A consensus appears to be developing among otherwise reasonable people that Kim Davis, of Rowan County fame, either needs to start issuing marriage licenses or quit her job.
For those just joining us, a county clerk in Kentucky is refusing to issue marriage licenses against her conscience and is also refusing to resign. Her name, which should be on a bronze plaque on the side of the courthouse, is Kim Davis. A federal judge has ordered her to appear in his courtroom Thursday to explain why Davis should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses.
But there is a difference between contempt of court and seeing that the courts have become contemptible.
Now while florists and bakers and photographers enjoy a great deal of active support from the broader Christian world, the most people like Davis will get is a sympathetic lack of sympathy. It falls out this way because Christians generally understand the private sector — that’s where they live, after all — but they don’t understand the nature of government. They don’t understand the public sector and the relationship of God’s Word to it. Their theology develops a distinct limp as soon as they step into the public square, but it is not the kind of limp you might acquire by wrestling with God at Peniel. It is more like what might happen if you dropped the Collected Works of Immanuel Kant on your foot. That results in quite a distinctive limp, one you see everywhere.
Here is a quick sampling of that sympathetic lack of sympathy:
Carly Fiorina says the clerk needs to comply or move on. Ed Morrissey says the same. Ryan Anderson generally agrees with that, as does Rod Dreher. Note particularly the last comment in Dreher’s piece — that there are hills to die on, but that this is not it.
Update: After Ryan Anderson objected, I went back and reread him. His position is more nuanced than I let on, and so my apologies to him. I still have objections to his solution, but that will require a separate post.
So I want to begin by making an observation about that hill-to-die-on thing, but then move on to discuss the foundational principle that is at stake here. After that, I want to point out what it would look like if more government officials had the same understanding that Kim Davis is currently displaying — despite being opposed by all the intoleristas and also despite being abandoned by numerous Christians who admire her moxie but who don’t understand her moxie.
First, whenever we get to that elusive and ever-receding “hill to die on,” we will discover, upon our arrival there, that it only looked like a hill to die on from a distance. Up close, when the possible dying is also up close, it kind of looks like every other hill. All of a sudden it looks like a hill to stay alive on, covered over with topsoil that looks suspiciously like common ground.
So it turns out that surrendering hills is not the best way to train for defending the most important ones. Retreat is habit-forming.
This brings us to my second goal this morning, which is to highlight the principle. Pick some absurd issue — admittedly a dangerous thing to do in these times that defy the tender ministrations of satire — and that means that to be sufficiently absurd it would have to be an issue like legalized cannibalism. Now let us say that we live in a time, some weeks hence, when cannibalism can be practiced generally on established free market principles (Dahmer v. Illinois, 2023). But if you want to have a BBQ of that nature in a city park, on city property, then you are going to need a permit. Now say that you are Kim Davis’s granddaughter, and your office issues the permits for all activities in all the city parks. Do you issue the permit? Or do you arrange for a compromise? Find somebody in the office not nearly so squeamish as you are? “Hey, Queequeg! Can you handle this one?”
I interrupt this post to anticipate an objection to my choice of illustrations. “Are you saying, Wilson, that same sex mirage can be equated with cannibalism?” Well, no, they are very different sins. That said, they are both very wicked and God hates them both, and county clerks ought not give either one the sanction of law. But I am not trying equate anything here — I am simply trying to illustrate how a believer’s conscience ought to work if he is employed by a government that tries to sin grievously through the instrumentality of a godly magistrate. This is just how I paint illustrations, with bright yellows and gaudy greens. I do that so that people can see them.
So, follow me closely here. Chesterton once said that art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere. We have a set up where a line must be drawn at some point. And in the abstract all evangelical Christians would almost certainly agree that when that line was crossed, wherever it is, the revolt of the county clerks would be a good thing. With me?
Let me spell it out further. Back in the thirties, if a county clerk had refused a marriage license to a couple because they attended a church where the pastor baptized people with heads upstream, instead of her preferred way, with heads downstream, we would all agree that said clerk had gotten above himself. And if a county clerk expedited and stamped all the processing papers for trains full of Jews headed to Auschwitz, we would all have no problem with said clerk being prosecuted after the war. And when he was prosecuted, “it was entirely legal” would not be an adequate defense. Got that? Two positions, marked clearly on the map, and there is a line somewhere between them.
Where is that line? Why is that line there? By what standard do we make that determination? Who says? These questions cannot be answered apart from the law of God, and that is why we are having such trouble with them. We want a pagan society to respect our sentimental religiosity, and that is not going to happen any time soon.
The point here is not just private conscience. The right to liberty of conscience is at play with florists, bakers, and so on. But Kim Davis is not just keeping herself from sinning, she is preventing Rowan County from sinning. That is part of her job.
Every Christian elected official should be determining, within the scope of their duties, which lines they will not allow the state to cross. When they come to that line, they should refuse to cross it because “this is against the law of God.” They should do this as part of their official responsibilities. This is part of their job. It is one of the things they swear to do when they take office.
This is nothing less than Calvin’s doctrine of the lesser magistrates (Institutes 4.20.22-32), which I would urge upon all and sundry as relevant reading material. And as Calvin points out, after Daniel — a Babylonian official — disobeyed the king’s impious edict, he denied that he had wronged the king in any way (Dan. 6:22-23).
Now this takes me to my citation of Jefferson above. Some might say that it is a shame that I, a staunch Calvinist, have taken to quoting a Deist on the relationship of righteousness to government. And I say that it is a shame that a 18th century Deist has a better grasp of the relationship of righteousness to government than do two and a half busloads of 21st century Reformed seminary professors. The striking inconsistency might have two possible causes, in other words.
If just ten governors treated Obergefell the same way Kim Davis is treating it, that entire unrighteous and despotic imposition would collapse and fall to the ground. And if they did so, they would not be sinning against the United States. Rather, they would be preventing the United States from sinning.
The end game here is not armed revolution. The end game is simply a refusal to cooperate with their revolution. Make them fire or impeach faithful officials. Once removed, such faithful officials should run for office again with a promise to continue to defy all forms of unrighteous despotism. As one friend of mine put it, “Lather. Rinse. Repeat.”
Some might ask what the good in that would be. Wouldn’t it just result in no Christians in such positions? Perhaps, but it would be far better to have godless results enforced by the godless than to insist that the godly do it for them. It would be far better to have the “no Christians in power results” when it was actually the case that no Christians were in power. I would rather have non-Christian clerks acting like non-Christian clerks than to have Christian clerks do it for them. I mean, right?
Don’t tell believers to stay engaged so that they can make a difference, and then, when they start making a difference, tell them that this is not a hill to die on. Make the bad guys reveal themselves. Make them crack down on evangelical county clerks, while continuing to wink at sanctuary cities and local defiance of federal pot laws. Why do they apply their “It’s the law! Bow down!” standard so inconsistently? Well, mostly it is because evangelicals are sweet and naive enough to let them get away with it.
So it is ironic that this valiant stand is being taken by a clerk, because those sidling away from her provide a standing example of our real problem — the trahison des clercs.
If I’m understanding this correctly, we would celebrate the Quaker who refuses to issue the concealed weapons license for following their conscience?
Does a CCL necessarily break pacifistic opinions? Does having a gun necessarily mean that you commit violence?
I wouldn’t presume to speak for Quakers specifically, but yes the pacifism of a John Howard Yoder would proclude participation in these types of systems (i.e. firearms ownership/regulatory firearm framework).
Well, one obviouse thing–can Quakers be sheriffs? Here in Alabama, and I assume elsewhere, it’s the county sheriff who has authority to allow or, provided a written reason, deny CCL’s. Another thing–I assume that CCL’s can only be obtained from the sheriff of the county of which you are a resident, and if that’s the case, the applicant has NO opportunity for appeal to receive his lawful right outside of the sheriff. However, someone seeking a marriage license can just go to a different county. But, if my understanding of how you can get a CCL, that you CAN get… Read more »
When I got my marriage license, like when I got my weapons license, I had to do it in a specific county. I’m sure it’s not that way for everyone, but it does work out that way to me. That’s partially why this is a bit of a conundrum for me. I think we’re all comfortable with someone following their conscience when we agree or minimally see the merits of their position. It seems to me that we are hoping that either everyone will agree with us or be hypocritical about their beliefs.
From a little google research, I don’t believe you’re required to do so in your resident county, but my be limited to getting it from the county in which the ceremony is performed.
I got married last year. My license was from the county I lived in, but my fiance lived in another county and we were married there. We live close to the border of another state, so they warned us that if we were crossing the border to get married it would be invalid, we would need a license from that state.
What state is that? Every state I have been in, the county was unimportant. In Texas, you can get a marriage license in any county….
To add to that, the gay couple in this case could get their “license” in a another county in the state. They said they do not want to do that. That want Kim Davis to give it to them. They want her to comply. They want her to bend the knee.
Bingo!!!
It all comes down to the homosexuals wanting everybody to be forced to accept their way of life. It would be an easier path for them to have went to the next county. In doing that it might ease tensions and acceptance. Force only reinforces resentment. For a group that claims tolerance they sure are intolerant.
This is about forcing a Christian to cave into the homosexual agenda. And the media, including Fox, and some of the republican candidates are just as gullible. That includes Carly F., Trump, and Kasich.
You don’t need a government license in Texas at all. It recognizes “common law marriage.”
When I got married, I wasn’t even a resident of the state I got married in (California). Furthermore, while my wife was a resident of California, we got married in Santa Ana County (Southern California) while she was a resident of Hayward County, if I recall the name correctly, which is near the Bay Area. Granted, different states almost certainly have different laws on that.
But the license has to pertain to the county you get married in, regardless of where you’re from. It’s all well and good if you just decide to go down to the courthouse one day, take out a license, and visit the JP, but if you do things like reserving a church and reception hall, hire a minister, and invite people, it’s a little less flexible if you find out that county isn’t going to issue the license.
It’s been a few years, but when I married in California, almost 25 years ago, I lived in one county, my soon-to-be husband in another (which was where we got our marriage license) and we married in a third county. In most states, you can get your license anywhere in the state you marry in.
Or out of state.
There is sometimes a waiting period, depending on your state. You are married by someone legally allowed to do so in your state. That person, usually two witnesses, and sometimes the bride and groom sign the marriage license. The marriage license is returned to the county clerk’s office.
United States Marriage License, Where to Apply for …
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage_licenses/
It definitely is not that way here. You can go out of state to get married.
There is sometimes a waiting period, depending on your state. You are married by someone legally allowed to do so in your state. That person, usually two witnesses, and sometimes the bride and groom sign the marriage license. The marriage license is returned to the county clerk’s office.
United States Marriage License, Where to Apply for …
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage_licenses/
You have to get your permit in the county you live in. You’d have to move to another county and try there.
A pacificist is highly unlikely to become a law enforcement officer of any type.
This doesn’t really matter, though. What matters is that the Quaker magistrate *thinks* that the issues are connected. It’s his religious conscience, after all, not ours. So if we are actually arguing for an extension of Reformation-era lesser magistrates theology to the political convictions of every individual official throughout the United States, then this is what we’re advocating for. Every law passed by the state legislature is merely provisional, as it will all depend on whether your local officials actually find it acceptable to their conscience to carry out the law.
I understand what you’re saying, and since I haven’t sat down to research and think it all out, I’ll defer to someone else who is perhaps more knowledgeable than I am to defend the doctrine.
The police are lesser magistrates and they rarely enforce precisely the posted speed limits. In other words, they nullify the law.
They also do the same with drug laws, particularly when winking at one law will gain a conviction on a more serious crime.
Every law passed by the state legislature is merely provisional, as it
will all depend on whether your local officials actually find it
acceptable to their conscience to carry out the law.
Yes, it is.
This brings us right back to the individual and Jesus Christ who works in individuals.
It also brings us back to our republican form of government where things are pushed way down to the lowest level of community–family, neighborhood, town, city, county,state and dealt with there.
Is this a matter of conscience or justice?
Since when does one negate the other?
Actually, handling draft registration forms might be a better example, as postal workers used to do that (and still may for all I know). A number objected in the jolly old days of the anti-war 60s (where Peace-in-our-Time Winter Soldier John Kerry won his statesman’s spurs) and had spotty success initially, but ultimately lost out. Given the gravity of national defense, that may have been a right result, but I’m not sure that the nation has such a great interest in coercing affirmation of sexual unions.
Somethingclever,
This is not complex; we will recall those refusing to uphold
righteous law, and we will reinstate those refusing to bend the knee to Baal,
as is clearly the case here.
Am I understanding you correctly, then, that you would fire the Quaker for his/her religious objection to violence?
Who will define righteous law?
Katecho and Timothy. You must be new here.
I’ve never appealed to my authority as the basis of law. I point to the authority of the One who will actually judge us and will judge the judges. That’s the definition that matters. We don’t exist for ourselves.
No, because the Quaker is incorrect on that point.
Did you even read the post? It’s summed up in the Jefferson quote:
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
Wilson is saying precisely that it is not about conscience.
“I am simply trying to illustrate how a believer’s conscience ought to work” is a direct quote. How is he saying it’s not about conscience?
You did not understand the argument correctly. Re-read, and take special notice of the line and where to draw it.
I would also recommend re-reading the Jefferson quote and also Letters from a Birmingham jail.
Then, after this review, ask yourself the question, is a concealed-carry license an unjust law?
It may be an unjust law, according to the belief systems of the hypothetical Quaker.
So if the Quaker believes the law unjust, should they be allowed to refuse to abide by the law?
I’ll let Dr. King answer your question. “You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St.… Read more »
The hypothetical Quaker finds the self-defense and concealed carry laws in violation of moral law. Therefore, those laws are unjust laws.
So, should he be allowed to ignore the law and keep his job? Or should he be fired?
Well, as I’ve said in another comment, the Quaker is already in a pickle with being a sheriff. The Quaker already disqualified himself for the job, by virtue of being a Quaker, even before the first CCL application comes to his desk.
That’s not, to my knowledge, the case with Davis.
I realize that the CCL is just an example to illustrate the principle, but I’d have to see a realistic example where it would be an ACTUAL issue that would affect my opinion.
In my state, a clerk issues the weapons license.
I was speaking in the context of my residence, so that’s a fair point to make
The fact that the sheriff issues a weapons license is purely coincidental and has no bearing on the actual argument.
It does if that sheriff is a Quaker who has a problem with guns.
It might make it difficult for that specific Quaker to avoid hypocrisy, but it doesn’t actually address the issue that was raised.
If a Quaker, a pacifist, knowingly takes a position that obviously involves violence in the execution of his duties, but then tells me that it’s against his conscience to allow me to carry a concealed pistol because violence… then… yes, that’s a problem because he shouldn’t have had the position in the first place.
Just. Nevermind.
It does address the situation. In the case of a Quaker *as a sheriff* who denies a CCL on the basis of his conscience does NOT get my support. A Quaker as a county clerk, a position not inherently violent, denying a CCL on the basis of conscious is quite different.
If Davis’ position inherently involves her condoning homosexuality, and NOT RETROACTIVELY so, then she’s in a different position than when the laws are changed out from under her.
FWIW, not all CCLs are issued by sheriffs. The issuing authority varies by state. In Florida (where I got mine), it’s issued through a clerk at the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services.
Or, let’s consider another issue. A devout Catholic, who considers Protestantism to be heresy, refuses to issue building permits to new non-Catholic churches. He’s morally opposed to spreading heretical lies, so a law permitting building new non-Catholic churches is an unjust law.
Should he be fired?
Like I said to somethingclever, fair point, but could I just petition the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction for aid?
He could be a rogue Quaker, a slightly off the beaten path Quaker, a deviant Quaker, etc.
But then he’s got a problem on the point of consistency in keeping a gun off my hip when the silly pacifist has one on his : )
I mean yes it’s pretty absurd. Kind of like saying “I do a good job for the people of my district,” even as you are literally refusing to do your job. I’m staying in office because I do a good job except for that not doing my job thing, and I’ll go to Hell if I give out the license. So it sure seems like I should resign; but no because freedom. Even though by staying in I’m hindering your freedom to get the benefit of me doing my job that I won’t do.
Well, a competitor is free to run against her, appealing to her poor job perfomance in this case, and win.
But, interestingly, this brings us right back around to the very reason why the Supreme Court sometimes (rarely in the grand scheme of things) finds that certain rights are fundamental and not subject to the political process. The whole point is that certain things have to be given to people whether or not the democratic process wants to give them. We can’t outlaw speech based on its content even if it would be immensely popular to do so. We can’t have laws that discriminate on the basis of race even if a governor pushing for such laws could get re-elected… Read more »
Well, does this not take us to a point that Doug has brought out that ultimately, like the dissenting Justice stated, the Obergefell decision shows the impotence of SCOTUS? The clerk, with the backing of her constituents, can tell the federal courts to do what they must–throw her in jail or send the National Guard like it was Tuscaloosa–but so long as she is elected to hold her post as county clerk, not one marriage license will be signed by her. And, if the courts, or whatever official with the authority to do so, lacks the will–or the National Guard… Read more »
We’ve always known that SCOTUS lacks power to enforce its own judgments, as it should. Separation of powers and all that. But the feds are not going to take it lightly. Probably jail won’t be necessary. Fining the crap out of her every day she refuses will make the point nicely. And even if the internet war machine raises money to pay her fines, they can’t do that for everyone. Ultimately gay marriage is here to stay and the Supreme Court’s decision was a reasonable one (though Kennedy’s actual articulation left much to be desired). I think the smart play… Read more »
“Probably jail won’t be necessary”
Tricky thing, events, eh?
Jail was what the apostles of “love” wanted all along, and they are now celebrating, in all their unrighteousness.
During the French and Indian War, when Quakers ran Pennsylvania, Ben Franklin got them to appropriate money for ‘wheat, corn, barley, and other grain’ for the militia–it being understood that the ‘other grain’ was gunpowder.
CC permits are not unjust, by any reasonable measure so I would not support him in his resistance and he should be removed from office. So, he can choose to ignore the law and he will suffer the consequences of those actions. Just like Christian’s chose to ignore Roman law and suffered death, receiving a much greater reward as a result. Just like Dr. King went to jail for resisting unjust laws. I support the clerk’s actions in this case because she is standing up for truth and moral law. She is standing firm against an unjust law. She is… Read more »
You’ve made an assertion of what’s reasonable, but that’s debatable both as a standard and on definition. You’ve made an assertion, not an argument.
Im not sure I follow? I have made an argument, with defined standards. I have yet to see anything from either you, other than asking hypotheticals, which have been answered.
I asked a question, which you’ve apparently taken as a position. I can understand how you might leap to that conclusion, but it was your leap. Own it. You are the one who has taken a position. It’s incumbent upon you to defend that position since you made it. Then you made an assertion: CC permits are not unjust by any reasonable measure. That they are not unjust is an assertion you do not defend despite the fact that there are and have been many reasonable cases made against them. You’ve also failed to show how reasonableness is a good… Read more »
The standard is just vs unjust law. If a law is just, then it squares with natural law or God’s law. A law that violates these, is an unjust law, and resistance to that law is justified and good. Some would say it is the duty of those in positions of power to defy those laws. For those who refuse the law, whether just or unjust, they will have to face the consequences. In the case of Dr. King, he went to jail. In the case of Christians under Roman rule, they were martyred. In Dr. King’s case, the civil… Read more »
It might surprise you that I think the regulation of the right to self-defense is itself a violation of natural law. I think it’s unjust that the state regulates my right to my life. So I guess if I was the clerk, I should give permits to everyone or no one in protest. And I’d be removed from office and either reelected or not. None of this would itself be good reasons to believe I’d either done the right thing or the wrong thing. But your question isn’t about my defense of pacifism, as I am not a pacifist. It’s… Read more »
I’m not sure why this discussion is continuing. Obviously, the difference between correct interposition by a lesser magistrate and incorrect interposition is the cause for which the interposition is undertaken. If the Quaker was correct that issuing CHLs was unjust, then he would be right to interpose to stop it. If Ms. Davis is right that issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is wrong, then she is right in interposing to stop it. From a practical standpoint, it is then up to the people – this is, after all, government by the people, and a government can be no better… Read more »
Sure. People are right when they’re right and wrong when they’re wrong. I’m fine with that.
Quakers=http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02361/scarecrow_2361807b.jpg
Could you explain why you think it’s a straw man fallacy? All parties represented seem to really hold the positions described.
There would be no such thing as justice if individual consciences were the guide.
You quote Martin Luther King Jr., All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an “I – it” relationship for the “I – thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful. …while arguing that discriminating against an entire class of people is the… Read more »
If a vocal minority demanded the right to drive down the right side of the road and cried discrimination when the traditional left side drivers resisted their demand, would that actually be discrimination? No one is saying they can’t drive, just that they can’t redefine the nature of it.
Is a gay couple’s marriage going to collide with yours, killing you both?
Jesus told His disciples to be armed: Luk 22:36 And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.
He NEVER condoned homosexuality. In fact, quite the opposite.
I’m not a pacifist (nor am I defending homosexuality), but to say there are no statements in the NT that seem to strongly recommend the pacifist position would be incorrect. In any case, I’m not asking based your or my view of the issue, but the sincerely held belief of the hypothetical Quaker.
I am saying the Quaker is wrong, based on the teaching of Jesus. And to try and project Jesus’ pacifism on to all other Christians is intellectually dishonest.
I appreciate what you’re saying, and I’ve come to the same conclusion about pacifism. But Jesus preaches about the nature of his kingdom in Matt 5-7 and says not to resist the evil person, to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies etc. I don’t think it’s intellectually dishonest if a person came to the conclusion that he meant pacifism.
It might not be intellectually dishonest, but it would be willfully ignoring a LOT of scripture.
Agreed. I have and do respond with OT examples Divine ordained violence, Luke 22 as noted above, Romans 13, Paul’s allusions to combat, the Conquering Jesus of Revelations, just to name a few passages. This isn’t really the question I’m asking though.
The ultimate point is that law always proceeds from religion, and if your beliefs don’t match the official religion, so much the worse for you.
Sounds a lot like mob rule to me.
As opposed to what? (I would note that post-Constantinian Christian society has with few exceptions involved a state-sanctioned church and a church-sanctioned state, with varying degrees of toleration for dissent. Would you call Elizabethan England or the Byzantine Empire a government of “mob rule”?)
If I’m only safe if I’m in the majority, that’s precisely what it is.
Why does Jesus tell his disciples to arm themselves? To fulfill a prophecy about the Messiah, that he would be labeled among the transgressors. Not exactly an endorsement of the 2nd amendment.
If that is what you pacifist Christians tell yourself so you can sleep at night in spite of your lack of masculinity, then by all means, keep it up. But as Christians, we are charged with fighting evil and I fully intend on doing that.
Jesus came to earth as a sacrifice. That was HIs purpose. If I sacrifice myself or my family by being a wussified pacifist anti-gun ‘Christian’, what good does that do?
I’m not telling myself that…it’s literally the next verse.
Dude, quit. You’re making the rest of us just-war types look like arrogant jerks.
If the Quaker ran for office knowing that his job would be to issue weapons permits, and then refused to do so, that would be a problem.
If the law were suddenly changed so that the Quaker, and only the Quaker, was the person empowered to issue said permits, I’d stand by him.
“Suddenly changed” as in everybody has seen this coming for five years?
So nobody with a conscience should have run for this office for the last five years, because we “knew it was coming?”
Perhaps she was brought to this office for such a day as this, just sayin’.
Yes, suddenly. When she ran for this office, a person with a conscience could do it. Now they can’t, no grandfather clause.
Yeah, so to invert my analogy, the hypothetical Quaker is elected when there’s no legal concealed carry, but it’s overturned once they’re office. They refuse to issue permits so as not to be party to violence. I’m tracking with you.
As a matter of what should be allowable under the law, I think the person should be allowed to follow his conscience, but some accommodation would have to made to protect the rights of the citizenry (i.e. transferring the job duty to another official for the duration of the Quaker’s term.)
As a matter of what’s really right and wrong, see Greg’s point: the Quaker is actually wrong, so I can’t say the Quaker is right to do this.
Your second paragraph is where the wheels fall of the bus for me. What keeps civilization from grinding to a halt? If every time an official thinks something is wrong they stop doing part of their job, it will create constant turmoil, I think. I feel like we’re banking on a lot of people agreeing about what’s unjust or at least hoping they don’t have enough conviction to do anything about it.
Did civilization come to a grinding halt when Dr. King refused to obey unjust laws? Did civilization come to a grinding halt when the Founders decided that after a long train of abuses and usurpations that it was their right and their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security? Did civilization come to a grinding halt when Daniel refused to pray to the king? In all those instances you have the exact opposite happening, civilization advancing. Do you have a principle with which it is right to refuse to enforce or obey… Read more »
In each of the instances you mentioned, chaos ensued. And the chaos was proportional to the number of people who disobeyed the laws. You seem to think that fewer laws are unjust than I do. If civilization rebuilt itself after the chaos, it was only because a new stasis was reached, but again we’re relying on some people ignoring some laws they believe to be unjust. And yes. But I admit when my systems appear to have weaknesses, and I pursue those threads until the answer satisfies me to the proverbial sweater is undone. I am pursuing something hear, and… Read more »
Note the pastor’s reference to German’s under Hitler’s rule. Should everyone have obeyed the laws then? Should we no longer look at those who did not as heroic?
David asked about civilization coming to a grinding halt as a result of various forms of revolution etc. Your example is the same. Both when Hitler came to power and when he removed, there was chaos an upheaval. That’s a very different question from the one you’re asking, which is whether or not it was worth it.
Diversity creates weakness, and this is one of the ways it does so.
Diversity is inevitable; it’s only a matter of degrees of diversity.
The problem is that the wheels also fall off when all the lesser magistrates are told, and simply accept, that they have to just obey man rather than God.
I’m not “banking on” anything. My answer is not pragmatic.
Since it is objectively wrong for the Quaker to be a pacifist who wants to interfere with other people’s ability to own a gun, which is not a sin, how could I say anything other than that the person is wrong to hold that belief and wish to implement it?
That it relies on an objective standard of right and wrong that is not universally shared is true, but that’s no reason to subvert the standard.
I could have been more clear, but when I did say “we” instead of “you”, hoping to indicate that I meant the position of lesser magistrate in general. I admit I’m making some presumption about your position on that score. So it wasn’t whether or not your statement was pragmatic, but whether it has to work itself out in real life. And I think we agree that it does. So yes. People are right when they’re right, and wrong when they’re wrong, but that sort of tautology isn’t very helpful if I’m deciding if I think a law is unjust… Read more »
I’d be fine with transferring the duty, but this being an elected position that is not something that can just be done. There are (state) constitutional issues with separation of powers here; nobody has authority to just up and say “Okay, so and so will now have authority to issue marriage licenses instead of the actual clerk”.
If your conscience affects you from performing a fundamental job duty then I don’t think you can plead “suddenly” unless it really was an unforeseeable change. Here, you went into it knowing it could change. It did change. Now again just resign — nobody is Thomas More-ing you here, forcing you to sign a document or die. You do not have to hold this office. That’s what makes this different from the general principles of civil disobedience, where we disobey certain laws when they are unjust. Even a govt official should disobey a law that is unjust if the atrocity… Read more »
Any law can change in a matter of months or years. It’s not unforeseeable that someone elected to DA today, could find himself being required to prosecute people for printing “hate speech” next year. Should nobody but people who love tyranny run for DA? Or should people who run for DA just knuckle under and engage in such unjust practices? Or should all the people with consciences just quit doing any job that has any public influence and let tyranny take over without so much as a whimper?
I appreciate your consistency, and I think that’s a fair addition. I admit I would be frustrated if my right to self-defense were hampered by even a sincerely held belief.
Well, while I disagree with you, I do appreciate and applaud your commitment to logical and moral consistency.
The post is about standing against injustice. Injustice is a truth outside of you, me and your hypothetical Quaker. It’s not about standing for what we individually believe to be true (which is relativism), it is about standing for what is true (God’s Word). The passivist view of the Quaker is not biblical so CCL’s are not an injustice that should be stood against. You are completely missing the point. This article does not advocate for relativism.
Doug Wilson is very much advocating that she should follow her conscience. “I am simply trying to illustrate how a believer’s conscience ought to work” is a direct quote. I agree than an ideal exists apart from the subjective, so I’m not a relativist, either. The question is about our level of certainty that we know what is just and unjust. I feel relatively certain that you and I are wrong about something else, even though we are convinced it is what it true (God’s Word). I’m not so bold as to believe I will only be confirmed in my… Read more »
Yes, follow her conscience (con=with, science = knowledge) as so long as it is early in tune with God’s word which is outside of herself. I understand the conundrum you are alluding to. And we might not have all knowledge and know all truth. But does that mean we then just follow all laws that man makes? No not at all. You are comparing a very small controversial topic (pacifism) to a very clear truth (homosexuity). It is about clarity and seeking the truth. So again, I believe you are missing the point which has already been said which is… Read more »
I think you are relying too heavily on whether or not something is “controversial”. I think this is a bad place to rest our judgment because true things can be (maybe always are) controversial. Homosexuality, for instance, is a very controversial topic. With respect, I refer you again to Wilson’s words, “Every Christian elected official should be determining….”. This requires personal judgment exacted on a corporate body. But at the end of it, she’s doing what she thinks is right. To say, “she’s right because she’s right” is tautological at best, and begging the question at worst. Either way, it’s… Read more »
No, this is exactly the problem with this article. Who decides what is or isn’t Biblical? I can argue that pacifism is Biblical. You can argue it isn’t. Who decides who is right? The arrogance is amazing.
Tell the pre-Constantine Church that pacifism is not Biblical.
So you take the belief that it’s impossible to know the truth and stand for it? It’s arrogance to know the truth and stand for it? is God’s word a mystery? What then, we should just all be relativists and believe the self-refuting “truth” that we can’t know what’s true?
No, the point is that a Christian state needs an authority to interpret Scripture as a basis for its laws — a church or a church council.
It was arrogant to dismiss a valid interpretation of scripture.
You are saying it is valid to stand up for only what you believe is right. You are making yourself the standard for what is right and wrong.
For example, I believe that Jesus teaches a clear non-violent ethic for Christians. You can disagree. That’s freedom.
One of you is right, and one of you is wrong. The fact that both of you think you are right, does not make the one who is right less right, and the one who is wrong less wrong.
(This works in a binary situation where the question is, “does the Bible teach pacificism?” Either it does or it doesn’t. In some other situations, the possibility exists that both of you could be wrong, but not on a binary question.)
I absolutely agree.
Yet, one is still free to be wrong. I would be happy to have a discussion as to which is right and which is wrong. But, if at the end of the conversation neither party is convinced of the other’s position, we must agree to disagree.
Or a conservative Muslim refusing a woman a driver’s license? Or an Earth Goddess vegan refusing to sell you meat or cheese at the grocery store?
I’m confused — where in the U.S. has the law been changed to allow women to get driver’s licenses or to require stores to sell meat within the working life of any living person?
This has to do with someone upholding the oath of office they took, not suddenly deciding at some later point not to do what the job has required all along.
There is nothing unjust about concealed weapons.
I take it you’re not a Quaker.
Or a relativist.
Or a comedian.
I take it you determine “justice” by the standard of your own feelings and thoughts.
Nope
I take it you think justice is based on the mind of individuals.
No
Wilson isn’t telling anyone to celebrate something unless they themselves believe in it. The difference between your Quaker example and the current evangelical breaking the law, is that this evangelical is actually right.
Yes. Right people are right, and wrong people are wrong. That sort of tautology is not particularly helpful, though.
Friend, I was answering your question. My answer was not a trivial tautology. It was the proper answer. It is right to stand up against unjust laws, as and when those laws are sufficiently unjust. For this reason, it would not be right for a Quaker to rebel as in your example. There is no reasonable ground for it, only a personal conviction. The laws you mentioned are not unjust. The point is that if you want to criticize Wilson’s view, you must do more than liken it to an argument no one would believe. You must actually show why… Read more »
Apologies, I didn’t mean to be overly terse with you, but I’ve answered statements very similar to yours a number of times on this thread already. You’ve made a number of invalid assumptions. One is that I am criticizing Wilson’s view. I actually share his view of lesser magistrates. That doesn’t mean I’m arrogant enough to be beyond questions, or questioning. If I see an apparent weakness in a system I hold, I test it. I can understand why you might assume I was criticizing, but it was asked as a question, and meant as one. Secondly, the Quaker probably… Read more »
I appreciate your comments here. I did suppose you were criticizing Wilson’s view with a reductio. You meant this question about the Quakers literally. You want to know what makes the difference between the cases. The difference is that the facts (which I am not here naming, note) are on the side of traditional marriage and the facts (which, again, I am not here naming) are not on the side of the Quaker who wishes to hold the office of a gun licensor and then to not license guns. That’s the broad outline. The starting place of a discussion. You… Read more »
Are you wanting to discuss the question of the propriety of gay marriage, or the question of whether your comparison of Kim Davis and the Quaker is meaningful?
does the Bible say having guns is a sin?
There’s been a strong Christian pacifism going back to the early church.
I wouldn’t celebrate the Quaker’s position until I had a full view of his theology. I know that the mistranslation of the 6th commandment, “Thou shall not murder” (ratzach), as opposed to “Kill”(harag), has had some effect of the promotion of pacifism.
Jesus’ explicit teaching undergirds it as well: love your enemies, turn the other cheek, don’t return evil for evil. There’s a history of Christian pacifism that runs all the way back to the early church.
I don’t have a full view of her theology yet.
Yet, if someone attacked my family, I wouldn’t hate him at all; but I would stop him by what ever means necessary. There’s another dynamic going on when other people are involved — Your family trusts you. A man who would stand by and watch his family being destroyed, I would see as big a criminal as the perpetrator. The many times Jesus hid from being murdered (before His time) says something about common sense. Luke 4:29 is a good example; and Luke’s passages about carrying a weapon.(Luke 22:36). It’s also difficult to avoid noticing that Peter was walking around… Read more »
If a Quaker could show me an actual prohibition against guns in scripture you might have a point. But he can’t. Homosexuality is expressly forbidden.
I’m assuming you don’t mean guns specifically, but violence in general. If I’m wrong about that, let me know. But there are plenty of prohibitions against violence. Jesus, in His sermon where He describes His kingdom, goes to great length to talk it. Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Don’t return evil for evil. Later when we see Peter forcefully resist “All who take the sword will perish by the sword”. There’s been a Christian Pacifism since the early church for those reasons.
He also said the magistrate holds not the sword in vain. Nor did he tell soldiers to leave their service. The two issues are not the same. One is cut and dried. Homosexuality is a sin, always and at all times. Violence is far more situational.
The two situations are analogous. Analogues, by definition, hold some similarities and some differences. I’m not sure the distinction you’re making here is a helpful one. It may seem clear to you, but it isn’t so clear to others. We can’t base our convictions of just vs. unjust on how certain the herd is that something is controversial.
I’m sorry, those differences make them non-analogous. It’s not merely a question of conscience, It’s a question of proper theology. If you want to defend Quakerism knock your lights out. Unless you want to argue red letter theology, then all of scripture is God speaking. And the use of force, even deadly force, is not the same as the prohibition against homosexuality. This is why we have systematic theologies. What does scripture say about violence as a whole, not isolated portions to support a pet theology. I’ll flat out say it, the Quaker is wrong. This woman is correct, at… Read more »
Sure, wrong people are wrong and right people are right. That’s tautological and does not help move forward the conversation. You declare the Quaker wrong, but then I assumed you thought his viewpoint was wrong already from your first response. You think the woman is right. I gathered the same from your first response. So where does that leave us. You think people are right when they’re right and wrong when they’re wrong. That doesn’t inform the Quaker who disagrees with you form a historic position of Christianity. I would be hesitant to dismiss so cavalierly a consistent element of… Read more »
Who are you trying to convince? Me? It’s a bad analogy. I declare the Quaker wrong because it can be demonstrated from scripture that he’s wrong. His view is unbalanced and simplistic. What does the WHOLE of scripture say about violence? What does it say about homosexuality? I’m not interested in “moving the conversation forward”. I’m not interested in what the world has to say on the subject because their thinking is not my authority. Until you can demonstrate that the Quaker is correct you’re just being specious. Make an argument from the whole of scripture that the use of… Read more »
Oh, myself. I asked a question I want answered for myself. You’ve made the mistake of assuming I was trying to make a point. I can understand why you would come to that conclusion; several others have in this thread and I have already cleared that up. I happen to like the position she’s taken, and I also happen to like the right to self defense. Which leads me to this quandary. So I asked a question, hoping a Christian community could work together to make sense of a situation. A lot of people have weighed in trying to do… Read more »
Well, when we have to cross that bridge I’ll worry about it. But we aren’t addressing Quakers, now are we? What your posting is just a distraction from what the current issue is. The question that needs to be asked is what is the authority? If you think my insistence on sound doctrine is not a defense then I don’t know what to tell you. Also if you can’t see the difference between a clear prohibition and one that is situational I also don’t know what to tell you. We often try to make everything gray. It’s frequently not. There’s… Read more »
Oh, I’m very interested in sound doctrine. That’s why I am not afraid to ask questions about my doctrine and to expect well reasoned answers. I expect that a sound doctrine is consistent, not just tautological. What she should do is exactly what this whole discussion has been about. If it has drifted into a discussion about the validity of pacifism, it has been because you’ve been interested in that topic, not me. Your certitude is no guarantee of truth. That you can make assertions without supporting them is totally unpersuasive for anyone who does not already share your position… Read more »
“Your certitude is no guarantee of truth”. Neither is your vacillation. If you can show I’m incorrect do so. You haven’t to this point. What are you arguing for, just throwing our hands in the air and saying, “well we just can’t know”. God didn’t mumble.
So this has clearly devolved to the point where it’s no longer helpful. You’ve admitted you aren’t interested in answering the question or my objections to your position. Assertions have to be supported, not just reasserted to be valid. If you aren’t willing to do that, best we just call it a day.
It’s degenerated to the point where you want to avoid certitude. What assertion needs to be supported? That the Quakers are wrong. I gave you two examples of where they ignored scripture. That homosexuality is wrong? Really? What I’m not interested in is games. You are playing games. You are seeking to avoid certitude. You abhor certitude. I cannot convince you or anyone else of anything. That’s not my job. My job is to speak God’s truth. That’s it. And yes, I vehemently assert it. God will take care of the rest.
How is our Quaker going to function as a sheriff, or really any kind of magistrate, if he is categorically against violence?
In my state, weapons licenses are handled by clerks of probate court.
Who are ultimately backed up by force, aka violence, if necessary.
In that sense we are all backed up by force whether we want to be or not.
I’m sympathetic to the Quaker argument. I don’t like to just say his theology is wrong because someone could do the same to me. Better to have a Quaker town where Quakers are welcome to not issue weapons permits. Don’t like guns or issuing permits? Go live in Quakertown. The problem with progressives is that they are totalitarians of tolerance. Their ideas should be enforced on everyone, all over the globe.
You understand incorrectly. The entire process of imposing this non-constitutional non legislation is, in fact a clear and direct violation of the Constitution. 2nd amendment is explicitly establishing the right of people to be able to defend themselves. Completely opposite.
Two things here. One is while I happen to agree with you on both counts, we have a judicial body whose job it is to decide what’s constitutional, and they decided against us. I don’t like it. It can be undone. But for now, that is what it is. Secondly, if the Quaker thinks the 2nd amendment is unjust, it shouldn’t matter to him that it’s in the constitution. Just as if an amendment was passed saying that every third baby should be aborted, we would resist it, amendment be damned. So I appreciate the distinctions you’ve made, and I… Read more »
2nd amendment is explicitly establishing the right of people to be able to defend themselves.
Establish or codify?
Not necessarily. He’s talking about real sin, not somebody who is queasy about doing something that is not sin.
Your point has been made and answered a number of times by other people in this thread already, but just to summarize, the pacifist believes participating in systems of violence is a sin. He is taking seriously passages of Scripture like: turn the other cheek, love your enemies, don’t return evil for evil, those who take the sword die by the sword. We cannot dismiss his convictions as queasiness, when in fact some pacifists prefer the instinct for violence, but feel compelled by Scripture to refrain.
If it’s unbiblical we can dismiss it. He’s taking seriously select passages. He’s cherry picking. Why should we honor that?
Sure. Wrong things are wrong and right things are right. He feels the same way. How does that help us come to a better understanding of the topic?
What understanding? If it’s wrong what exactly is it you want to understand? You are purposely evading the issue. Why do you wish to live in uncertainty? Did God Mumble about homosexuality? We just can’t understand what He meant? It doesn’t seem like you want to come to a better understanding of the topic, it seems like you want to find a reason to avoid certainty on the topic. If you want something in depth read Gagnon. Don’t expect me to educate you in a combox. Romans 1 is clear about the subject. Paul specifically chose homosexuality as an example… Read more »
I have read Gagnon in print at length and agree with him. In fact, I enjoy his facebook posts immensely as well. You’re making assumptions about my position again. I’m neither a pacifist, nor do I support gay practice of any variety. I also love certainty where I can find it. But I don’t believe untested things, undefended things, or inconsistent things are certain. I don’t expect you to educate me on anything. I didn’t ask you to respond. You decided to do that of your own volition. If you don’t want to answer the initial question and/or support your… Read more »
What is you want? Me to defend judgments made on conscience? That’s not a very good criteria imho. She should oppose it not simply because her “conscience” tells her so, but because it violates God’s will as revealed in his word. So, no, the Quaker is not analogous, unless you can defend their position from God’s word. When Luther said “To go against conscience is neither right nor safe” he could only be correct because of the preceding statement. “My conscience is bound to the word of God.” You keep dancing around the issue of whether the refusal of the… Read more »
I’m talking, though, about what God said is sin. Not what people make sin that isn’t. Very often two very different things.
I agree with you that what God says is sin is sin and others aren’t, and so would the Quaker. So that doesn’t move the conversation forward.
The point was to clarify, not move the conversation forward. I assume you mean by “what God says is sin is sin and others aren’t”, “what God says is sin is sin, and what others say is sin isn’t”? By the way, according to official Quaker beliefs now, one doesn’t even have to believe in God to be Quaker, so their definition of sin doesn’t matter, it’s only based on what makes them feel queasy or not.
Fair enough
If you agreed with the Quaker, yes. If not, no. Either way, the Quaker should follow his or her conscience. The whole freaking point is that the celebrations of the masses should not define what the clerk should support. Morality should.
I’m good with that line of reasoning because it has a type of internal consistency. I think you’ll find in the responses to my sincere question that many would disagree with you. It’s the ones who say yes to her and no to him that I need more information from. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
What is their conscience is evil? What if their understanding is flawed? What if they think what is immoral is moral. Like say what the homosexuals claim.
Then you simply tell them so. You don’t try to draw meaningless analogies.
No, I wouldn’t celebrate anyone who acts on a false principle.
I might speak in favor of his right to so, however.
I personally don’t find this whole “Following your conscience” thing compelling. I don’t trust my conscience, which is why I check it against scripture..
The answer is No, and the reason is that you’ve made a poor argument here. The Quaker illustration has to do with the personal ethics of the Quaker. Conversely, the Kim Davis case has to do NOT with her personal ethics, but with what Scripture clearly teaches and which is clearly binding on all human beings. Pacifism is NOT what Scripture clearly teaches and is therefore NOT binding on all people. Pacifism is a minority viewpoint among Christians; always has been. Even if pacifism could be inferred from Scripture, we could never rightly say that it’s clear, overt, and binding.… Read more »
I think if you look, you’ll see I’ve asked a question, not made an argument. That being said, you then note that your standard is clarity. I would suggest that is a very shaky place to build an argument.
My apologies: although your post was worded in the form of a question (hmm, are we on ‘Jeopardy’…?), I construed it as an argument, or at least that you were implying your own position. On some issues, yes, the standard /is/ clarity. For instance, if I’m going to evangelize nonChristians, I need to have clarity on just what the Gospel is — first for myself, then in order to explain it to the unsaved. Even my use of the term “unsaved” requires clarity: I have to be clear on what it actually means to be “saved,” and therefore how to… Read more »
So, What About the Clerk Who Won’t Issue Concealed-Carry Permits? by David French September 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385379/ “A state official who objects to protecting enumerated constitutional liberties is hardly in the same position as a person objecting to facilitating a ‘right’ five justices created out of whole cloth (historically speaking) five minutes ago.” I’m both disappointed and surprised here. Folks, if we all get to air off Supreme Court opinions because either they (a) actually are created/invented [sez who?] or (b) we only think they are, then what? French has been rock-solid/spot on about… Read more »
No, because the Quaker is wrong.
Systems can’t replace thought, no matter how much some wish they could. One of these things is not like the other.
I don’t know that “wrong people are wrong; right people are right” is especially helpful unless you already know whether you’re right or wrong.
I think you’re missing a key point: I don’t believe God’s law says anything proscribing the carrying of concealed weapons. The Quaker who refuses to issue a concealed weapons license cannot appeal to a higher authority to justify that action.
There are a number of biblical cases to be made for pacifism. It’s Christian viewpoint that goes back to the beginning. I don’t happen to agree with it, but a pacifist would very much believe God’s law would proscribe weapons.
First, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Let’s assume that the concealed carry law is legitimate, I don’t believe for a minute that it is. It is, quite simply, another form of oppression. There should be no permits for guns whatsoever, as is the case in the Green Mountain State, Vermont, but let’s assume for one moment. First, this country is, and was, founded on the principle that every individual has rights given by the creator. Every public servant swears to protect those rights. The Quaker clerk is objecting to one of the many God given rights and the the Christian… Read more »
We share a common view of government licensing. Shall we agree to carry without them because the law is unjust?
A pacificist wouldn’t be in any kind of a job where he’d be in a position to issue CCL. It’s a moot question.
I like that this is happening, but honestly, I cannot be the only one who wishes it was somebody other than her. Somebody who has a history of respecting the sanctity of marriage. [+] Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:12) [+] So I said, “The thing that you are doing is not good. Ought you not to walk in the fear of our God to prevent the taunts of the nations our enemies?… Read more »
I read that her convictions have come since her conversion which was AFTER all the problems she had with marriage…
That’s great if true, but unfortunately it still doesn’t change the fact that her witness to the world in this way is marred. However, I would be far more comfortable in supporting her in her civil disobedience if she has repented of her past sins in disrespecting the sanctity of marriage.
So is Paul’s witness to the world marred because of his former blasphemy and persecution of Christians? That would sure make reading the New Testament go pretty quick, just skip over the parts he wrote. Tongue in cheek bro. I understand what you are saying, but I think you miss the point. God’s work isn’t always so neat and clean as we’d like. Unfortunately for someone who thinks as you are thinking, he chose a formerly very wicked person to stand up for His Truth today (assuming she is born again, etc.). I praise God that he uses wicked sinners… Read more »
God can and will use who He will and His wisdom is greater than mine.
If Mrs. Davis has truly been born again, then I would understand her as being more a tool by which God is speaking to the Church and less so to the world. Sin has consequences and, as we are currently seeing, Mrs. Davis’ past has made her the laughingstock of the (American) world. We are in need of that reminder.
Paul, on the other hand, made the world scratch its head in wonder and confusion…
I guess I don’t find God “using who He will” with “wisdom greater than mine” to be unfortunate or something I’d wish were different…
Let me exhort you as a brother to reconsider your word choices and to simply be faithful that God has ordained this for His glory and His Word will never fail – regardless of the instrument.
” Mrs. Davis’ past has made her the laughingstock of the (American) world.”
And the Cross of Christ is foolishness to those who do not believe. We live in strange times where Christians actually worry about being seen as a laughing stock by an American world that says men can be women, two dudes can get married, and chopping up babies for profit should be legal and supported with your tax dollars.
[+] Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:12)
[+] So I said, “The thing that you are doing is not good. Ought you not to walk in the fear of our God to prevent the taunts of the nations our enemies? (Neh. 5:9)
This is all I’ve been saying. I’m sorry if you are offended by it.
Better to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable.
Davis’ past has made her the laughingstock of the (American) world. We are in need of that reminder.
For it pleased God to use the foolish things of the world to confound the wise….
Paul had a past. you seem to be glossing right over that. And selective in your view of divorce. Rather like the Quaker argument. What does the whole of scripture say about it? What about “a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases”?
You’re not the first to utilize the argument of Paul’s past in this instance. But it simply does not work in this situation. They are very different. NOW if this clerk was a proponent of gay mirage and suddenly had God break in and adjust her view on this issue and she completely reversed her stance…now that would be a situation worthy to be compared with what occurred in the life of the apostle Paul. Rosario Butterfield would be an excellent example. And I think everybody is completely missing what I am saying. I’m not sure if this is because… Read more »
But Paul was such a bad example, he was complicit in murder. He sanctioned it. I only wish we could find a better representative than Paul. Pretty much the same.
Paul went from murdering Christians to being a Christian and ultimately being killed for the faith. That’s powerful. It’s an amazing thing. It makes the world go “huh?”.
If you cannot see the difference then there is nothing else I can do to help you see it.
This woman went from being a person who divorced frequently thereby committing adultery. Now she’s born again and upholding sexual morality. If you can’t see that there’s nothing else I can do to make you see it.
From a Christian perspective, yes, absolutely!
But I have not been speaking at all to the Christian perspective, but rather to the perspective of the world. If you will recall, the verses I shared in my first comment, speak to how the world perceives us.
” I am only seeking to point out that Scripture is proved out, once again, in what we are seeing.” Yes, scripture is proved out once again. Maybe her past is the point. God saves sinners.
With brothers in Christ like these, who needs enemies. Was the woman at the well’s testimony marred because she had 5 husbands before being saved?
This clerk is doing what every Governor who opposes SSM should be doing. She has more spine than most of the Christian leaders in this country. She is doing the right thing and it appears that God is once again using the weak and lowly to shame the powerful.
I make the same point one comment below:
“If Mrs. Davis has truly been born again, then I would understand her as
being more a tool by which God is speaking to the Church and less so to
the world.”
There is a marked difference between being a witness to the world and being a witness to the church…
Brandon you may be falling in to precisely the trap the media (Screwtape) hoped you would fall in to. Move the emphasis to her reputation instead of her convictions.
I fail to see how, if you have read all I have stated in this particular discussion, you would think I am falling into that trap…
I suspect the strength of her convictions about the sanctity of marriage come, at least in part, from her first-hand experience of what happens when the sanctity of marriage is denied.
Exactly, @joshbishop!
Here is her statement: “I have worked in the Rowan County Clerk’s office for 27 years as a Deputy Clerk and was honored to be elected as the Clerk in November 2014, and took office in January 2015. I love my job and the people of Rowan County. I have never lived any place other than Rowan County. Some people have said I should resign, but I have done my job well. This year we are on track to generate a surplus for the county of $1.5 million. In addition to my desire to serve the people of Rowan County,… Read more »
Excellent! Where did you get that, Doug?
I found it here: http://www.lex18.com/story/29933844/kim-davis-releases-statement
Here is the link: http://www.lex18.com/story/29933844/kim-davis-releases-statement
I love the way God works. One of her mother-in-laws was instrumental in her conversion.
In fairness to Kim, she revealed in a statement that she became a Christian around four years ago. Here is part of her statement: “In addition to my desire to serve the people of Rowan County, I owe my life to Jesus Christ who loves me and gave His life for me. Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and… Read more »
Kim Davis has been married 4 times. Is that relevant? Is that hypocrisy if she wants to defend Biblical marriage? Or is any enemy of our enemy our friend, even if they have in there own way dishonored Biblical marriage vows.
See my comment below: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/in-which-i-paint-with-some-bright-yellows.html#comment-2232036516
where did you read that?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kentucky-clerk-gay-marriage-fracas-married-4-times-article-1.2345036
IDK if it is true…just that I read it.
ok, thanks! I pray it’s true. It would be wonderful to know that her recent actions are the result of a transformed life and God’s grace.
Amen.
Mollie Hemmingway has a good write up on it.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/02/kentucky-clerk-didnt-follow-christianity-before-converting-to-it/
Michael Coughlin & Jigawatt – thank you for putting the proper information out there. I would like to add a caution about what sorts of info we should pass on regarding these matters: “An evildoer listens to wicked lips, and a liar gives ear to a mischevious tongue”. Proverbs 17:4
Her salvation is after her lifestyle of serial monogamy.
I speak English only…. What’s the punch line?
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=trahison+des+clercs
The “get out of the way” ethic being thrown at Ms. Davis sounds remarkably similar to that being thrown in our face on the other important subjet-du-jour: abortion. See Steven Pinker’s piece in the Boston Globe: “…the primary moral goal for today’s bioethics can be summarized in a single sentence: Get out of the way. A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in… sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.”” Yes, he really said that. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/31/the-moral-imperative-for-bioethics/JmEkoyzlTAu9oQV76JrK9N/story.html In short, they want us gone/dead. Our mechanism of resistance was laid out for us by our Savior: speak and… Read more »
From the link….
A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape,
moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping
principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.”
heh.
Eric the Red, with Almighty God as my witness, I did not bring up these concepts, Peter Singer did.
Oh! Modified Humian Utilitiarianism! The Places You Will Go!!! (and its only one week later!)
I also see the county clerk stand as an early skirmish in the battle that will be fought by church pastors. Since at least some states require that pastors get a license from the state or county in order to perform marriages, the next step for homosexual activists will be to challenge the county or state licensing any pastor who dares to contravene the Constitution (in this case, anyway). Maybe it’s not a perfect precedent, but when Kim Davis is put in prison I don’t think it’s a stretch to say she’s just warming a cell for the first defiant… Read more »
Except that church pastors are not publicly elected agents of the government. That’s the whole point. Kim Davis should have become a pastor if she wanted to deny marriages to gay people. Interracial marriages became legal 50 years ago–any county clerk denying an interracial marriage license would certainly be treated like Davis is now–and yet have you ever heard of a church being prosecuted because they wouldn’t marry an interracial couple? Racist churches still exist, and they still claim they’re following God’s law. And that’s perfectly fine with the government as long as it’s in the church. It’s just like… Read more »
Top form! Firing on all cylinders! Metaphor engine purring like a purry thing!
The use of metaphors isn’t rocket surgery, you know.
Right, it’s closer to brain science.
So, it seems as if Kim Davis is not issuing any marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, either. What is the reasoning behind that decision? It would seem logical to continue to do issue licenses as she has in the past, while refusing to violate her conscience by issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
That was actually pretty clever on her part (I mean that sincerely). If she gives to some but not to others then she is more easily exposed to a charge of unequal treatment. If she gives to nobody, then she can more plausibly argue that her religious convictions along with her desire to be as fair as possible have simply paralyzed her ability to do anything.
The reasoning is that the licenses she issues are no longer valid, because they no longer signify marriage.
That’s way too cute though. Any court will just say “validity is a legal concept. By definition if we recognize them, they are valid.” Valid just means “able to receive the respect sought from the legal system itself.” God might not be happy with it, but God doesn’t determine tax exemptions.
You disagree with her reasoning. So noted. Bob asked what the reasoning was.
Then I don’t want my tax payer dollars going to someone who’s religious convictions prevents her from doing her job.
Are you a registered voter in that jurisdiction?
My gay friend who grew up there does.
Does what?
Lives in that county, pays taxes in that county, and should be able to marry in that county.
Well, he can marry,provided he finds a girl willing to marry him. Anything else he does is not marriage no matter what piece of paper he may have.
A piece of paper with the county stamp on it is now (I suppose)available to him as Kim Davis has deputies who apparently do not wish to join her in jail.
Same sex marriage is law of the land. Two men and two women can now marry in this country. Doesn’t matter if you disagree with the ruling, it’s the law.
There is no such thing as “same sex marriage” Two people of the same sex may do whatever they think they can get away with, and Rowan County is more than likely going to start handing out bits of paper purporting to dignify same sex conjugation. That does not make it a marriage, whether you or the supremes for that matter agree or not.
Luckily your opinion is not law.
Opinions are not laws not mine, yours, or the supremes. Legislatures make laws in a republic,not courts.
But the point is that whether law or opinion neither the supremes nor yet the legislature can turn chokecherries into watermelon, regardless of how many citizens agree.
There is no law to straight marriage either. Marriage is marriage, the Supreme Court found no reason to deny that right to same sex couples. The bans were unconstitutional.
Comparing gay marriage to Nazis. Nice.
Do you know how absolutely frightening it is to be denied something in America under “Gods authority”? Scary stuff.
Yes, we see something frighting every day. Unborn babies are murdered and their tiny parts and whole bodies that just popped out are sold to the highest bidder. Yes, murdering babies and depriving them of life is frightening.
Yes, homosexuals abusing children is frightening.
Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion. Heterosexuals abusing children is frightening as well, as is heterosexuals having children out of wedlock they can’t take care of.
I don’t want my tax dollars paying for AZT treatments.
Because medical treatments and denying rights are the same thing..
This is absolutely the wrong hill to die on because religious liberty is going to get one good bite at the apple at the Supreme Court, and not even Scalia or Thomas will touch Kim Davis to defend what she is doing. As indicated (maybe, you never know for sure) by the fact that neither of them wrote a dissent from the denial of her petition for a stay this week.
If you support Davis and make her the model of what religious liberty looks like in the wake of Obergefell, then you are dooming the Kleins in Oregon.
How does dying on this hill doom the Kleins?
Because if the Kleins’ case gets to the supreme court, they will probably win (this is my opinion, obviously, but I’m not loony on this point). If Davis’ case gets to the supreme court, not only will she lose but you’ll get an 8-1 or 9-0 decision that virtually destroys any other religious liberty cases from coming before the court for a while.
And now Davis is first in the hopper.
Let me say a bit more (sorry): the Kleins’ case stands for an important proposition that applies to religious liberty in many areas. Kim Davis’s case is a very narrow case that even a lot of conservatives think is bogus — the “right” of an official to have their cake and eat it too by holding on to their office that they refuse to perform all in the name of “freedom of religion.” Maybe we’ll get lucky and the Court will take up both cases and consolidate them into one — with Kennedy doing his thing and writing a majority… Read more »
I see your logic but not the inevitability. God is on the move.
Why the reliance on the “Supreme Court” ? Did not Scalia himself take note to Kennedy how weak the damn institution is? How tenuous its hold on the hearts of the people?
Why do you seek to bind us to these fools?
UPDATE: Ah!, I see below your reasoning. You still think, even after Robert’s “However” that reason and not power are what drive these nuts and you have faith that persuasion and ‘law’ will bring about a glorious change.
I do not share your worldview.
Wow! What a fantastic article. It is good to know that Elijah is, in fact, NOT the last believer alive!
The real problem here is that you (Doug and others) are mis-identifying who is trampling on whom. This really isn’t that tricky and we don’t need a presuppositionalist jujitsu to lay out a consistent position. You yourself have argued forcefully and persuasively in the past that not all sins are crimes. So, the simple fact that God says something is a sin does not mean that allowing people to do it via the civil code is an abomination. Your argument here seems to be that any law that disagrees with biblical morality (disagrees in the sense of *allowing people who… Read more »
“not defending those who would be abused.” Your view of abuse seems to only extend to those being hitched. There is an abuse to society, to the concept of family, and most importantly to children. This law is unjust, not simply because it flies in the face of reason and moral law, but because it harms children. It says that mothers and fathers are not necessary. That they are interchangeable. It says that marriage is about adult romance, and nothing to do with the children that the union produces. Your viewpoint will allow, by law, to actively deny a child… Read more »
We already allow gay couples to adopt. The train has left the station. This great abomination that screams to the heavens is nary more than a whimper of what has already gone before. I understand there are conservatives who have opposed it all from the beginning, but then we should at least be honest and say “this recent case is really no big new thing, but I’m just using it as a way to illustrate the desirability of that right turn 50 (150? 450?) years ago.”
That’s an odd definition of abuse. Abuse “to society” you say? Abuse to a “concept?” Like the way that FDR talked about the four freedoms, kind of? Sounds airy-fairy to me. In this corner, an actual flesh and blood person who will be denied an actual thing in the here and now. In that corner, a person who says their metaphysical understanding of definitions will be offended the other person gets the thing. Gosh, I guess we’re “abusing” someone either way so it’s a draw! Come on now. As for the abuse you mention that I’m prepared to accept as… Read more »
Even if research showed that mother-father families are better than all
others, that doesn’t mean that other arrangements shouldn’t also be
encouraged when they are as good as we can do. And to outlaw them seems
completely misguided. In any event, that ship has sailed.
Confirm people in their sin. That is not a winning strategy for the Godly minded.
“Don’t tell believers to stay engaged so that they can make a difference, and then, when they start making a difference, tell them that this is not a hill to die on.”
Fantastic. And why we are here.
If you go to work for an institution (private or public) that you know engages in immoral behavior, how can you be surprised if you find yourself being expected to engage in immoral behavior as part of the job? She is a moral person and is therefore an unfit employee for that particular institution. On the one hand I’d like to see her hang in there until they figure out she’s unfit and then fire her, but on the other hand, why would she work for an institution like that in the first place? It’s similar to a Christian becoming… Read more »
Here’s the thing, and it’s what makes this situation such a nightmare (or a delight, I suppose, depending on your proclivities). She can’t be “fired.” It’s an elected position. She can be recalled (um, maybe? local KY law for removing from office prior to term ending is unclear). Literally the only options are to hold her in contempt for disobeying the judge’s order (conservative son of super conservative senator Jim Bunning). Which means jail or fines. Either way she’s a martyr. No good options for those who want her out. But not great for her when she has to start… Read more »
I didn’t realize it was an elected position. The question as to why she would want to work for an immoral agency still remains. Did she not see this conflict coming at all, especially in the last couple of years?
Are you familiar with the term “lawfare”?
If after Lawrence v. Texas a local sheriff locked up a homosexual man and refused to release him from jail, saying that “gays going free violates my religious conscience,” would that have been okay too? Would the sheriff be the one standing against “tyranny” there? In both cases, you have the Supreme Court saying that if you are gay you are entitled to a certain benefit (in Lawrence it is freedom from criminal sanctions; in Obergefell it’s the benefit of being “married” for tax purposes, etc.) In both cases, you have a local magistrate denying the benefit to a gay… Read more »
The benefit gained in Lawrence was the freedom to use another man’s anus for God-defying masturbatory intercourse. So the example you gave doesn’t really fit.
First, the sheriff would not simply lock up a homosexual man for being gay, rather for engaging in sodomy.
Second, any such sheriff would likely lock up far more heterosexuals, they being more numerous in the population.
Amen. No more Fort Sumters.
But no more Wacos either.
That ladies and gentlemen is what is known as “bringing the awesome” . Well done Pastor Wilson.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it troubles me that in the first century, as well as many of the persecutions in places like Russia and China, it seemed to be the leaders of the church who copped the battering first. Here in the sunny west it seems to be the ordinary Christian on the street, with many of the chubby leading church ministers, thinkers and scribblers tucked away in safety somewhere.
I think some of that is who’s getting attention at the moment. There are plenty of leaders I know who’ve taken a stand publicly on the issue in person and on social media. Everyone sort of expects that of them, so it’s not much news. There’s greater controversy in this type of event. They’ll get around to trying to obliterate the pastors and leaders soon enough. They’re trying to pick off the fringes at the moment. Testing the lines.
501(c) status or Christ crucified; that is the question.
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it,… Read more »
Now, apply that to the American (and French) Revolution.
In June 2013 Pastor Doug addresses the question of a believer attending the wedding of another believer who is marrying an unbeliever. His answer, in short, was that the believer cannot attend or participate in any way that says, “Amen”, to the union, because God doesn’t bless the union. Now he celebrates the courage of the clerk standing against homosexual marriage ostensibly for the same reason, she cannot affirm the union, because God doesn’t affirm the union. Clear? Consistent? No. This same clerk has issued, without doubt, hundreds of licenses to believers who are marrying unbelievers; thereby affirming again and… Read more »
So you draw the over here instead of over there. Interesting.
Not suggesting moving the line, just suggesting that lines need to be drawn, if drawn, consistently. I am a pastor and would not marry either couple in view. God has drawn that line. I would also expect the governments of the world to draw lines in other places. And, with the authority God has granted them, comfortably punish me for my adhering to God’s lines, not theirs. The history of the church is filled with such; and the gospel is strengthened by every assault. But drawing a line here, and not there, when or how it suits us, might indeed… Read more »
I’m having trouble following you. What I’m getting is that clarity, consistency, and lack of hypocrisy are the big things and that we can’t usefully engage the culture without them. Is that what you mean? Do you know anyone who has all those ducks lined up?
You said: “This same clerk has issued, without doubt, hundreds of licenses to believers who are marrying unbelievers; thereby affirming again and again, without any apparent reluctance, what God does not affirm.” I don’t think her job consists of discerning whether or not the couples are believers, or not believers. You are a pastor and should discern those things. And even you may be wrong sometimes.
Steve, sodomy is a sin, so is polygamy and a man marrying a woman under certan circumstances. Those lines should be drawn consistently. But two guys marrying is not a sin in the same sense. The bible does not condmen it outright. The reason to draw a line there is that two guys marrying is not a marriage. If a mother wanted to reasign her sons gender at birth so that the birth certificate read, “girl”, the doctor might rightly refusing and draw the line becuase it’s not a girl. Later that week, the same Doctor (who happens to run… Read more »
somethingclever is not.
Probably should go by sometimesclever.
The best blog post on this issue that I’ve read. Period. I can imagine both Kim and Douglas’ critics gnawing their fingernails in frustration of how to respond when their arguments have been so thoroughly stomped.
The broader issue here, as andrewlohr mentioned, goes by the term nullification. Jury nullification is when the jury refuses to convict when they believe a particular law is unjust. This is a design feature of our judicial system (though they aggressively suppress knowledge of it), and serves as a deputized form of lesser magistrate, as a check and balance on the law itself. Because we are a culture that knows God, but refuses to honor Him, or give Him thanks, we are seeing stuff starting to fall through the cracks. Our government is going to perish according to Psalm 2… Read more »
“I would even support my own lesser magistrate in a call to violent opposition, if the principle at issue is worth dying and killing for (such as abortion). But I don’t support individuals lashing out in violence on their own individualistic private authority.” ashv has again up-voted you, now and here on this one. Over at Totalitolerance, I just posted a second “omnibus,” answering (among other things) your objection to being lumped in with “timothy et al” on calls for Gettysburg and such. I both gave you the “due process” chapter and verse you requested plus I honored your request… Read more »
Regarding the lack of charity from Haggar, this is the bit I had quoted from him at the time: QED, if timothy K1 [katecho] et al really believe it’s “their finest hour” time, if they really believe the anti-Christ is sitting in the White House, if they really believe everyone who disagrees with them on any doctrinal point is some false-flag pagan in a Christian costume, then they should get off this board, round up some guns, and head for Gettysburg. In other places, Haggar has been more charitable toward my views, but in his “omnibus #2” he still didn’t… Read more »
Read the “accommodation” post to Alex W and K2. Or don’t. And stop trying to be coy. IMHO, you nailed yourself, removing all doubt, in what I cited in Omni #3. If you actually believe Obergefell puts the USA at the point of justifying ANY degree of violence, stop protesting “50 Shades of Gray” or “36” or “19.” Or keep whining. Whatever. Yes, we rebelled against King George. Yes, I was aware of the 1/3 1/3 1/3 breakout in 1776, LONG before seeing it repeated here. I do, however, question the judgment of anyone who thinks Ober justifies violence. Frankly… Read more »
At this point I think I can assume that Haggar won’t support his uncharitable charge that I ever said Obama was the antichrist, or that I ever said anyone should get off the board, or that I ever advocated immediate open revolution, etc. He seems to be standing by that characterization of me, even without providing any evidence. That doesn’t speak well of his regard for actual due process. In any case, what I was hoping to see was Haggar’s principles for resistance to government tyranny, both within (as lesser magistrates), and even the duties of citizens, and the potential… Read more »
The term of art known as “accommodation” has previously addressed this point by Pastor Doug; “Find somebody in the office not nearly so squeamish as you are? ‘Hey, Queequeg! Can you handle this one’?” Anyone who didn’t see it but wants to, let me know. However, of all the things in this target-rich environment, I’ll only raise one point which has me puzzled; “But Kim Davis is not just keeping herself from sinning, she is preventing Rowan County from sinning. That is part of her job.” Anyone have a source/authority for the proposition that the clerk has some affirmative duty… Read more »
I also find that puzzling. I wonder if it comes back to the unwillingness to distinguish between the religious and secular realms, and to see a major difference between crimes and sins. I don’t see it as any legitimate function of a secular government to prevent people from sinning. If I were elected county clerk, what would happen if I, as a Catholic, refused to issue licenses for divorced people wanting to get remarried? What if I said I was doing this because of a rock-solid religious conviction that remarriage after divorce causes people to live in adulterous unions? What… Read more »
Well, the wrath of Alex in W may descend upon me, but the craziness of the last 24 hours again makes me seriously question the value of commenting on this site.
I considered posting her oath of office, and maybe I should have, but when I looked it up, I was NOT surprised to discover it contains no instructions to prevent the county from sinning.
At its simplest, there is a tight cluster of like-minded, mutually supporting folks on this site who cannot get over the hurdle of having to tolerate a purely secular state.
It appears to me that they despise the fact that the formerly Christian state governments were subverted by the national government and secularized.
IMHO, ashv has most strongly taken the “War of Northern Aggression” stance, while K2 comes from a totally different perspective (atheist), yet it’s fair to say he also sees the North’s winning and the 14th Ad as having fundamentally altered the state-national balance of power within our federal system. Despite all that, every election is another chance to reverse the nationalization trend. The Germans and the Japanese did not win the war and force us to do this to ourselves. The USSR collapsed. Heck, Rome fell, but the church is still here, divided though it may be. I dunno. By… Read more »
Elections at the federal level don’t matter much, since most of the law-making and operation of the government is done by unelected bureaucrats, and the acceptable bounds of popular opinion are set by the press and academia, limiting the range of electable candidates. We’re not voting our way out of this.
If everyone who professed to be a disciple of Christ actually voted as though the Word of God had ultimate authority in every area of life. Our political landscape would be radically different.
Perhaps so — but that still would not affect the operations of the federal government very much, the political component of it is relatively small and ineffective.
To your thought along the lines of “worst case we’ll get a Napoleon,” I almost linked to that “case for impeachment” book. Plenty of non-Waco folks think we already have a Napoleon in place. Suppose someone like, say, I dunno, Fiorina, is Prez in 2017. Would the “waters of the US” rule the EPA just hatched go stay in effect? Suppose Congress defines carbon as NOT being a pollutant in 2017. That would cut out a bunch of EPA foolishness. Congress last changed the definition of “navigable” in 1920. The EPA changed the definition of “ordinary high water mark” (OHWM)… Read more »
The presidency is mostly (though not entirely) a ceremonial position at this point. The president of the US has less control over his supposed subordinates (other than appointees in the Cabinet) in the executive branch than a CEO does over his employees.
Power to push things further in the direction they are already going, little power to reverse anything.
History shows that there are much worse possibilities than Napoleon. He’s almost a best case scenario at this point.
The purely secular question, being of the state and its laws?
Do you view the secular position more as a compromise between competing groups or as just another group like the Muslims/Christians/Mormons/Jews/etc., competing for power and influence?
What purely secular question?
Kelly, you are an awfully smart guy. I would have thought by now that it would have become apparent that the purpose of the author (and a good many of the commenters here), is not to present an argument that will necessarily win in court. But to present an argument that derives from an explicitly reformed evangelical worldview. That is a worldview that requires subverting and transforming all of human culture until it aligns with the revealed word of God. “Cutting ice on the docket” while not undesirable, is secondary to, and can only come after, the minds of the… Read more »
If you are in a prisoner’s dilemma and you are repeatedly betrayed there is no reason to maintain loyalty. In fact, its insane. The power of the other team to manipulate law through the slow process of deconstructing culture was bad enough but they also just violate, selectively enforce or change the law to suit their ends. At this point I give them the due respect for the power they hold for so far as that power lasts but I recognize no legitimacy.
Your view is widespread and increasingly vocalized in ‘respectable’ quarters.
Just curious–what does “purely secular” mean, and how recently did that become a principle that must be applied to U.S. law in all jurisdictions, large and small?
The problem is that “purely secular state” is a contradiction in terms; law always proceeds from religion, there is no neutrality possible. What’s going on is a conflict between groups with different religious beliefs. What some religions regard as central tenets others regard as blasphemous, and blasphemy against the god of the system always carries a penalty.
Further, God has installed His King on His holy mountain, and recognizes no secular state. Every king is a subject of King Jesus, and they are all required to give Him homage. We (including Haggar) are simply not authorized to declare any secular truce with them on behalf of Christ. This doesn’t mean that we have to invoke violence at every instant that we don’t get our way, but we do press the warning of Psalm 2, publicly, and often, and pray for their repentance, or their removal by representative means (which may include violence, in God’s providence).
Kelly, if your purpose of commenting on this site is to convince the “cluster” that Jesus is NOT Lord over everything including the state, all of the time, then I don’t think you will be successful. When the point, that He is Lord all of the time, is acknowledged I up vote, “mutually supporting” my brothers and sisters for speaking the truth as we are instructed to do, all of the time not just when we aren’t at work.
I think it might be you standing in front of a hurdle, kicking it and wondering why it won’t go away.
No, the Ps2 posturing folks are NOT my purpose in being here. It’s for folks such as jlllybean and Buggs.
I can understand that! Jillybean is a pure pleasure to discuss any topic with, and since that is your purpose, no need to question it like you stated above. :)
Hi Jill,
But had you done so in the early wake of divorce becoming legal, you may have garnished quite a bit of support, yes? This far out we forget what a big deal legalizing divorce was and how hard many fought against it. Ireland was often ridiculed for being the last western country not to allow it until the mid 90s….look how fast that culture has slipped on the slope.
Aren’t we responsible for trying to stop murders, suicides, rape, theft… In fact if we don’t try to stop others from sinning can’t we be held responsible?
Kelly, there is no section of the world where the Bible, God, is not the authority. I think that may be the part that is confusing you.
Kentucky Constitution
Section 233A
Valid or recognized marriage — Legal status of unmarried individuals.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1
It will take many man hours to remove Kim Davis from office. Her refusal to surrender, even if she ultimately loses, will at least momentarily keep the Left from moving on to softer targets. All questions of principle aside, that is a good tactic.
Instead of routing, make the enemy lay siege.
I agree, her job is to certify that, in her official determination, the couple is truly eligible to marry and procreate together, that’s why she signs her name to it. She is not just there to hand out licenses. And if she knows that a couple does not have a right to procreate and should not be approved to marry, it’s her job to not issue the license, even if according to the documents presented, they seem legally eligible. If she knows that they are actually brother and sister, for example, she has a duty to deny the license. That’s… Read more »
Btw, Ryan Anderson is nuanced because he actually doesn’t care about stopping same sex marriage. He actually thinks it’s good that same sex should be able to get married. He says that would be win-win.
This may have been asked already, but should a Christian issue a license to those unbiblically divorced (and attempting to remarry)? (My initial reaction is no, but you’re smarter than me…)
I posted this on my FB page and someone challenged me about the statement “this [not allowing the state to cross certain lines] is one of the things they swear to do when they take office.”
I’m not familiar with the oaths taken. Can anyone help explain Doug’s statement?
Thanks
C’mon people. All this talk of Waco and congress and false dichotomies like secular vs. religious is off track. Kim has positioned the issue very clearly as a matter of conscience. She is not trying to stop the world from sinning and has made it plain she has no beef with those who do. She is not demanding laws be changed or that sinners be strung up in the maket place. Her job also requires much more than just rubber stamping marriages. God requires that she not violate her conscience. That’s the basis of her argument and we should acknowledge… Read more »
Jefferson is not one of my favorite guys but I’ve been thinking that his line about the tree of liberty needing to be watered periodically with the blood of patriots and tyrants makes sense if you think of it as a comment on the tendency for bureaucratic systems to perpetuate themselves and crowd out other social systems necessitating periodic reset.
Doug, that mention of Daniel 6:22-23 is very helpful, confirming the Biblical intent for Romans 13:1-5,6-10. Thank you very much! Like Daniel, in not sinfully bowing down to this human idol of Homosex, Kim is doing no crime (Da 6:22); may Kim also continue to trust in her God (Da 6:23), rather than her King Darius when in his laws and courts are decrees that explicitly or implicitly contradict (the Biblical intent of) God’s law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lv 18:22). May God, through Kim’s obedience unto… Read more »
I like that you brought up Daniel. However, I feel your use of his stand is incorrect here. He was commanded not to pray and he did. I do not find any examples where he actually interfered with Babylonian (and later on the Medo-Persians) culture and laws. He lived among them and was a leader in the political arena of his day. I feel that as believers we should stay engaged. However, I struggle with the “hill to die on” approach that builds walls, points fingers and accuses others of sin, vs the example Christ left us, “let he who… Read more »
Christ’s example of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” was about the Pharisees trying to trap Him into blatant injustice — they said this woman was caught in adultery, but that’s not a crime one can commit by oneself, and the other party was curiously missing. The implicit question raised is which one of her accusers _hadn’t_ slept with her. It is indeed the church’s job to proclaim the gospel to sinners, but that has two sides: as Scripture states, “God opposes the proud, but he gives grace to the humble.” The church welcomes sinners who… Read more »
We also have a God of vengeance. What we don’t have is any fear of God, culturally.
Omnibus #3 Same-sex marriage ruling: what now? Category: Cultural Commentary Published: Friday, 26 June 2015 [at] 13:00 [pm] Written by [Rev] Jim Denison at: http://dev30.denisonforum.org/cultural-commentary/1712-same-sex-marriage-ruling-what-now The author is Baptist minister; Southern Baptist Convention. (If there’s a dispute IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE about the legitimacy of his credentials as a Christian then “include me out” for the Nth time.) “The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret and apply the Constitution of the United States.” Notice he did NOT say “is empowered to interpret and apply the Bible.” However, he also concluded with, “Whatever happens, let’s continue to engage the culture with… Read more »
“If it conflicts with Obergefell, Obergefell wins. Period. Full stop.” That is not what the founders believed. The idea that the SC is the final arbiter was considered preposterous by the likes of Jefferson and Madison. I understand that this is where we are because of precedent and tradition, but this is not how it should be. That 9 unelected judges can overturn democratically enacted laws is anathema to the separation of powers. We are one or 2 justices away from revoking the Second Amendment. If the SC ruled tomorrow that “well regulated” means that the government can regulate guns,… Read more »
The original reason Ed Meese became famous was his article about Aaron v Cooper from 1958. If a Spm Ct opinion is co-equal with the Constitution, why doesn’t it take an amendment to reverse an opinion? Marbury is outside the scope of this thread. You could have cited “that eminent tribunal” from Lincoln. Or the 5th Cir taking Holder to the woodshed a year or two back. We actually not that far apart – – if we are apart at all. Prowl back through my answer to the question on “Is the Spm Ct the final authority?” You’ll discover my… Read more »
Uberfail is the law and we should suck it up. Do I understand you correctly?
No, you don’t. We should work to reverse it. But until we win that fight, we obey the law.
P.S. Or, if you think we don’t obey the law, then resume deepening the “Gettysburg” (low or high degree) rut again. Also, on second thought, perhaps you will also find the “accommodation” post written back on June 29th and cited above to David T useful?
Presumably you would recommend disobeying the law if it were sufficiently bad, say rounding up people with bad thoughts for reeducation. What would it take for you to recommend public officials disobey the law? Draw the line.
At the civil level, I’m fine with anyone going to jail, a la Thoreau or MLK, rather than obey what they believe is ANY unjust law. But for ME to march on Gettysburg, we’d have to be up at the level of loading Jews into box cars.
Talk is cheap. I served, 1974-1994, and in fact I’m still subject to recall as long as I still breathe. You’re welcome.
Thanks–and thanks for your service.
No prob. And must work harder on my temper. And get a bigger power supply for my tact-o-meter.
“At the civil level, I’m fine with anyone going to jail, a la Thoreau or MLK, rather than obey what they believe is ANY unjust law. But for ME to march on Gettysburg, we’d have to be up at the level of loading Jews into box cars.”
How about loading baby parts into fed ex boxes?
Evan, thanks for pounding the nails in straight. Kelly, we are loading onto the boxcars, you just don’t see it.
I see PP is morally wrong. I see what’s on those tapes is illegal. What I don’t see is that PP’s acts justify armed rebellion.
What are the principles for armed rebellion?
March on Gettysburg over that? No. But as a USAO member, I’d be at least investigating RICO and other violations, plus conspiracy.
Kelly, based on your service dates, you should be over age 60 which would require a Type III recall. The odds of hitting the lotto jackpot in all 50 states are better than getting a Type III recall.
True. But if enough whack jobs start marching on Gettysburg, I’d be at the recruiting station volunteering. ;).
Seriously, people, can we get some adult leadership on this thread? Just cool it with the violence talk. Or take out billboards topped with flashing strobes reading “Ignore us posturing loons?”
OK, I will have a crack at the adult leadership thing.
Kelly, quit boasting. If you have a biblical take on the current issue, enunciate it.
Boasting? Huh? David, anybody who has passed an 8th grade civics taught by an asst football coach ought to know already know and understand enough to see the role/mission of secular gummit. Only loons believe there is any legitimacy to “interposition.” Only loons believe there is any difference between “nullification” and “interposition.” Read MLK’s “I have a dream” speech. What did he say was dripping from whose lips? As for my biblical take, how much more explicit than “render unto Caesar” must I get? Or that my personal trip wire for armed rebellion is up at “Jews-in-box cars?” No, the… Read more »
Haggar hasn’t responded to numerous references to Psalm 2, but here he seems to be explicitly endorsing the legitimacy of secular pluralism. Does this view of pluralism mean that all rulers of the earth are required to display homage to the Son, or not required to?
Excuse me, I HAVE responded. You just disagree with my answer. No scripture of ANY faith is binding on ANY secular “magistrate.”
Go to lunch with Abe through El. Evangelize them. That’s a totally legit response. But – – unless you’re TRYING to get aired off – – don’t cite Calvin to a US court as proof they must rule as you want.
So Haggar’s response to Psalm 2 is to toss it out on its ear. He places the authority of the secular state above Scripture’s express warning to the kings of the earth. Now it’s clear.
Sigh. Struggling with tact. NOW I’m clear? NOW? No, you just wish Ps 2 was enacted into secular law. It won’t be. And if America turns into Mad Max, you of all people will rue the day.
Have a nice weekend. Taking up grandson duty.
When I see comments like this, I imagine the one saying them, standing before God, saying them to Him. Read Haggar’s words again, in that context, and imagine the scene:
“No, the problem here is a collection of people who wish to operate in a pluralistic society ONLY as long as they are in charge of it.”
Kelly, that is a perfectly valid position – probably the most common one historically.
Kelly, you did not pay attention to military history and doctrine while you were in the service. 1. “I was following orders” didn’t cut the mustard in Nuremberg. 2. Officers were to follow the constitution not to kowtow to the orders of those above them. As head clerk, an elected position, Kim Davis was likewise obligated to follow the constitution, not illegal decisions. 3. US officers were brought before courts martial because they failed to obey illegal orders and were cleared. 4. If you got yo gummit civics classes from the assistant football coach it is easy to see where… Read more »
Based on my posts, your #5 is mistaken. When asked for my personal threshold for armed rebellion, I cited Jews being loaded into box cars.
The rest of your points I’ll just leave as I found them. Thanks for reading my post.
You would follow orders. Your posts show that clearly.
Attempting to tiptoe here; may not succeed. I believe you’ve made two incorrect assumptions:
1. That I would obey an illegal order.
2. That the definition of an illegal order is whatever you believe a court has incorrectly decided.
Getting late. Out of pocket most of this weekend. Catch back up later.
Reporting to the recruiting station is the problem. American Christians don’t understand how to stand for Jesus and resist that which is against God’s law. American Christians are so mixed up that they will still advocate abortion; poor work ethics; breaking all of the Big 10 — after all, it’s OK because it’s the law. In the 60s when 7-11 wanted to stay open 24 hours a day and to sell goods on Sunday, clear thinking Christians rejected the idea, yet those who were not rooted and grounded went with the argument that it would be OK because it was… Read more »
LOTS of digital ink has been spread on these pages as to when and by what means “resist” is legitimate. Instead of adding to that trend, I’ll just thank you for reading my post.
Haggar wrote:
So it seems that, in principle, Haggar does indeed foresee conditions that would have him resorting to violence against the State, and thus resembling the very thing he mocks in timothy and ashv. If this is the case, it is not a matter of whether he would resemble timothy and ashv, but what specific conditions might need to be satisfied first. Perhaps Haggar could discuss those principles rather than just mock timothy and ashv.
Kelly, I am glad to read that you will happily send the Jews to the gas chambers while trying to change the law sometime in the future. Yep, that’s really being brave.
????
Kelly, you seem to pitch this as an “American” political or legal issue.
It’s not. Whether Kim’s actions are right or wrong is first a matter of scripture. How we support (or not) Kim is also a matter of scripture.
America’s legal history is largely uninteresting and in no way trumps God.
No, you don’t. We should work to reverse it. But until we win that fight, we obey the law.
No.
Timothy, you’ve known me long enough to know that although I differ from you on many issues, I don’t ask questions just to get at you or be provocative. Can you then explain why this issue is a go-to-war one for you, while stopping abortion isn’t? It seems to me that a crusade to stop the killing of unborn children is not just more important than preventing gays from entering into civil marriages; it is infinitely more important. Why is the rhetoric so militant for one but not the other?
Hi Jillybean.
They are both of the same cloth. I honor neither law.
Does that answer your question sufficiently?
cordially,
t
Jillybean, That’s a good question, and it is one I’ve asked myself. Part of the answer I think is same sex “marriage” is forcing something on the rest of us in a way that even abortion doesn’t. If forces us not only forbear but to endorse, acknowledge, accommodate. Turns out it forces some people to not merely acquiesce but to actively facilitate perversion or go to jail. We always knew it would. Abortion may be permitted and therefore a protected activity but abortion providers and abortion seekers are not a protected class the way homosexuals now are. Perhaps there is… Read more »
“Whether or not a clerk in KY has to obey Obergefell is a different question (on these facts, I believe she does).”
Kelly, where do you place her conscience in the list of things to be obeyed?
See the long “accommodation” post over in Totaliterance; once to Alex W and the other to K2 (same post but K2 had trouble finding it). If it’s not clear let me know which parts you either don’t understand or disagree with. If you have not read HandsOn winning on the t-shirts in KY against the gay pride parade, I’ll post that link again as well.
No need to post a link. A couple of sentences by way of an answer will do.
Actually, the Rev. Denison endorses Chief Justice Roberts’ statement that the Constitution “had nothing to do with” the marriage decision. It was not an interpretation and application of the Constitution.
Yes; that’s precisely why Scalia said he’d have to put his head in a bag before he could sign an opinion this bad. But if the Gang of Five says that’s what the 14th Ad means, that’s what the 14th Ad means. (Dare I repeat again “Period, Full stop?”) The Arabs have a proverb; “The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.” Sorta like “sound and fury signifying nothing.” How many semi-non-rebels on the edges of speculating about armed revolt can dance on the head of a pin? (My apologies to Dorothy Sayers. Her “The Lost Tools of Learning” circa… Read more »
In his last paragraph Haggar seems to be taking back his earlier statement that violent resistance would be appropriate in the case of the government rounding up Jews in boxcars. Now he seems to be saying that any discussion of the duty to resist should be roundly mocked “Until Gabriel gets out the horn”. Unfortunately, Haggar can’t have it both ways. Either the call for resistance to government tyranny can be legitimate at some point this side of glory, or it can’t. If it can be legitimate, then Haggar should stop mocking it outright, and begin discussing principles for resistance,… Read more »
katecho seems to be demonstrating that K2 was wrong when the logic or law prof would wait until halfway through the course to give him the note to get his tuition back from the registrar. My guess would be more like the first week. But I shouldn’t have said that. My bad. Even if it’s true. My badder. So, instead, how about you work your side of the street and I’ll work mine? Oh. Right. I forgot. The whole street is yours. And the basement. And the sky. That’s been you’ve been uniquely blessed to know what’s what. But I… Read more »
Insults won’t do. I’ll note that Haggar’s defense rested without submitting any argument, or even a clarification on the topic.
The five justices can still get all dogs to roll over because of respect for their office. If Justice Roberts asserts the constitutional illegitimacy of a Supreme Court decision, he is inviting it to be reversed.
…that which is Caesar’s. I would argue that if it has Caesar’s image on it it might be Caesar’s. I would hurriedly follow that with if it has God’s image on it then it most assuredly is God’s
And Caesar has God’s image on him. So Caesar must render himself to God.
From what i gather, she’s been divorced 3 times, married 4. And got pregnant out of wedlock. It’s the hypocrisy that kills it every time.
Hypocrisy isn’t great, but it’s better than open blasphemy.
This has been answered at length elsewhere, but the best phrase is that she didn’t follow Christianity when she wasn’t a Christian. Now she is, and she’s following it. That’s actually the opposite of hypocrisy.
By that logic nobody should stand for anything.
In a country as sinful as America we could use a few more ‘hypocrites.’
I knew a guy who died on a hill one time. Didn’t take.
nice. knew = know
I hope.
Does anybody remember what the common line of defense was at Nirenberg?
Following orders. That defense was rejected all the way back in the 1700s when King George’s goons were held accountable for serving unlawful warrants (in Britain). Our civilization has a wonderful history of resistance to unlawful authority.
It’s nice to see Kim Davis standing up for what she believes in. It’s too bad we don’t have more people like her running in other government agencies like the EPA and FDA who are more concerned with what goes into our food system instead of just lining their pocketbook and ‘getting in bed’ with people that then write bills that are destroying our food and killing us and our earth. Change has to start somewhere. Go Kim.
Honest question: If a gay couple gets married (with no help from Ms. Davis, of course), and one of them cheats on the other, is it technically adultery?
To hazard a guess, since no two men or women can be married, as that would encompass a redefinition, ANY sex they had within or out of their “marriage” is fornication.
I’m not entering into an argument, I’m just giving an answer.
No. It’s fornication with more than one person.
But this is an interesting addition to the conversation:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/sep/03/judge-declines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/
It doesn’t directly involve technicalities regarding adultery, but divorce, and it brings in the lesser magistrate concept.
That’s an interesting addition, all right. If Christian family court judges take the lesser magistrate doctrine seriously, shouldn’t they refuse all divorces except in case of adultery, regardless of state law on the subject?
I think that–divorce–is a better way to argue against Davis than asking if should deny marriages to cohabiting or unscripturally divorced heterosexuals.
I’m not saying it’s *right*, but that’s a better question, at least to me.
Well….if the clerk has anything to do with divorce, I guess..
If not, then ne’er mind what I just said.
Sodomy isn’t sex and “gay marriage” isn’t marriage, so no.
Sodomy isn’t sex? I somehow think that if a gay person made a sexual proposition to you, you’d consider it sex.
Sodomy isn’t sex for the same reason that triangles don’t have four corners.
I hope that quote isn’t copyrighted cause I’d like to use it.
Pretty sure that Pastor Wilson has said something of that variety several times on this blog.
It is under the UCMJ (or was during my time). For both gays and straights. And regardless of the variation. Hence code talk, such the shoulder patches of O-2 (forward air control) guys in ‘Nam. Mil version of the Cessna 337 “Skymaster.” Google an O-2 pix you’ll figure it out.
When I was in the Navy, back in the days before the earth’s crust cooled, the NIS had an entire division devoted to finding gays and expelling them from the service. In those days, gays discreetly identified themselves as “Friends of Dorothy,” which of course is a reference to the Wizard of Oz. This came to the attention of NIS, which concluded that there was a woman named Dorothy at the hub of a vast network of homosexuals, and they promply launched an investigation to find her. Somewhere at the Pentagon there exists a file on the hunt for Dorothy.… Read more »
Or he’d consider it a request to be permitted to assault him.
Kim Davis ordered to jail. Now if the bailiff would just refuse to take her into custody, clerks refuse to process the arrest. It should be impossible to force San Francisco morality on Kentucky.
Even if the bailiff doesn’t refuse this time, it seems to me that this is but a taste of nullifications to come (from all sides and all parties). This is what happens when a government squanders its legitimacy, writes checks that it can’t cover, and refuses to give homage to the Son, as King of kings. Such governments lose control, and things begin to unravel. Tyranny is a reaction against this unraveling. It could get really ugly.
I would not assume that a majority of Kentuckians share your views. Maybe they do, but I wouldn’t bet the rent on it.
Neither should Krychek_2 assume that Christ’s victory over the whole earth is contingent on having a majority of Kentuckians in 2015 who share His view. God is patient.
When Christ decides to come back and enforce his victory over the United States of America we can have this discussion. Until then, the First Amendment prohibits you from making law based on nothing but “God says we need to do this.”
1) When Christ returns, discussion time will be over. Now is the time discern and act.
2) “You gotta serve somebody.” True freedom is found where Christ’s victory gives life.
3) God’s moral commands for civic life make abundant sense. Their wisdom justifies them in addition his “say so.” There is a basis for them even on your misapplication of the First Amendment.
18And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inb the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
That reads to me like a directive from the King.
It does sound like a directive from a king, doesn’t it? Then again, the pronouncements of Buddha and Mohammad and Joseph Smith and even Jim Jones also sounded like directives from a king. How shall we know who really has divine authority and who is only faking? You should have quoted from the end of Mark instead of the end of Matthew: And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these… Read more »
I submitted the quote from Mathew intentionally. It really does not matter what Buddha, Joseph, or Jim had to say as none of them are the King and Jesus is.
Why did you choose the Matthew version instead of Mark? Is it perhaps because you didn’t want to point out all the promises that aren’t fulfilled? Is it because you didn’t want me to ask you to drink deadly poison as proof of your authority?
You say Jesus is a king, while other religious leaders aren’t. Yet you can’t do any of the things Jesus said you could do to show that he is the king.
Jesus being King is not dependent on my ability to do anything. He simply is. As to why I chose The verse from Matthew let me type real slow. I chose that verse due to the fact that in my estimation it most clearly illustrated my point which is. The King has given a set of instructions and those who understand Him to be King have an obligation to obey. In fact they, your truly included, have no authority to do otherwise. Attempting to redirect the conversation has a very limited efficacy with most folk on this blog. I suggest… Read more »
It doesn’t matter how slow you type, you’re still ignoring my point. There’s lots of folks out there who claim to be the king. Before I blindly obey one of them I’d like to know how he backs up that claim of being the king. Unlike Matthew, the passage in Mark has some signs that will accompany Jesus’s followers, to give weight to this idea that we should swear fealty to him. I’m not redirecting anything, you just like to ignore the issue, and I don’t see how this conversation will go any further if you just keep saying “He’s… Read more »
“Why did you choose the Matthew version instead of Mark? Is it perhaps because you didn’t want to point out all the promises that aren’t fulfilled? Is it because you didn’t want me to ask you to drink deadly poison as proof of your authority?” I am ignoring nothing except perhaps the bait bits you like to throw out. If you are truly interested in why or how I understand Jesus to be King that is a matter I would enjoy discussing. I am not going to engage however,over the premise that I chose one verse over anther in order… Read more »
Physeter would be correct if somehow Christ were not yet ascended to the throne of the right hand of the Father. But Christ is ascended. He is ruling the nations now, with a rod of iron, until all His enemies come to the feet of mercy. To mention this fact to earthly kings and rulers gets their attention in a way that no little private mystery cult does. They are often quite threatened to discover that there is a King over them. The way that Christ’s rule comes about is not through our carnal activities to try to grasp political… Read more »
To mention this fact to earthly kings and rulers gets their attention in a way that no little private mystery cult does. They are often quite threatened to discover that there is a King over them. I would argue that the earthly rulers are bothered by armed people who BELIEVE there’s an invisible king giving orders, not so much by the existence or non-existence of this king in real life. The only difference between a “little private mystery cult” and a powerful legitimate religion is the number of people who believe in it. The way that Christ’s rule comes about… Read more »
When Christ decides to come back and enforce his victory over the United States of America we can have this discussion.
We will have it now. You will lose the war.
So you keep saying. And yet you only respond to me with human arguments and not with power.
Yes. I respond to the Holy Spirit. He is doing important work now. My job right now is to speak the truth clearly and without apology. If He says “Go” I will go. If He says “sit in jail” I will sit in jail.
My sense is that there is a world of hurt and pain headed America’s way followed by repentance and renewal–from sea to shining sea.
I hope I live to see it. I love this country. It is my earthly home.
hth
That’s a nice sentiment, but I don’t know how that has anything to do with what I said or the conversation in general. I guess I prefer you talking to yourself at me rather than you actively yelling at me or berating me, so I appreciate that.
You wrote:
When Christ decides to come back and enforce his victory over the United States of America we can have this discussion.
I responded. It is nice that you try to demand how we must defeat you, but I decline your advice. I will follow the living God.
Is that clear? or do you need further explanation of my response to you?
UPDATE: My apologies. I did not include your quote in my original response. Without that context, my comment was gibberish.
Your comments are still gibberish. I was having an interesting conversation with the first two guys, but I still don’t know what you’re trying to say.
Five of the six deputy clerks have said they will issue legal marriage certificates if they get the opportunity. The Kentucky Trial Court Review claims to have done an interview with the Rowan County Attorney, who says Kim Davis “does not represent” Rowan County and is not representative of its inclusive values. The majority of Kentuckians are still on Kim Davis’s side, but they are declining. More and more people are coming around to equality, even in rural states.
More and more people where coming around to abortion too. This sin is no different.
God is love and this perversion of His world will not persevere. Your appeal to numbers is a 1/2 mile wide and a 1/2 inch deep.
God Wins.
According to NBC, District Court Judge David Bunning has said, “Davis is bound by an oath of office to perform her duties under the law, and ordered that she be jailed until she complied with his order to grant licenses.”
Is that true? If so she could be spending a very long time behind bars.
And if that’s true then we all need to stop blogging and start writing her letters of encouragement, arranging visits and providing adequate support for any dependants.
Various distinct loud sounds in the direction of Bunning are also in order.
I believe a secular judge has rendered the correct decision.
But those who support her should NOT “stop blogging.” Instead you should use very comm tool you have to send support to her.
Kelly, when you read, “stop blogging”, try and imagine me saying, “Less talk, more action”, or, “let’s put some loving hands and feet on our faith”.
Please continue to blog.
Not my day; missed that take as well. And my tact buffer is still off line.
Well, at least you’re friendly about it.
“Lord, but I was a secular judge and not bound by Your Magistrate. Why doth Thou hammer me so?”
Let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture. SCOTUS will not be present on the day of judgement. Bunning will be.
But I repeat myself.
I read on National Review that under the legal reasoning of Employment Division v. Smith, people in Kim Davis’s position can’t claim first amendment protection. Could you explain to me why this is so? Thanks!
Charlie Cooke, right? This sentence? “Nor, currently, does supplementary federal law permit objectors such as herself to hand over controversial parts of their jobs to someone else.” I posted over there, looking for a case standing for that proposition. I think Cooke is mistaken on that point. (I agree with the rest of his article.) That I know of, the only two lawyers/JDs on this blog are yours truly and K2. We both agree she could have done an “accommodation” – – allowed a deputy to sign – – and stayed in compliance with the court order, kept her job,… Read more »
This is absurd. Who here would celebrate the Muslim clerk who refused to issue drivers licenses to women? Or the Mormon polygamist who happily added a “+1” to the marriage license? Secular Government cannot work if each cog in the machine is encouraged to put their own ‘religious views’ into play in any given scenario. What part of separation of Church and State is being lost to Doug Wilson and his supporters?
That’s why everyone is better off when Muslims live in Muslim countries. Diversity leads to moral and cultural leveling and totalitarian government.
Or it might lead to a pluralistic society in which nobody gets to use the government for their own particular religious hobbyhorse.
Name some.
Krychek_2 probably doesn’t count secular humanism as a religion. That would be his particular hobbyhorse. He just thinks he is all sweetness and neutrality.
Secular humanism is the absence of religion, so by definition it can’t be a religion. Kind of like not collecting stamps isn’t a hobby. I know, katecho probably disagrees, and he can believe that secular humanism is a religion if it makes him feel better.
Ye of little faith. If a federal court can declare homosex “marriage”, then the declaration of non-religions to be protected religions is a cake walk. Krychek_2 may need to consult with his arbitrary definitional authorities again. Judge Haggerty, of the federal district court of Oregon declared on October 30, 2014 in the case of the American Humanist Association vs U.S. that, “The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes”. You can’t make this stuff up. Is this where I get to say that Krychek_2 can believe that secular humanism is not a religion if it… Read more »
Yes, “for Establishment Clause purposes” secular humanism is a religion. Just as for purposes of various federal regulatory statutes, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are states. They aren’t actually states, just as secular humanism isn’t actually a religion, but when the law has a specific purpose in mind, sometimes treating something as if it were something else makes sense from an efficiency standpoint. So, why might it make sense to consider SH a religion for establishment clause purposes? Because the law treats it as if it were a religion. The government is not allowed to either give it… Read more »
Unfortunately for Krychek_2, the Judge didn’t say that secular humanism is “like a religion”. He declared that secular humanism “is a religion”; just like another federal court declared that homorelations is marriage. I realize that the judge defined it that way for Establishment Clause purposes, but he did define it that way. (“Period. Full Stop.”, as Haggar would say, right?) So the problem is not with my reading skills. It seems that Krychek_2 wants to take his federal court rulings selectively. That’s not exactly neutral. By the way, we actually don’t have to rely on the courts. If there is… Read more »
It is — for establishment clause purposes. Not for any other purposes. Insanity has different meanings for a psychiatrist, a layperson, or a criminal defense attorney trying to use it as a defense. In fact, the legal definition of insanity, for criminal law purposes, bears almost no resemblance to a medical understanding of the term. And just think this through for a minute. Secular humanism is the teaching that God isn’t necessary to ethics, morality or anything else. It’s the absence of religion. To then say that the absence of something, is merely a different form of that something, is… Read more »
Krychek_2 forgot to include “for tax purposes” too.
My how Krychek_2 has changed his tune. Let’s review how far we’ve come. Krychek_2, in full stride upon his hobbyhorse, first wrote:
By definition it can’t be a religion, unless it can be a religion, for tax purposes, then it can be. Got it. It’s kind of like how not collecting stamps can’t be a hobby, by definition, unless a federal court says it is a hobby. Now, what was the court saying about marriage?
Ok, now you’re equivocating. You’re taking a word that means one thing in one context and trying to make it mean the same thing in a different context. I assume you’re smart enough to know better and you’re just yanking my chain, but at this point I probably shouldn’t take that for granted.
If you honestly don’t know that context matters and words mean different things in different contexts, then you must have a very interesting Biblical hermeneutic.
On the contrary, it seems to me that Krychek_2 does think, in one corner of his brain, that secular humanism can’t be a religion, by definition, but in another part of his brain he thinks it can be a religion, for tax purposes and legal purposes. It’s a curious cognitive dissonance.
Somewhere else in Krychek_2’s brain, he thinks his selective behavior is neutral, and not at all self-serving. But above all, he thinks any lack of faith in his definitions is my fault.
So the government must recognize secular humanism as a religion for free exercise purposes, but the government is not forbidden to establish secularism in law! How convenient!
Well said.
Ostensibly, America. Or is a Theocracy only awesome as long as your religious sect is in charge? The same people who support Kim Davis scream the loudest against “Sharia Law” invading their neighborhoods. The hypocrisy is palpable.
This illustrates how diversity is used as a weapon against American religion and culture. Import Muslims and then say “Oh well, we can’t play favorites. The only solution is banishing all religions but progressive universalism.” I have nothing against Sharia law in Muslim countries.
That’s the direction in which the United States is heading. And make no mistake, 90% of the time when Christians complain about persecution, what they’re really complaining about is either that they’re not being given special privileges, or they’re not being allowed to impose their choices on other people. On occasion someone really does suffer for being a Christian, but the lion’s share of the time, no. This clerk is an example of that. She wants the special privilege of being able to re-write her job description to suit her religion. Nobody else gets to do that. If I tried,… Read more »
And that is why there will be war.
I think you have it backwards. The clerk is not innovating based on her religion. The new order is the innovation. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never mandated absolute separation of religion and state. Government can even fund religion within certain parameters.
Separation of Church and State doesn’t mean separation of God and State. The State will always have its obligation and duty to give homage to Jesus Christ as King, or perish in the way. Rather separation of Church and State refers to the separate spheres of authority that each has been given by God. The State was given the sword as minister of God’s wrath and justice. The Church was not given the sword to keep standing armies, etc. The Church was given God’s tribute as a charity purse for the truly poor and needy. The Church was given jurisdiction… Read more »
It sounds to me like you are advocating for a Judeo-Christian (probably more the latter than former) Theocracy here in the USA. If that’s the case, might as well go ahead and be plain. If I’m misreading you, then … but I really don’t think I’m misreading you.
I can assure you the vast majority of Americans are not eagerly waiting to sign on to your particular brand of lunacy. I’d rather take my chances with the Secular State.
joe_chip seems to be new here, but I have been plain. I believe, without shame, that Christ is enthroned as King of kings, and Lord of lords, which makes the whole earth His theocracy. God extends His invitation to all kings and rulers to bring homage to the Son, or perish in the way (Psalm 2). The nations and kingdoms of the earth are being claimed by Christ as His rightful inheritance, and this will be accomplished through the Gospel. It’s not something that Christians have to bring about in our own carnal strength. The zeal of the Lord accomplishes… Read more »
Well, I must give kudos (delicious) where due, this is about as plain as it gets. We will have to agree to disagree that this is a proper way for humans to run a government composed of all kinds of people with all manner of (conflicting) religious beliefs. If everyone thought as you did there would be no issue, of course.
Secular government cannot work for very long. It will simply default to the same old winner-takes-all system that most countries have.
France for instance is the poster boy of secularism and it is rapidly Mohamedizing.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Don’t expect one created by secularizing Christian states to go long unfilled.
Quakers have no problems with guns. Quakers use guns all the time to hunt for food or to defend their chicken coup from a fox.
… or maybe a faux.
Spot on post!
Religious liberty for all, is a political fiction, and finds no support in Scripture.
That said, Jefferson’s concept of religious liberty was predicated on the power of preaching: “And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error”
Christ specifically told his preachers, “You are the salt of the earth”, that is, its preservative.
Market forces, introduced by the disestablishment of state churches, have effectively rendered “salty” preaching inert.
As for which hill to fight/die on: You can’t always pick the hill. Sometimes you can line up your artillery on the high ground above the Rappahannock outside Fredericksburg, sometimes you have to attack Cemetery Hill. But when you can choose the hill, you choose wisely — even when that means you start by beating a retreat from the nearest hill. In this context, that means picking the hill which is most likely to produce (1) a good test case, with the sympathetic people on your side and particular facts that place your argument in the best possible light, and… Read more »
I just can’t imagine the Apostles having that conversation. I can imagine Kim being so moved by conscience that she would make her stand where she did. I can imagine a Spirit filled believer being so full of zeal for the Lord’s House that they would do what others would mock and scorn.
I would have said the opposite, David. I would have said we defend people first, organisations last.
The command is to love thy neighbour not love thy abstraction.
If you are a believer, defend Kim. She is your sister.
This isn’t a matter of defending organizations over people. The “organizations” I named include many people. This discussion is about whether we jeopardize the lives of a lot of people for one, or whether we leave the one for the sake of the many. I am a Christian, not a utilitarian — so I do believe that sometimes the many should be prepared to go to battle, and even to certain death, for the one. And that, occasionally, a Christian general is justified in adjusting his battle tactics to cover the un-ordered charge of one soldier, even where the adjustment… Read more »
The German Christians did not resist the lawful and legal orders to exterminate the Jews for similar reasons to your posts.
Kim Davis is following the Constitution, not an illegal decision of that document. Now if you haven’t noticed recently, Federal Judges are frequently making up their decisions out of the clear blue. The rule of law in America is rapidly passing away and Christians are blind to that fact. Of course, the fact that the Bible forbids homosexual marriage is a point that is missed also and has been for years.
Thanks for a clear headed reply. My only area of difference would be in maintaining Kim’s right to choose to act according to her conscience on Christian grounds. Whatever is not from faith is sin.
You may not pitch your tent on the same hill but I would not critisise her in this particular case for where she has pitched hers.
If she had said, after signing off each pretense of marriage and responded to their thank you’s with, “Please, don’t thank me. It gives me no pleasure to seal your judgement.” I would have also not criticised her.
Don’t think in terms of “test cases”, think in terms of 4GW.
Here is a good article on this issue from NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423376/kentucky-clerk-marriage-licenses-supreme-court
The key quote:
“Kim Davis committed a lawless act. But so did Justice Kennedy. His superior power and influence does not change that salient fact. The American people are indeed “ruled,” but increasingly it is by men, not law.”
I find it apropos that the illustration used was that of cannibalism. You Christians can talk about the law but love to break it. Why is it not wrong to eat other people? What if your child or mother died and there was no need to waste the body to the ground when you could cook and eat them? You believe that it’s wrong to eat humans based on what? Please show me scripture to back this up. Do you not read the scripture that reminds you that the first sin was food related! Does the King of the Universe… Read more »
Why is it not wrong to eat other people?
Baby parts are wasted food.
This lady just made my job much more difficult. She did not have to do this and I do not believe her actions to be biblically defensible. If anyone compares this lady’s actions to those that suffered under Nazi rule, I WILL SCREAM.
How has she made your job more difficult?
This is more like Rome where Caesar demanded a pinch of incense as acknowledgment that Caesar was a deity. Our forebears who refused this where fed to the lions.
Those forebears are in Heaven now watching with rapt eagerness and prayer at how we will respond now that your state has declared itself above God.
Please. Scream.
Give me a break! She was in a job where the demands of the job changed in a way that violated her conscience. She is free to find work elsewhere. No one threatened her life, demanded she worship Caesar, deny Christ or anything like that. The very fact that she was handing out government licenses to marry in the first place set her up, set all of us up, to have to deal with sodomites and “marriage” in the same sentence. Perhaps if she had stood for biblical principles in the first and refused to issue government documents for marriage.… Read more »
The argument that a free man should not have to seek a license to marry is a strong one. I have not (nor can I) think through the implications. I will give it an attentive ear and weigh the evidence. The requirements in Scripture nowhere include permission from Caesar. She is now in jail for refusing to “do her job” endorsing sin. What this is is rebellion. It is this one person saying I will not be of your country but of His country. Let’s go to the next one–Brandon Eich–inventor of javascript run out of Mozilla for donating to… Read more »
Where God reveals it in the Scriptures. BTW, No where am I forbidden from becoming as rich as Trump, lawyering up and suing wrongdoers. This is in fact, the way that many have won rights for homeschoolers etc. Nothing is stopping me from getting into politics and thereby becoming a lawmaker. You do err by your examples. They are random and not related in subject. Mozilla was legal and they took a huge hit financially. But, are they not free as a company to hate whomever they want? Doctor forced to abort? Where? What are you talking about? Soldier refuses… Read more »
It seems to me that if marriage shouldn’t be handled by the government, then she should shirk all of her job duties regarding the authorization of marriage in order to give glory to God. And not because of her religious beliefs, but because those particular job duties are illegitimate. Whether she resigns or allows herself to be imprisoned is up to her.
She was elected. She is also still popular. It appears that she represents her people quite well. The Federal Judge who put her in jail has just declared Natural Law null-and-void.
What the heck are you blathering about? We have here a new instance of the pagan state vs the Christian populace. This is a clear instance for the doctrine of the lesser magistrate. We have a relatively easy chance to push back compared to what our brothers and sisters who are being murdered do.
We can draw a clear, bright line. Go muddy your own water. I will stand.
Ms. Davis did, actually, cease issuing marriage certificates to all couples in June.
Kim is off to prison… and your job has just been made harder. You poor bastard (as we Australians would affectionately say). We must send you a care package, a hamper, perhaps a pre-loved teabag.
“The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning told Rowan County clerk Kim Davis.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/03/federal-judge-says-hes-above-natural-law-as-he-tosses-clerk-kim-davis-in-jail/
He get’s the tense of the verb incorrect. “would be” should be “is”. Here the “esteemed” judge is correct. It is dangerous; especially for petty tyrants.
Choose this day who you will serve. I stand with Kim Davis in service to our Lord.
I love it when the magistrate does the preaching. Clearly Kim’s actions are not mundane. They are threatening. To whom I wonder? The Christian cause or the secular cause?
Bunning’s quote has made my day. Ah, the iritation of natural law. May God keep Kim in His perfect peace.
Hebrews 13:3 Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body.
If anybody has information on where I can send a letter of prayer and encouragement to Kim Davis, please post it.
Thank you.