Matt Lavender

Firefighter

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@tedcruz Jew ass kissing is open and brazen in the Republican party, you clown.

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@Riley_Gaines_ He obviously has a low IQ

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@DAGToddBlanche we still want the Epstein files in their totality. This is not going to go away.

[Pastor Rich Lusk @Vicar1973]

There's nothing more stupid in the church today than evangelicals doing a play-acting "Seder Supper."

First, we don't need to do a fake Passover. The church already has the Lord's Supper which is (among other things) the fulfillment of the old covenant Passover. Jesus gave us a meal. Why do something other than what he commanded? Why do another religious meal when Jesus already gave us one?

The reason some evangelicals get interested is the Seder is that, having eviscerated the true sacraments of their meaning and efficacy, they go looking for substitutes. They have emptied the true sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) of mystery, yet, being human, they still yearn for meaningful and mysterious rituals, so they either borrow from Jewish tradition (the Seder as a substitute for the Lord's Supper) or they create their own (such as the altar call). The answer to this longing for meaningful rituals should be satisfied by reclaiming and understanding what Jesus gave us. Doing a Seder is not a way to return to the church's roots; it is the church engaging in idolatrous syncretism, no matter how well intentioned.

Second, most of the Seder is not actually rooted in Scripture. It's not the ritual described in Exodus 12 or later OT Scripture. Most of it comes from later extra-biblical traditions; indeed, most of it comes from rabbinic Judaism, and was established long after Christian faith and Judaism were clearly distinct and very different faiths. Even if those rabbinic traditions get infused with Christian symbolism, they are not "our" traditions and symbols. They comes from the Talmud, not the Bible. Christians have no more business doing a Seder than than they do keeping Ramadan or celebrating Kwanza. The church has her own meal, her own traditions, her own calendar, her own story. Why borrow from apostate Judaism? Why syncretize the Christian faith with a rival?

I have argued elsewhere that one deep-seated reason dispensational evangelicals are attracted to modern Israel is because they have rejected Christendom but still long to have an earthy, embodied cultural manifestation of the faith. The same thing is happening here - having minimized the power of the Christian sacraments, these same evangelicals look to Judaism to provide what they (wrongly) think their own religion lacks.

Third, for Christians to try to perform an old covenant Passover in any way is virtually blasphemous - and it's impossible anyway. Will the Seder meal only be for the circumcised per Exodus 12, and those who keep the cleanness laws of Leviticus? Where are are Levitical priests going to be found to administer the ritual? How does taking this pseudo-Passover meal outside of Jerusalem get justified in light of Deuteronomy 16? How will a lamb be sacrificed at the temple, per the old covenant requirement, since the temple was destroyed in 70AD? Will 2 year olds be welcome to eat the Seder since the Passover meal was for the whole household and obviously included young children? What about the shedding of blood after Jesus' death on the cross - on what basis could any Christian revert to an animal sacrifice when the final sacrifice has been offered?

The Passover was part of a system that God ended in 70AD. To turn back to it (especially in rabbinic/Talmudic form) is no better and no different from turning to paganism (cf. Gal. 4:8-11). The whole point of the Last Supper is that Jesus has transformed the old covenant Passover into something better - the new covenant meal of the Lord's Supper. Doing a Seder is participating in a religious system that rejected Jesus as Messiah.

There's more that could be said, but these reasons are fully sufficient for Christians to reject the Seder. Do the meal Jesus gave us. Do it every Lord's Day, like the apostles did. Read Calvin on the real (Spiritual) presence and embrace a theology of sacramental efficacy. Use good bread and real wine. We don't need weird non-Christian rituals to give the season meaning.

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@ConceptualJames It’s not woke at all it’s juuuuust right. Repent, dude.

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@Vicar1973 You’re correct.

[Pastor Rich Lusk @Vicar1973]

A few thoughts on the war (or should I say "military operation"?) with Iran:

1. The prowess of the American military in Iran (and Venezuela) is impressive. Driving DEI out of the military was obviously the right thing to do, and I do not question our military might. Hegseth has proven his worth as Secretary of War; under his leadership the military is fully capable of doing what a military should do: blow things up and kill people. We have no peer when it comes to military capacity, especially from the air. Our military has unrivaled skill, expertise, and resources. That doesn't mean we should undertake a land war in Asia, and it certainly doesn't mean we should put our trust in princes, but it does mean we are far ahead of everyone else at the moment. The biggest problem we would have with any protracted war, in Iran or anywhere else, is that the American people would likely lack the united resolve it takes to support a victory. Winning a war takes more than resources - it takes the will to win. When it comes to brute military force, we do not live in a multipolar world; the world is still unipolar. The US doesn't even need the aid of its allies to act when and where it wants. When it comes to resolve of the American citizenry, however....I'm not so certain. Americans today put up with war because it does not interrupt daily life much. The moment it does, resolve will be tested, and in a nation as polarized as we are, that resolve will be hard to come by. To put it another way, militarily the world is unipolar; but that unipolar power is deeply polarized within. That doesn't matter much at the moment, but it could later on.

2. The justification for what we are doing is still not entirely clear to me, whether on "just war" grounds or "America first" grounds. Further, the justification needs to include a clear set of criteria for "mission accomplished," and that is also lacking. I'm not doubting Trump will declare victory at some point - but I'd like to know *right now* what victory looks like. There are certainly differences between this engagement and others we have undertaken in the Middle East over the last 30+ years, and I am certainly in favor of a liberated Iran, all things be equal. I'm especially happy for Iranian Christians who have longed for it and are celebrating it. The on-the-ground presence of a force in Iran that wants regime change, and would seem to be relatively capable of it given some help, is distinct from other Middle Eastern wars in the recent past. This is not being undertaken as a foolish "nation building" exercise. But it also feels like this is a movie we've already seen and the ending was not that great. How do we know this will be different? How do we know this will reshape the Middle East for the better? How do we know this will be the war to end all wars in the Middle East rather than one more war in an unending stream of wars?

3. That doesn't mean what we are doing is automatically wrong. I realize our leaders cannot always make everything they are privy to public. But we have been lied into wars so many times that much of the American public is understandably skeptical (and I don't just mean Democrats who are going to criticize Trump even if he comes up with a cure for cancer). The public rationales for what we are doing have not been impressive to this point. Yes, I know Trump has had Iran on his mind since the 1979 hostage crisis. I know they have been a bad actor and a state sponsor of terrorism. I know Christians in the region are rejoicing in this. But we still need a clearly stated rationale, better than what I've heard so far.

4. As with other wars in the Middle East, it'll probably be a while, maybe years, before we as the public know whether or not this action was wise. The proof will be in the results. Wisdom is justified by her children. Was this a good idea? I'll let you know what I think in a couple years. I can say that because I am a citizen - but our leaders need to know FOR CERTAIN that this is a righteous and wise course of action RIGHT NOW. Do they? Or to put another way: Do we trust our leaders to make wise and righteous decisions in these matters? Time will tell whether or not that trust is warranted in this case.

5. While the US Constitutional system allows presidents to engage in limited military operations for the sake of national security without a Congressional declaration of war, we need to better define what this means. If the purpose of the operation is regime change, it seems that is an act of war and requires a Congressional declaration. It would be beneficial for Americans to hear Congressmen hash it out in debate. I have an implicit trust in men like Hegseth and Rubio, but the constitutional order needs to be maintained.

6. Our biggest problems are not in the Middle East but right here at home. Iran is not an existential threat to the American way of life the way our domestic problems are. Our military gives us a hard external shell, but if our country is crumbling from within, projecting that global strength is of little value. We have so many problems at home, so much debt, so much division, so much dysfunction, it's hard to understand how we have the bandwidth for these overseas operations. Things like "remaking the global world order" (eg, overtaking Iran in order to cut oil supplies to China and Russia) are unhelpful abstractions unless it can be explained how and why this kind of military engagement will serve the average American and be a good use of his tax dollars that could be spent elsewhere (or not collected at all). (Many of the same questions could reframed and asked of our ongoing and very expensive support towards Ukraine.)

7. It makes no sense to fight Muslims over there while welcoming them in over here. If Islam is a problem there, it's certainly a problem here. The influx of Muslims into Western nations since 9/11 is a deliberate act of civilizational suicide. Islam is not and never can be compatible with Western civilization. This just further exposes the incoherency of our ruling class (of which Trump must now be considered a part). If America has become ungovernable in many places because of mass immigration, a failing education system, welfare fraud, widespread drug and porn addiction, a struggling economy/job market, rejection of the rule of law and political violence on the left, and so on, what makes us think we can govern elsewhere? Global strength will never compensate for domestic weakness. Global victories ring hollow when domestic life is self-destructing. Is it just me, or is Trump getting more focused on global issues as he finds domestic problems harder to solve? If you can't win home games, I guess you try to win road games? I don't fault Trump for all of this; he can accomplish regime change in Iran easier than in LA or Minneapolis. I think Trump has accomplished many good things, and many of his good faith efforts at home have been frustrated by political rebellion. This is more just a lament over the situation we are in.

8. Some like it, some don't, but for now, Israel is our closest ally in the region. So it's not surprising we've gotten entangled in a war they want us to fight. Perhaps our interests really do align with theirs and the military operation makes sense. But this is not the kind of thing most Trump voters wanted in '16, '20, or '24. Trump was going to avoid spending American treasure and blood on this kind of thing so he could focus on making America great again. Our special relationship with Israel already threatened to divide the right; this military operation just makes the Israel issue even more controversial. I fully expect our stance towards Israel to change significantly within a generation - especially once most of the Boomer generation dies off, and with it most of dispensational Christian Zionism (an issue I have addressed elsewhere). Standing with Israel unconditionally has no biblical rationale. With pseudo-biblical props removed, can American support for Israel stand on prudential or pragmatic grounds? That's the question that must be answered.

9. No matter what justification is given for this, it comes down to two key questions: Is it justified, in the sense of being just? And is it worth the risks? The risk question is especially interesting. It seems to me we are risking our economy, especially as it is tied to oil flow, at a time when our economy is already fragile. That means Trump is risking the mid-terms and perhaps even the next presidential election. Is it worth the risk to American lives? What are the odds we are pressured to take in another round of middle eastern refugees after this is over? Etc. Of course, Trump might think what we are doing is low risk. But if Iran can be so easily defeated, can we really say they were a huge threat? And are the American people really expected to believe they were thisclose to having a nuclear weapon when we supposedly took out their nuclear program just a few months ago? In a nuclear age, the ethics of pre-emptive action certainly have to be re-thought, but tom this point, there is very little evidence to back up the claims.

10. I am not an isolationist, but I do wish we were more isolated. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans kept America out of a lot of global conflagrations for much of our history. Then we decided to adopt a policy of military adventurism, fighting wars in far flung places most Americans could not find on a map. If we put all of that effort into true energy independence and reshoring manufacturing capability, we could largely ignore much of the rest of the world. We could undertake the occasional justified humanitarian mission such as liberating persecuted Christians, but we would not have to get involved in constant regime change wars because regimes on the other side of the world would not impact us.

11. Like it or not, peace through strength is a reality and wise people will recognize this. Whatever you think of the Ukraine/Russia conflict (which is really a proxy war between the US and Russia), Putin does not have to worry about the US trying to regime change Russia because he has nuclear weapons. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and so is vulnerable. Honestly, the same is true of North Korea: They have nuclear weapons, so as horrific as their regime is, there will be no attempted regime change.

12. I'm a pastor, not a foreign policy expert. I'm a generalist, not a specialist. But I do get asked my thoughts on matters like this, so I give my current thoughts here. Take it for what it's worth.

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@Vicar1973 Love this take on the current issues. Very insightful and helpful.

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@DrJoeBoot It’s not as simple as that you simpleton

[Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald]

Charlie Kirk, in June of 2025, explaining why a massive US war against Iran, and an attempt to facilitate regime change, as pushed by people like Lindsey Graham, is "pathologically insane":

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@EricLDaugh

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@DrJoeBoot @dalepartridge This is exchange is ridiculous. You guys are saying the same thing while at the same time pointing out what the other is NOT saying. You guys should attempt more steel manning and now straw manning.

[Pastor Rich Lusk @Vicar1973]

Pastor @kamedenfield made a great point in yesterday’s sermon on the end of Acts 2. In the book of Acts, the gospel is always “to you and your children” or “to you and your household.��� See Acts 2:39 , 11:14, 16:31,  16:34, etc. When the church does evangelism  today, we tend to focus entirely on the individual. But God makes promises to and about families. Grace restores nature. Our preaching of the gospel should reflect this truth. The offer of salvation is “to you and your household."

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@Vicar1973 @kamedenfield Let’s go!

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@jonharris1989 @douglaswils Does he mean Dabney?

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@donkoclock You for got gay. 👎🏻

[Pastor Rich Lusk @Vicar1973]

The looming showdown in the West is not between woke progressives and Christians. It will be between Islam (enabled, of course, by those woke progressives) and Christian faith.

Islam has been a scourge to Christendom from the start. God raised up Islam against the church in the same way he raised up Canaanites against old covenant Israel in the land of promise - as a test and judgment.

Islam is essentially a Christian heresy. In its beginnings, God used iconoclastic Islam to judge an icon-worshipping church. In our day, he is using the hardness of Islam to judge and expose the softness and effeminacy of the contemporary Western church.

Islam’s goal has always been to conquer Christendom. Today, not much of Christendom is left. It has largely fallen from within, by its own apostasy. But if Christendom is going to stand tall against the current Islamic invasion, as it has at times in the past (eg, the Battle of Tours), Christians are going to have to rediscover the strength of a fully biblical faith and culture. Islam has a comprehensive law. Islam expects victory. Islam keeps its children. Can Christians do the same, with the tools God has given us?

Of course, biblical faith is antithetical to Islam in most every way. The Christian way of salvation is entirely different. Sharia law and biblical law are very different. Christian patriarchy is very different from Islamic patriarchy. The Christian view of women, children, and sex is very different from the views of Islam. Islam has a very different way of doing evangelism (if you can call it that) than Christian faith. And so on. But many Christians today are half-hearted about their faith. Many Christians have diluted their faith. Meanwhile, Muslims are deadly serious about the mission they believe Allah has given them.

What will it be, Western man? Church bells or the adhan?

[Pastor Rich Lusk @Vicar1973]

In his speech tonight, Zohran Mamdani said, "We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve and no problem too small for government to care about.” This is a good working definition of statism - the idolatry of the state. No problem is too big or too small for the state to solve. Government can fix all your problems. Government is god.

It should be obvious this is unAmerican. America’s system of government was not designed to be a statist system, which is a major reason why America has been so successful historically. The US Constitution was designed to leave a great deal of freedom and responsibility to individuals and families. It left room for other institutions, like the church, to play a role in solving problems. In Mamdani’s NYC, government will provide total solutions. But how can the state solve all problems without having all power? And all wisdom? How can the state be the solution when so many of the problems that need solving were created by the state? How can the state attempt to solve everyone’s problems without creating a host of new ones? Will any of these proposed solutions have trade-offs? If the state is the solution to people’s problems, does that mean people don’t have any responsibility for their problems themselves? As usual, socialism gets judged by its intentions rather than its results. How many immigrants have fled to America from nations where the government promised something similar to Mamdani? It hasn’t worked elsewhere and (to the extent Mamdani can actually implement his agenda) it won’t work here either. Reagan’s quip still holds true: the scariest words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

More importantly, Mamdani’s philosophy of politics is unbiblical. The state, according to Romans 13 and elsewhere, does not exist to solve all our big problems and care about all our small ones. The civil magistrate is given the sword to be God’s deacon (servant) and the avenger of his wrath in the civil realm, promoting the good and terrorizing evil. The purpose of the state is not to provide “free” healthcare, transportation, education, or even cellphones. Everything the state does, it does with the power of the sword. But the sword is only wielded righteously when wielded in accord with God’s law. A biblically ordered state doesn’t care about your problems; it cares about God’s justice.

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@SenTedCruz Stop honoring false gods. Christians are done with that crap. Lock it up, sir or you will lose your next election.

[Matt Lavender @Matt_Lav33]

@sola_chad 💯