, based on the principle "No bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another" (Qur'an 6:164). So by this principle, the whole concept of sacrificial lamb is also removed on top of the 10th plague in Egypt.
And the Christian response would generally be (Google AI):
Proportionate justice (Genesis 12:3, Exodus 1:22, the sin of Egypt), Divine sovereignty (original sin is unavoidable, everyone eventually dies, God choosing the timing of that death is not an act of injustice), and Redemptive foreshadowing (The plague was not restricted by ethnicity, any Egyptian who feared the God of Israel and followed the instructions to put blood on their doorposts would have been spared.)
Someone in the discussion also mentioned that his Muslim friends gave him a hard time about the fact that in Joseph's time, Pharaohs do not exist, only kings in Egypt. Which is true, that Pharaoh was not a title used before the New Kingdom in Egypt. But this would just be anachronism in literature (like King David longed for his Coca-Cola from his hometown), and the Bible use "Pharaoh" and "king" interchangeably (i.e. Genesis 39:20 and Exodus 1:8). The word Pharaoh literally means "Great House" and thus could just be descriptive of supreme authority of Egypt.
Update 5/14/2026:
It's interesting to see how Muslims view sins, particularly whether there are sinless people in the world or not. I believe this is an important insight because our view of the seriousness of sins come from two very different worldviews. Here's Google AI's take:
So the muslims believe that prophets are not corrupt or sinless?
Yes, in Islam, it is a foundational belief that prophets are not corrupt, immoral, or untrustworthy. They are considered chosen, moral exemplars. [1, 2]
The concept of their sinlessness is known as 'Ismah (infallibility or divine protection). However, there is a nuance between different schools of thought regarding whether they are absolutely sinless or protected specifically from major sins. [1, 2, 3]
Here is a breakdown of the belief:
1. Protection from Corruption ('Ismah)
No Major Sins: There is a consensus among scholars that prophets are protected from committing major sins (such as idolatry, lying, or murder) throughout their lives, both before and after receiving revelation.
Perfect Delivery: They are considered completely infallible in their task of receiving and delivering the message of God.
Role Models: Because they are intended to be followed, they are guided by God to be moral exemplars rather than corrupt individuals. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
2. The Nuance of "Sinlessness"
Majority (Sunni) View: Most Sunni scholars believe that while prophets are protected from major sins and mistakes in delivering God's message, they might commit minor, unintentional errors (referred to as saghira), but they do not persist in them, and God immediately corrects them.
Minority (Shia) View: Shia theology (as detailed in this Al-Islam.org article) holds a stricter view, often considering prophets, and in their view, Imams, to be completely infallible and incapable of any sin or mistake, major or minor, intentional or inadvertent, from birth to death. [1, 2, 3, 4]
3. Understanding Verses on Prophetic Mistakes
In the Quran, some prophets ask for forgiveness, or are corrected by God (e.g., this Quora post cites Quran 48:2 regarding Muhammad, or 20:115 regarding Adam). [1, 2, 3, 4]
Interpretation: Muslim scholars interpret these instances not as immoral sins, but as "shortfalls" or "less than ideal actions" (called tark al-awla—leaving what is better).
Purpose: These moments are meant to show their humanity and to provide lessons for believers on repentance. [1, 2, 3, 4]
In summary, Muslims believe prophets are not corrupt and are divinely protected from major sins and immoral acts, with differing views on whether they were capable of minor, unintentional slips. [1]
Interesting take by the Holy Post Media in analyzing speeches between King Charles III and Donald Trump:
Google Gemini:
King Charles III: His address to Congress referenced his Christian faith as a "firm anchor" that inspires a "generosity of spirit" and a duty to foster pluralism and peace among all faiths.
Donald Trump: In his welcoming remarks, Trump framed Christianity as a "cultural identity" linked to Anglo-Saxon heritage, presenting it as something fragile that requires protection and walls to preserve.
The Contrast: Skye Jethani observed that King Charles' vision was rooted in love and outward service, whereas the vision promoted by Trump and J.D. Vance was driven by fear and inward preservation.
5/4/2026 Monday:
Interesting interview with Carlos Campo, CEO of the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC. Seems that Campo is not Reformed, so Allie Beth Stuckey caught the common grace - "self evidence" error, but wasn't able to correct him easily, perhaps due to Allie's own lack in the Reformed doctrine: That by general revelation (common grace), human rights are indeed "self-evident" though corrupted by sin and thus not perfectly executed by unregenerate sinners. Christian view is perfected by Christ on this.
The other error of a few more which I am not willing to go over all here, is his take on the etymology of the word "amusement". Google AI has great response, I couldn't have done it better:
No, the prefix in amuser does not mean "without."
The French Prefix a-
In this specific French word, the prefix a- comes from the Latin ad-, which means "to," "toward," or "into a state of."
It acts as an intensive to push someone into an action.
Amuser literally means "to put into a muse" or "to make someone stare blankly."
The Confusion with Greek a-
The confusion happens because there is a completely different prefix a- (sometimes an-) that comes from Greek.
That Greek prefix does mean "without" or "not."
Examples include amoral (without morals) or anonymous (without a name). [1, 2]
Because amusement grew out of Latin and French roots rather than Greek, it means to engage the mind rather than strip it away.
Last but not least, love the brief tour part:
Archaeological Reliability: Campo highlights significant artifacts like the Megiddo Mosaic (one of the earliest Christian worship spaces found) and the Crosby-Schøyen Codex (containing the earliest copy of Jonah) [00:03:10]. These demonstrate that the Bible was not a "phone game" but a carefully preserved text [00:09:27].
In politics and social commentary, a dog whistle is an expression that has a secondary meaning intended to be understood only by a particular "in-group"
The Literal Origin: Actual dog whistles emit high-frequency sounds that dogs can hear, but humans cannot. The Figurative Meaning: A speaker uses words that sound neutral or "innocuous" to the general public—like "traditional values" or "inner city"—but signal controversial or biased messages to a specific group. This allows the speaker to maintain plausible deniability if they are accused of being offensive.
"This talk had more dog whistles than a canine construction site."the critic is accusing the speaker of being highly manipulative, filling their talk with so many secret signals that the subtext has become almost impossible for "those in the know" to miss.
