“There is no doubt we face profound economic challenges. We now need stability and unity, and I will make it my utmost priority to bring my party and country together.” This was the promise made Monday by Rishi Sunak, who today will become Britain’s third prime minister in seven weeks. As the New York Times reports, Sunak will also be the youngest prime minister in two centuries and the first person of Hindu faith to achieve the UK’s highest elected office.

However, the new prime minister faces a personal challenge that his predecessors did not: his personal wealth is more than double that of King Charles III, constituting what may be the first time in history that the residents of Downing Street are richer than those of Buckingham Palace.

Here’s why this is a problem: Sunak has ascended to his nation’s highest office at a time when the UK has more food banks than McDonald’s and many are being forced to choose between eating and heating their homes. Critics fear that Sunak cannot identify with the people he will lead and the rising challenges they face.

The new prime minister wants to lead Britain to “stability and unity,” but as Cornel West noted, “You can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people.” I would amend his wise observation: You cannot lead the people if they don’t believe you love them. No matter your claims to care about their challenges and empathize with their pain, if they consider you to be out of touch with their world, they’ll conclude that you cannot understand their problems.

And if you cannot understand a problem, you cannot solve it.

Is America “irredeemably woke”?

This fact helps explain America’s growing political animosity.

According to a new poll reported by NBC News, “80 percent of Democrats and Republicans believe the political opposition poses a threat that, if not stopped, will destroy America as we know it.” In his latest Dispatch article, David French explains the two “sides” of this conflict in ways that underscore the deep cultural chasm bisecting our national soul.

He reports that the far left believes “America was a racist, colonial power. It began as a slave empire, expanded through conquest and genocide, and then—even as it cast itself as a liberator in the world wars and Cold War—propped up vicious tyrants in the name of liberty.

“In this telling, all of the bad aspects of American history were highlighted, amplified, sometimes exaggerated or even fabricated, and then repeated endlessly to create a picture of a nation in whose DNA racism and conquest were inescapably imprinted. The solution to the crisis of America’s past and present was nothing less than revolution—a dismantling of America’s classic liberal founding and its replacement with illiberal structures that used the force of law and government to uproot entrenched power structures and re-order society from the top down.”

By contrast, the far right “sees America as irredeemably woke. All of the institutions of American life are ‘captured’ by the left—from the academy, to corporate America, to the military, to pop culture. Even our churches and religious schools are infected by wokeism.”

Neither side understands the other or wants to resolve this conflict through compassion and compromise. To the contrary, French writes, “The radical left seethes with fury at the America that was and believes that the America that is cannot escape its horrific past, at least not without revolutionary change. The radical right longs for the America that was, loathes the America that is, and believes the America that will be is doomed, at least not without revolutionary change.”

Three quintessential Roman qualities

What both sides are missing is the theological fact that humans cannot change human nature. If either side of our political divide got everything they wanted, our deepest problems would remain. This is because we are at our most primal level fallen sinners (Romans 3:23) who desperately need redemption and transformation we cannot effect (cf. Jeremiah 17:9).

A drowning man cannot save other drowning victims, much less himself.

The ancient Romans tried. In his remarkable biography of Julius Caesar I referenced yesterday, historian Adrian Goldsworthy reports that “what it meant to be Roman” included “such quintessentially Roman qualities as dignitas, pietas, and virtus.” Dignitas was “the sober bearing that displayed openly the importance and responsibility of a man and so commanded respect.” Pietas “embraced not merely respect for the gods, but for family and parents and the law and traditions of the Republic.” Virtus embraced “not simply physical bravery, but confidence, moral courage, and the skills required by both soldier and commander.”

Dignity, piety, and virtue are admirable foundation stones on which to build a flourishing society. But as Roman history proves, humans are incapable of exercising these values consistently. The Republic gave way to an Empire that eventually collapsed when its external enemies proved stronger than its internal character.

Will America suffer the same fate?

“We are ambassadors for Christ”

Today’s conversation underscores the urgent need for our secularized culture to turn to the God who alone can transform our sinful hearts and heal our divided nation. Remember his promise: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17, my emphasis).

Our role in such transformation is clear: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (vv. 18–19).

As a result, “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (v. 20).

An ambassador “lives in a foreign country and represents his or her own country’s interests there.”

By this definition, will you be an ambassador for Christ today?

Denison Forum

In yesterday’s article, we discussed the possible impact of protests in Europe on China’s willingness to invade Taiwan, with the takeaway that it seems increasingly unlikely that many of America’s traditional allies would be willing to take the same measures in defense of Taiwan that have proved so important to the defense of Ukraine. That reality is of imminent importance to the United States because recent events make it seem as though we are on a collision course with the Asian superpower.

What is even more troubling, though, is neither side really seems interested in avoiding that fate.

As Ben Werschkul notes, the US and China have been in something of a cold war for a number of years now, but there was a basic understanding that it was in neither side’s best interests for that conflict to escalate beyond bickering and trade disputes. However, recent events have started to portray a different picture.

The two nations have begun to “uncouple on fronts from trade to the movement of labor to technology.” The White House, for example, recently passed a number of new restrictions designed to limit China’s ability to access various American technologies needed for semiconductor development, artificial intelligence, and advanced computing.

As Klon Kitchen, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, warns, “these new actions show the United States is not trying to slow China’s technological advancement, but to arrest and to contain it” (emphasis his).

Likewise, Xi Jinping repeatedly emphasized the need for his nation to become more self-reliant during his opening address at this week’s Party Congress, right alongside warnings against Western “hegemonism and power politics.” At several points, he spoke of the need for stability, with greater independence from the West as a key component to attaining that end.

However, control over Taiwan could be just as important.

Why Taiwan is so important

China and Taiwan have had a testy relationship over the years, as one might expect given that the Chinese government considers the independent island part of its Republic. But despite those issues, the two have developed a great deal of economic interdependence. China and Hong Kong account for roughly 42 percent of Taiwan’s exports and 22 percent of the country’s imports. In comparison, the US comprises 15 percent of Taiwan’s exports and 10 percent of its imports.

Moreover, many of Taiwan’s largest companies maintain factories in mainland China, including the world’s largest producer of semiconductor chips: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Those chips are needed for products like cell phones, cars, and—most notably—a wide range of “military-grade” devices from fighter planes to defense systems.

TSMC is currently in the process of building one of its most advanced factories in Arizona, and the company’s Chairman, Mark Liu, warned that they would shut down rather than fall under Chinese control in the event of an invasion.

However, the degree to which Beijing believes that threat remains to be seen. And, even if they do, it is possible that they would rather see the factories close than supply the West with the kinds of semiconductors we cannot yet produce on our own.

All that to say, while both the United States and China have a clear need to maintain economic ties to Taiwan, the latter has also indicated an increased willingness to monopolize that relationship. And, should they try, President Biden has already promised to come to the island’s aid to an even greater extent than the support America has given Ukraine by committing troops and military personnel to the effort.

Unfortunately, as we discussed yesterday, should that come to pass, America may do so alone.

And therein lies the greatest danger, as well as one of the most likely reasons for the recent increase in Chinese aggression toward Taiwan.

A fight we may not win

China has long desired to be the most dominant country in the world. But for some time, those aspirations have been held in check by the US-led alliances that have often set the ground rules for how nations interact with one another. However, the mutual recognition that it would be foolish for one nation to go to war against the world seems increasingly less likely to apply to any conflict over Taiwan.

While NATO’s Article 5 defense commitment, for example, binds nations to defend one another when attacked, Article 6 limits the scope of that commitment to attacks that take place in Europe, North America, or on islands “under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”

If the US and China go to war in the South Pacific, none of America’s traditional allies would be required to join the fight. And many seem increasingly unlikely to do so.

China, however, is unlikely to have that problem. Given friendly relations with countries like Iran, Russia, and several others that are not exactly fans of the US, it is possible that America is steadily marching toward a fight we may not win.

“The proper estimate of oneself”

As we discussed yesterday, counting the cost as Jesus commands requires a calculation based on what we’re willing to pay rather than what we expect or hope to pay. Both nations and individuals get into trouble when they make decisions based on the latter of those prices.

One of the most indispensable helps in avoiding that mistake is the self-awareness to fully appreciate the fact that we often do not get to dictate what that price will be. And that self-awareness is especially difficult to maintain when one becomes accustomed to acting from a position of strength.

Throughout history, one of the primary reasons that nations fall from greatness is the inability to recognize when the reasons for their prior success no longer apply to their current situation. Allegiances can shift, strength can wane, opposition can grow stronger, and each can occur in ways that are easy to miss if we’re not paying attention.

What is true of nations can be equally true for each of us.

Whether it’s in our walk with the Lord, our relationships with other people, or any other facet of our lives, when we act as though past success guarantees success in the present, we’re setting ourselves up to fail.

Fortunately, God stands ready to help if we’re willing to ask.

So, as Paul advised, pray for the “sober judgment” needed to make an honest evaluation of your life today (Romans 12:3). Ask the Holy Spirit to show you any areas where you might be thinking more highly of yourself than you should, as well as any areas where that problem is reversed.

After all, God isn’t interested in false humility but rather, as Charles Spurgeon described it, “the proper estimate of oneself.”

Will you ask the Holy Spirit to help you make such an estimate today?

Denison Forum

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Paris on Sunday in protest over the rising cost of living, a shortage of key supplies, and fears that their circumstances will only get worse as winter looms just over the horizon.

Those who spent their weekend marching through the streets of the French capital are hardly alone in their fear and anger.

The stress and angst that boiled over in the protests has been building for quite some time and was preceded by strikes at oil refineries that further exacerbated the problems. Almost a third of the country’s gas pumps are either fully or partly dry, and additional strikes are expected in the days to come.

Similar protest movements have begun in Germany, Italy, Belgium, and a host of other European countries as well. But while the inflation and shortages at the heart of these protests have a multitude of causes, the focus for many is the war in Ukraine.

When Russia began its invasion back in February of this year, most of the Western world was united in its opposition to Putin and his attacks. Officially, that stance has not changed. Both NATO and the European Union maintain their support for Ukraine and the measures that have been taken to fight back against Russia.

But as the cost of those measures—particularly the economic sanctions and energy shortages—have mounted, large swaths of the general public throughout Europe have started having second thoughts.

And there is perhaps no country paying closer attention to this development than China.

What if China invades Taiwan?

While one could argue that Russia stands to gain the most from any discontent among the European nations that oppose their invasion of Ukraine, circumstances have likely progressed too far for NATO or the EU to change course now. Those nations that stand against Putin’s government will continue to do so until the situation in Ukraine is resolved.

As such, the more pertinent question is whether those European nations can afford to take a similar approach should China invade Taiwan.

From the moment Russia started sending troops across their western border, many have seen similarities between Taiwan and Ukraine. As the latter denied Russia the quick victory that many inside the Kremlin forecasted, it gave hope to those in Taiwan that they too would be able to ward off any incursions by their much larger foe. And it would appear that China shared that apprehension, at least initially.

CIA Director William Burns told a House Intelligence Committee in March that Beijing had been “surprised and unsettled” by both Ukraine’s resistance and the Western response.

However, Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s tone and comments were anything but apprehensive and unsettled on the subject of Taiwan during his opening remarks at this week’s Party Congress. Wen-Ti Sung, a political scientist with the Australia National University’s Taiwan Studies Program, noted that Xi’s approach to the subject shifted from previous speeches and conveyed a “newfound urgency on making progress on the Taiwan issue.”

In fact, the delegates in attendance rendered their loudest applause of the night whenever Xi spoke on his hope for a “peaceful reunification” coupled with the resolve to “reserve the option of taking all measures necessary” to see that reunification come to pass.

In short, it would appear that any fears he had back in March have been assuaged in the months since. And while there are several plausible explanations for how that shift may have occurred, the most likely is the belief that the united Western support that has proved so crucial to the defense of Ukraine will not be extended to Taiwan.

The cost of commitment

We will discuss the implications of that reality for the United States in particular in tomorrow’s Daily Article. But before we do, there’s an important lesson from the European response that we need to consider.

Towards the end of Christ’s ministry, he cautioned his followers against underestimating the level of commitment required to be his disciple. To drive the point home, he compared that commitment to the way a builder counts the cost before beginning to construct a tower and to a king who measures the strength of his army against the enemy’s forces before engaging in battle (Luke 14:25–33).

This teaching was important because Jesus understood that maintaining one’s commitment is much more difficult when it begins to cost us more than we would prefer to pay.

Christ commanded total commitment from his disciples—above their commitment to family, friends, and most of all themselves—because he knew they could not comprehend what it would cost to follow him. As such, weighing that cost was less about what they would have to pay than about what they were willing to pay.

Understanding that distinction is just as important for us today as it was for his disciples nearly two thousand years ago.

How much are you truly willing to sacrifice?

Many of the protests in Europe are the result of countries hoping that the war in Ukraine would cost less than they’re currently having to pay. As such, their citizens are less likely to sanction a similar wager if China invades Taiwan, and Beijing appears to have reached a similar conclusion.

As the cost of following Christ in our culture continues to rise, let’s learn from their example.

For a long time, Christians in America have had the luxury of knowing that the true cost of what we could expect to pay for following Jesus was unlikely to exceed what we were willing to pay. But as circumstances change and that cost becomes less certain, many have already begun to waver in their commitment to the Lord. And while it’s unlikely that the price to follow Jesus will rise to the point of death, only God knows where it will ultimately fall.

So take some time today to ask the Holy Spirit to help you examine by which measure you’re counting the cost of discipleship.

Have you put limits on how much you’re willing to pay to follow Jesus?

Is your commitment based on what you want it to cost or on what Christ says it could cost?

It’s all right to hope for the former so long as you are prepared to pay the latter.

Are you?

Denison Forum