Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

A friend was talking with me the other day, and he brought up the fact that you really never really know what’s going to spark debate on this column. Questions about hell and the historical nature of Christendom? Meh, maybe a blurb or something. The nature of socialism in the Lion King? Oh, them be fighting words. But, hey, it’s all in good sport at the end of the day (or at least I hope it is), and here we are once more to learn and grow together. So settle in, focus up, and see what sparks take hold today. To the mailbag!

Q: Mr. Wampapoak asks, in relation to last week’s question: “Given the similarities between Islam and Christianity, why are you not a Muslim?”

A: Someone mentioned last week that I don’t use enough Scripture on this blog, so let’s kill two birds with one stone, shall we? Some reasons:

1. Acts 4:11-12 – “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
2. John 14:6 – “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'”
3. Matthew 11:28-30 – “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
4. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 – “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.  After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
5. 1 Corinthians 15:54-57 – “When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’ ‘Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
6. Romans 8:1-4 – “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.  For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

I am not a Muslim for the same reason I am not subservient to Hinduism, Taoism, Atheism, or any other “ism.” Every other way of life, every other direction of the heart, every other hope I could have crumbles to dust and ashes before the redeeming work of Christ. Friend, the Gospel is not just a feel-good ball of emotions or a short cut to prosperity in this life. It is the unstoppable march of God’s glorious kingdom to reclaim this world from death and sin. It is the reconciliation of God and man through the person of Christ. It is the restoration of relationships between brothers and sisters. It is grace, boundless and infinite, for those who will humble themselves not to self-pity but to the honest acceptance of reality. It is justice for the hurt and broken. That’s why I follow Christ.

Q: Herbert Henry Asquith, 1st Earl of Oxford asks: “Thoughts on the US withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty? More broadly, as the US has moved away from broad international agreements under Trump, (Paris, Iran, etc.) does this leave breathing space for new diplomatic frameworks, or just more foreign affairs uncertainty?”

A: On the 1987 treaty in particular, it’s probably overdue. Russia has been violating it for years on end, so it’s little more than a fancy piece of paper at this point. De jure it still applied; de facto it had long ceded its relevance. Of course, I would much prefer that both parties held to the agreement; as a matter of fact, I would prefer that the world simply denuclearized in totality. But, unfortunately, we don’t live in that kind of world, and maintaining the peace on a global scale necessitates a certain level of US readiness. Oh well, at least we still have the comforting words of Tom Lehrer to keep us darkly optimistic about it all.

There is something almost romantic about these international agreements that I find in a lot of them. Who doesn’t want to be a part of the grand esprit international to go fight something like climate change? I remember with some fondness my days spent solving the world’s problems in Model United Nations (MUN). If you have never had the pleasure of partaking in a MUN conference, it is a truly remarkable thing to behold. Every one dresses to the nines in their best outfits, speeches condemning the world’s ills are delivered with all the gusto and impassioned vigor of Shakespearean royalty, and the “world’s representatives” gather together in the spirit of international cooperation for the good of the common man. The days pass by in hours of deliberation and refinement as the resolutions pour down like manna from the heavens — resolutions touching education, women’s rights, climate change, income inequality, the denuclearization of the planet, the guaranteeing of health care for all, and so much more. And then, at the end of it all, the nations gather to affirm these resolutions with charity towards all and malice for none as the body collective sings ‘Kumbaya’ in blissful harmony.

The problem is that, much like the actual UN, these resolutions do exactly one full measure of jack-squat. Even if they were to be implemented, however, there would be immediate ideological, political, and economic backlash. Much like the real deal, MUN conferences are particularly bad at attending to the basic tenet of economics: scarcity of resources. I’m all for the unity of the nations, but I’m just not sure how much many of these actual, international resolutions really matter. For example, even after withdrawing from the Paris accords, the US still outdid the other nations in reducing its CO2 emissions. You know who is in the Paris accords and blew the roof off its emissions limit? Only the biggest polluter in the world — China. Now, this isn’t to say all international agreements are useless. I think free trade agreements that remove barriers are a good example, but this just leads me to think that there is more power behind freeing people to work towards these just ends over merely signing a treaty that says, “Yes, we will work for the international good of objective X.” The problem with most of these agreements is that they forget a basic, conservative insight: “Don’t immanentize the eschaton.” Until people take that reality to heart, I’ll probably remain skeptical at best and cynical at worst towards a lot of these international agreements.

Q: Herbert also asks: “As an Ohioan, what do you think of Sherrod Brown’s chances as a Democratic presidential nominee? What are the chances he balances a Democratic ticket as VP nominee, and what influence would that have on Ohio in 2020?”

A:

I think that about summarizes my thoughts. I have held that crusty, old weasel in high disdain ever since 2006 (when I was 11, folks….11!), and my Senate vote in 2018 was not for Jim Renacci so much as it was against Brown. “But, Matthew, aren’t there more left-leaning candidates in the race?” Yes, but familiarity breeds contempt, and I have rued every second of him holding a senate seat.

Honestly, the Democrats are racing each other to get left of one another at this point, and Sherrod Brown is falling in with that crowd, not to mention the fact that he is already one of the Senate’s most liberal members (usually makes the top 10 or 15 on the voting report cards). On a scale of 0.00 (liberal) to 1.00 (conservative), Brown’s recent voting record lands him at 0.17. For comparison, Kamala Harris sits at 0.14, Cory Booker lands a 0.21, and the darling child Elizabeth Warren scores a 0.23. Any notion of him ‘balancing’ a ticket is a pipe dream when you look at the hard data. To the extent that he would actually balance it, the last part of your question becomes the only relevant part as he could pick up some more Ohio support (why anyone supports him, though, I still don’t know).

Q: Herbert finally asks: “Baseball stars Bryce Harper and Manny Machado, this offseason’s biggest free agents, remain unsigned, leading some players to express frustration, but several of last year’s big contracts (Yu Darvish) did not pay off. Is there any way the labor market could be organized more efficiently so that these sorts of conflicts and confusions are less significant? More performance bonuses?”

A: That’s a valid option, certainly. I suppose the other option is to try waiting them out until they settle for something less. I’ve always enjoyed watching baseball, but the technicalities of trade deals have never really intrigued me save for finding out where these people actually land. One thing to keep in mind about this, though, is that baseball differs from other sports in that superstars tend to have less relative effect on a team’s performance. For example, we can look at basketball and see that whoever gets LeBron basically just punched their ticket to the playoffs, and, inversely, whoever lost LeBron may see their team crumble (here’s looking at you, Cleveland). Similarly, in football, the quality of a quarterback has a huge effect on the outcome of the game. In short, the possible effect area (PEA) in other sports is smaller, and thus one good player can have that game-changing effect. Baseball has a much larger PEA, making it more important to assemble a squad of good players rather than just one or two All-Stars on a squad of mediocre talent. By that metric alone, I think it’s much riskier in baseball to go all out for a single talent, hence why we may be seeing some of this apprehension, especially with position players (pitchers, particularly starting ones I’ll admit, have a greater PEA, but it still won’t do a team any good to splurge on one Cy Young winner and neglect the rest of their roster). Anyway, I don’t know if that answers your question in particular, but it’s just some thoughts that came to mind.

Q: Shelly asks: “What are your thoughts on the Starbucks CEO contemplating a run for the White House? He has definitely abandoned the radical left Democrat party. Plus, he achieved the American dream coming from the projects in New York to become a billionaire.”

A: Want to know another reason I just despise Sherrod Brown? Listen to how he described Howard Schultz: “You got this idiot Schultz running, maybe. He’s an idiot. I mean, he’s a total idiot.” Oh, cool. Really classy of you, except that, you know, Howard Schultz has overcome a remarkable amount and become a blessing to millions of people, and you wouldn’t know common decency if nipped you in the aft end.

Anyway, yes, Howard Schultz, what to do with him? I think you should read Dr. Smith’s piece first and come back once you’re done with that. I’ll wait……ok, read it? Good, because those are largely my thoughts too. What I will add, though, is that I’m not entirely convinced that he would only draw away Democrat voters. Probably the main thing that would seriously hurt him with Republican voters would be an embrace of the leftist abortion agenda. If he played his cards right on that one social issue, I think Trump and the Democratic nominee could see a serious exodus of some of their 2016 bases, probably not enough to win, but enough to make 2020 a rollercoaster-worthy election ride.

Q: Nathan asks: “Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is being called on to resign over a yearbook photo. Not excusing the photo, but does not this incident represent the moral bankruptcy of the modern Democrat Party in that someone’s insensitive racially charged mistake years ago is cause for his political career to end but the same man’s defense of the most extreme forms of abortion got barely a whimper?”

A: Well, to start, I think the photo is outright racist, not just insensitive, so there’s that. And, yes, I find his views on abortion reprehensible, though I would be of that mindset regardless of the moral comparison to this picture.

The logical follow-up to this is the question of whether or not he should resign. Well, let’s hear what the VA Senate minority leader (a Democrat mind you) said recently: “His whole life has been about exactly the opposite and that’s what you need to examine, not something that occurred 30 years ago. While it’s in very poor taste, I would think no one in the General Assembly would like their college conduct examined. I would hate to have to go back and examine my two years in the Army. Trust me. I was 18 years old and I was a handful. OK? His life since then has been anything but. It’s been a life of helping people and many times for free.”

Now, I largely agree with this sentiment that Northam should not have his present life judged by the sins of his past. He is not the same man today as he was back then, and people do dumb things when they are young. He has apologized, and I suspect he will do plenty more of it in the days to come. Fair enough. But oh the rich, dripping irony we find ourselves in now. I seem to remember but a few months ago when Brett Kavanaugh was deemed almost less than human for the alleged sins of his past, and the Democrats made quite the brouhaha about it. The difference is that with Kavanaugh, the allegations were uncorroborated and unprovable in some cases (Christine Ford) and demonstrably slanderous (Swetnick) in others. I also remember that Republicans elected Trump even after the Access Hollywood tapes came out. Yes, it cuts both ways, folks.

The larger point here is that I am not a fan of trying to gain political advantage by dredging up the past (especially when it’s the distant past). People do dumb things, be it because of pride or drunkenness or simply bad judgment. That’s why we have forgiveness and grace for those who will ask for and accept it. It doesn’t mean we have to pretend like the event never happened or that we can’t let it color our perspective of the person. It does mean that there is more to a person than just one of their past sins.

Q: Nathan also asks: ” What are your thoughts on this article comparing abortion and slavery and Cuomo and NY’s new law to Calhoun’s positive good speech?” 

A: It’s a good article and worth the read. The tl;dr for the rest of you is that similarly to how proponents of slavery transformed their views on slavery from necessary evil to positive good, the same thing is happening in the abortion crowd. The “safe, legal, and rare” chant of the past is long gone; it is now a moral imperative for those on the left that abortion be provided on demand and with a smile. I, for one, will be declining on both fronts.

And so we come to the close of another mailbag. Kudos to you if you made it through all the links and reading; we depend on overachievers like you. Here’s one more for you, something to quiet the soul amidst these turbulent times. ‘Til next time, keep sending in those questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.