Since joining Twitter last week, the majority of people I’m now following are people who are talking about politics. In some ways, I am a bit of a political junkie. I enjoy following many of the Conservative blogs, especially the irreverent (and often crude) people over at The Ace of Spades HQ. In fact, the bloggers there were some of the first whom I sought out to follow on Twitter.
But being a political junkie, no matter which side of the aisle you fall on, results in a skewed view of how the average American thinks of politics. See, the people who I read on blogs are the people who care about politics. Even the pages that are linked to from people who I disagree with are still people who care about politics. Thus, even reading “the other side” only gets me the other side of the politically obsessed.
The fact of the matter is, if we truly look at the numbers of people who follow politics to this extent, I doubt it would constitute even twenty percent of the population. The vast majority of people in America don’t care about politics. They just want to go home and play video games, eat junk food, and have fun. They don’t want to worry about spending bills in Congress, the national debt, or Socialized healthcare. They don’t care about executive orders, three branches of government, or what the Constitution actually says. None of this genuinely interests them.
My wife is a political junkie of sorts, too. She is currently reading a lot of books on the economy and has decided that one of the best things we can do is end the Federal Reserve. I happen to agree with her that the Federal Reserve is harming the economy quite a bit, and that its continued existence will only do more damage. Yet very few people—even those who would agree with us politically—care about the Federal Reserve, or even want to take the time to figure out basic economic theory. Theory is hard. It takes thinking. That’s no fun for most of us.
So what happens? We have a small minority of people on both sides of the issues who are extremely vocal and passionate, and a wide range of people in the middle who just want to live their lives, have fun, and make a little money. Most of them vote based on family traditions (whether they keep in line with their family or rebel against it). They’re not interested in the actual facts of debate. It’s why presentation on TV is better than trying to follow arguments. It’s why Mitt Romney is the candidate for the GOP—because he looks good on TV. That’s the same reason Obama is currently president, too.
The majority of us don’t care about policy or principals, and they look at those who do care about such things with equal disdain. Republicans and Democrats are both seen as too extremist. About the only universal agreement is that everything is bad and no one who’s currently involved in politics does any good at all.
I realize that I do speak with generalities here; yet I think they are fairly sound generalities. A culture that’s interested in The Jersey Shore and still thinks American Idol features talent is a culture that doesn’t care about the Federal Reserve, abortion, or gay marriage on the whole. It also means that, unfortunately, well-reasoned arguments are not going to be effective in bringing about change (at least not at first). People now are too ignorant of logic and reasoning to even tell what a good argument is in the first place. If you don’t believe me, just spend a half hour reading YouTube comments.
If we want to be effective at changing our culture, we have to actually affect the culture itself. I’m not sure exactly how to do all of this myself, of course. But I do know that our public schools, the entertainment industry, and our media are designed to facilitate the lessening of quality thinking. If we want to salvage our culture, it has to begin with a renewing of our minds.
And that renewal isn’t just mental knowledge, but a heart change as well. The single most effective technique to alter culture still remains religious beliefs, because what one believes in his heart is what will come out in his behavior. I, for one, do not find it unusual that America is becoming less thoughtful and more intolerant precisely at the point we abandon Christianity. And as Europe is demonstrating, one simply cannot replace Christianity with the moral vacuum of relativism and materialism that comes from rejecting God altogether.
In the end, a liberal utopia is when the masses of uneducated fools, who are deluded into thinking they are wise, vote in lockstep with all the other deluded people into perpetuating the existence of the very institutions that made them uneducated fools in the first place, because they have been tricked into thinking what they are doing is good. This will happen in America given enough time. Indeed, it is well on its way already. It may no longer be possible to fight using only good arguments. To one who believes propaganda, the truth is a lie.
Overview of Job So Far
Before we continue with the commentary on Job, we are now at a point where we can take a bird’s-eye view of the book so far. While it may be a little repetitive, the repetition itself indicates what the author of Job considered to be important. Furthermore, looking at the structure of the story so far can also be illuminative.
First, let us look once more at the structure. As you recall, the first two chapters (constituting the prologue) had this structure:
A. Job is blameless.
B. Job goes through a trial (family and possessions destroyed).
A. Job remains blameless.
B. Job goes through another trial (his health destroyed).
A. Job remains blameless.
Thus we see a cycle of increasing trial, but Job remaining steadfast. Then his three friends arrive, and we find this new cycle:
C. Job laments and longs for death.
D. Eliphaz gives a gentle rebuke.
C. Job defends himself, laments, and longs for death.
D. Bildad gives a strong rebuke.
C. Job defends himself, laments, and longs for death.
D. Zophar gives a scathing rebuke.
C. Job defends himself, laments, and longs for death—but still has hope in God.
As we shall soon see, this cycle will itself occur in a cycle (but I won’t say too much on that yet, as we are still going through the “blank slate” view of Job). Some things that we can note from this cycle is that the C parts (i.e., Job’s responses) tend to be much longer than the D parts (i.e., his friend’s statements). Most of the D sections are single chapters, while the C sections are two or three chapters long.
Furthermore, we see that the D sections are intensifying in the level of the rebuke given toward Job. This manifests itself in the way that more and more emphasis is shifted toward blaming Job for his circumstances. While Eliphaz begins gently, it is obvious that each of the friends assumes that Job has sinned greatly for what is happening to him. It does not occur to any of them that Job is telling the truth when he insists he is in the right. Indeed, it may be that Job’s insistence on his innocence is provoking his friends to increase their rebuke. It is probable that had Job agreed with Eliphaz from the start and said he was deserving of what he was receiving, the other friends would not have piled on as strongly. Of course, Job could not admit to what was false, and as a result his friends appear to need all the more to pull him down.
Job’s defenses follow a similar track. They begin with fairly straightforward claims of innocence, but then more further and further into accusations toward God and demanding answers from the LORD. As a result, both the C and D sections are escalating, even as they cycle over the same material.
One thing that does separate Job from his friends is that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar talk about God—but Job also talks to God. This shows us that Job’s faith is quite strong even as he longs for death.
It is also interesting the each of the characters, including Job and even God Himself, maintain that God is the one who is causing the disasters. On that, they agree. The only disagreement is on why God is doing that, with Job’s three friends assuming Job must be guilty of some sin and Job believing God will punish both innocent and guilty alike. We know, on the other hand, that God was doing this for a different reason—namely, He was doing this because Job was righteous and his faith was not based on any blessings God had given him. God was demonstrating that first to Satan, but then also to us who would read the text.
Remember again that this is the first revelation God has given to man in Scripture. This is how God wanted to be known first. This is not the way the majority of modern Christians would have chosen to have God reveal Himself. In fact, the majority of modern Christians would probably prefer that Job was not even in the Bible, because it so clashes with their other beliefs. But if you want to be a Biblically-based Christian with a competent worldview, you must find some way to square your theology with what happens in Job. If you cannot do so, then that is probably a good indication that your theology is man-centered instead of Bible-centered.