Introduction:
In times like these, what do we do to prepare ourselves? If a moment of “defiance” is going to come, what should we do to get ready? This is an appropriate question in the wake of these Planned Parenthood videos, because it is quite possible that the moment has already come.
How should we think? Some Christians think we should drop everything and get involved because the secularists are taking over America and we have to get organized and stop them. Other Christians disparage political involvement and say we should get back to “preaching the gospel”—but the gospel they want to preach is as impotent as might be expected. In contrast to both these options, we assert the duty of the Church in preaching a world-transforming gospel, a gospel that will take our unbelieving culture, turn it upside down, and shake it until all the change falls out of its pockets.
The Text:
“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:13-16).
True Recovery:
Before we recover our freedoms, we must recover our sanity. But this will never happen outside the presence of the Most High God. And His presence is ministered to us in the biblical worship of the saints as we gather to sing, hear, preach, and feast at His Table. That is the context of all that follows.
The Heresy of the Lowest Common Denominator:
For well over a century, evangelical Christians have sought unity by minimizing truth (because truth “divides” you know), and we want to be united. This is particularly obvious in political coalition building—we do not talk about what divides us so that we can get on with the business of “lobbying.” But this refusal to talk about what divides us is actually a refusal to talk about what is wrong with us. And this we do because we are unwilling to repent of our sins.
We say to the unbelieving world that it must repent of its great and grievous sins. What would we say if they replied (as they could, and do), “you are the Church. Show us how.”
A sick and dying culture needs the maximum amount of truth, which never comes in teaspoon doses.
A Future and a Hope:
These videos are simply God’s return volley to the Obergefell decision. What did God say to Israel in exile? “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer. 29:11, ESV). In the conclusion of his opinion in Obergefell, Scalia wrote this prescient sentence.
“With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court – we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”
That is what is happening right now. Our nation acquiesced to Roe, which we should not have done. That acquiescence makes the entire nation complicit, but God in His great mercy has presented us with an opportunity to repent of that complicity. In 1973, we saw Gross Constitutional Overreach A, and we did nothing. In 2015, Gross Constitutional Overreach B arrived, as it had to, given A, and then God—whose mercies are everlasting—gave us an opportunity to react to A the way we should have the first time. We are now being given an opportunity to undo Roe and to do so by direct action.
A Salty Church:
Before the world will glorify our Father in heaven, we need the miracle of restored saltiness. And what will that be like?
It will be characterized by potency in the gospel—we must always keep an undiluted gospel central. “ . . . but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:23-25). This is effective, but not in a way which the worldly enjoy. “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26).
It will be characterized by true wisdom —the way back will not be shown to us by the various evangelical pollsters, church growth experts, consultants, managers, handlers, suits and haircuts, those always sure to cluster around any work that looks like it might make a buck—because they are in business, and in business, the customer is always right. But we are not in business, and we have no customers here, only sinners and forgiven saints. Our clear duty is to present the scandal and offensiveness of the truth both winsomely and pungently. “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Col. 4:6).
It must be characterized by glory in worship —as we shine the light of worship in the world, we teach the world to worship. When we do this, we teach the kings of the earth the meaning of worship. Princes also shall worship . . . (Is. 49:6-7).
It will be characterized by forgivenness that laughs—this is the great lesson. Our first temptation is to be oblivious to the claims of Christ. Then, when they are borne in on us, we are tempted to a spiritual despair. But this is not the call of God.
“And Nehemiah, who was the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, This day is holy to the Lord your God; do not mourn nor weep. ‘For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the Law. Then he said to them, ‘Go your way, eat the fat, drink the sweet, and send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not sorrow, for the joy of the Lord is your strength’” (Neh. 8:9-10).
I enjoyed the post, but am flummoxed as to what part of it addresses disobedience, even indirectly.
The post is mostly pious platitudes and mumbo jumbo.
Then why does it interest you so deeply? My impression on glancing over your work here is that you’re afraid Wilson is actually on to something and want to discourage it.
If we reverse that, we could say “why does McD’s comments interest others so deeply…my impression on glancing over their work is that they are afraid he is actually on to something and want to discourage it.” Could be–some do fight with truth or wrestle on what is truth when it doesn’t match our paradigm, theological comfort zones or cultural biases–but could be also for some that maybe each believe the other is on to the WRONG or dangerous something and want to discourage it. Shouldn’t that interest us deeply, too? And since it’s an open forum…and the moderator hasn’t… Read more »
Then why does it interest you so deeply? My impression on glancing over your work here is that you’re afraid Wilson is actually on to something and want to discourage it. That’s amusing. On to what, exactly? Did you even read this blog post? Or any of the others Rev. Wilson has written concerning Obergefell? If you have, please show me some concrete, actionable ideas he’s put forth for overturning Obergefell, which is what I’ve been focused on in my comments, more than the PP stuff. There’s lots of happy talk, lost of pseudospiritual mumbo jumbo, but from what I’ve… Read more »
“If you have, please show me some concrete, actionable ideas he’s put forth for overturning Obergefell, which is what I’ve been focused on in my comments, ” I think after a few weeks here, I’m getting closer to understanding some of their reasoning or focus… 1) they are thinking more in their Bible/faith circle. So…they see the point A moral outrage at Roe leading to the point B moral outrage Oberg (or that because A happened, no doubt B happened). These are what they consider the worst of the worst of our nations’ depravity in legalized action. And if we… Read more »
What’s a bible circle?
I regret to say I cannot link you to that wonderful thread of comments since they’ve been removed. However some of us use the legal/Bible (faith) circle terminology that Kelly introduced/recommended to keep our conversation a bit clearer, focused, and a little less volatile by differentiating our concerns in cultural/moral/legal conversation. Here is his first quotation about the circles (about a month ago on the “Sermon for Five” thread: —————- All, A few months ago I started to prepare a sort of “1st Ad Law for Dummies” or maybe better phrased as “Pretty Much Everyone Presumes We’re Getting a Kennedy… Read more »
I see. Thanks.
So what you really want is to overturn Loving? Surely that’s not the first instance of the Supreme Court overreaching itself. Couldn’t you go back farther? I bet Wilson would agree about Loving being bad for exactly the reasons you name. I doubt it’s worth his time though. So what if the enemy holds territory a hundred miles from the front? This is where the fighting is right now and pining over remote territory doesn’t get us any closer to it.
Rob, Loving and Obergefell are the exact same battle – does SCOTUS have the authority to invalidate state marriage laws on anti-discrimination grounds, or doesn’t it? That’s the question, and there’s only one question, no matter how many times you guys insist there are two separate questions, and they’re “a hundred miles” apart. You’re just being silly, frankly. Good luck with it. Do I want to overturn Loving? No. Nor do I seek to overturn Obergefell. Or Roe v Wade. As someone far wiser than me once said, “Let the dead bury their dead.” I’m only on here to provide… Read more »
“I’m only on here to provide color commentary.”
Why are we so blessed?
Couldn’t the question be what should be considered a protected class? In other words couldn’t the question be whether sexual orientation should be considered as a characteristic for a protected class?
Susan, as I read it, the point made its that biblical disobedience requires id’s first to be repentant, committed to the gospel in all of puts potency, faithful in worship and note despairing when our sins are exposed but rather rejoicing in the mercy of God… Including the merciful opportunities God is giving people now to repent.
Susan,
My take is that we are to be Christians in full. That mere act is disobedience.
For example, the fools on the court have said that we can teach our faith, but we cannot practice our faith. Since our allegiance is to God we are disobeying the fools in black merely by being who we are.
Its a lot of fun, actually. Also, it drives the pagan idiots bonkers!
Opening lines: “In times like these, what do we do to prepare ourselves? If a moment of “defiance” is going to come, what should we do to get ready?” I enjoyed the post, too, but am flummoxed on the following paragraph. So if you have any ideas… 1. “Our nation acquiesced to Roe, which we should not have done.” Does he mean the nation’s depravity was the acquiescence that led to Roe? Or that we as a nation acquiesced to the SCOTUS Roe ruling. We should not have done either, of course, but if he means the latter, what does… Read more »
And, I’ve searched for more about this that was mentioned, but can’t find info. I’d be interested in a link or for Wilson to verify and explain how this might work into how we view our responsibilities in preserving what we can of the Constitution and/or disobedience.
“IIRC Pastor Wilson has
argued that American government was the first(?) to be formed as a
covenant before God with God as a party to it. Since God does not
abandon His part of the bargain, we will be restored after our
judgement.
Where does he find this, Alex? Sorry to ask for ancient history in this blog, but is there a historical event he considers covenant ratification or is it read in to the events?
Actually, this quote is from Timothy under “Stonewall Trailer Round Two”
during Malachi’s “America is Covered with Divine Awesome Sauce” discussion.
I tried to find more about it with internet searching, but didn’t see anything specific enough to help. Have similar questions as you. Very interested in knowing more.
Oy, did he really say that? That sounds like some pretty severe home team bias. I wouldn’t count on any restoration after judgement any more than I would expect the Byzantine empire to be restored. I don’t want to be too critical without seeing the original citation but I’m finding some pretty odd ideas cropping up under the cover of “covenant” theology.
Oy, indeed. Which is why I had to further inquire after seeing it mentioned a few days ago. See my response to Josh. If you find out more, lemme know :)
I saw your comment on the lack of knowledge of world history and I couldn’t agree more. We have a lot of history to learn from including 2000 years of Christendom. Several Christian empires have come to an end over that period including, most recently, the British empire. I know that the feeling among many American evangelicals is that those weren’t REAL Christians so that history doesn’t count but I think that’s just another sign of ignorance. We should also note that sometimes bad things happen to good people. I can’t think of anything that 14th century Europe did to… Read more »
Given America’s “cool and/or easy to be Christian” Christianity…and then Christianity morphing so that when it should have been harder to be one, we still looked virtuous–cloaked in our updated religious dogma–in not being so “peculiar a people”….
I like to imagine years ahead when we are someone’s World History consideration in years to come… and imagine their quizzical brows wondering if WE were REAL Christians.
i.e. I hope they won’t write us all off as we have a tendency to write off those that have gone before :)
Round 2 of my take on “American acquiescence” to abortion. For that purpose, one of the most interesting things found on bin-Laden’s bookshelf was “Terror Franchise: the Unstoppable Assassin,” both an appeal to new recruits and a justification for what we in the West would consider unjustified attacks on non-combatants. At the top of pg 4, it pounds on ordinary voters for tolerating gays and abortion, where both SSM and abortions are “satanic practices,” saying: [Note: the original has a lot of bold words and phrases which I could not import.] It is the VOTERS, who choose their leaders who… Read more »
Wait, I’m confused. Are they for or against Blair?
Usama was against Blair. He was a puppet/willing accomplice of the ‘Muricans who were killing Moslems while hiding in B-52s or by using remotely piloted drones. So Usama was happy when he left office.
BTW, check this out, then ask yourself how much MORE compliant and “multi-cultural” a Blair gummit could have been from 1997 to 2007 (his time in office as PM) while THIS was going on:
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013)
Information relating to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham
Size: 2.05 MB
Extension: PDF
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham
Mind twisting stuff…need to read a few more times to see if what stood out to me the first time is worth asking you about…
And…moving your Part I down here…to help me keep up…
“Not that I’ve observed. It’s
why Roe is a “super precedent” when it’s not a litmus test. In the same
way that Dred Scott did not settle slavery, and Casey did not settle
abortion, neither will Obergefell settle gay marriage”.
Notice how carefully Paul studied his various audiences. That’s why Paul worked so hard at being all things to all people. Romans, Jews, philosophers, blue collar workers . . . what makes these people tick? How can I reach them? He had to know of the old Jewish proverb, “A fool convinces me with his reasons; the wise man with my own.” Recall Schiendler grabbing the little Jewish girl away from the young soldier who wants to kill her instead of allowing her on the train. He holds her small hand up to soldier’s face; “Can your fat fingers fit… Read more »
Susan, As far as the concept that SCOTUS has said we can teach our faith but not practice it…here is Kelly’s expounding on this topic a while back on the “Ghouls” post. I think there is still a tension on the court so that some care about the danger (something to be glad about). I do not consider all of SCOTUS to be in agreement with the direction. And I also think those of any faith or no-faith should be concerned. —- Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell, slip opinion page 27: Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those… Read more »
Romans 7:15-19 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19… Read more »
Sorry, Rev. Wilson, but this is just more happy talk, pious platitudes, intellectual dishonesty, and one heapin’ helpin’ of pseudospiritual mumbo jumbo. Remember, kids – any article, sermon, or book which purports to tell us “how we got here” with respect to Obergefell and same-sex marriage and doesn’t mention Loving v Virginia and interracial marriage is blatant intellectual dishonesty. It’s not a “difference in emphasis” or anything like that; it’s nothing but a studied refusal to admit the truth because the truth is unpleasant. Before the world will glorify our Father in heaven, we need the miracle of restored saltiness.… Read more »
Gregory, you seem to be stuck on this whole Loving thing. It reveals a misunderstanding of the gospel and of the Christians who are seeking to live by it. SCOTUS is incidental. Current circumstances may just as easily have come about through referendum, some Levites with swords, Nero’s fiddle or a game of poker. Our interest is godliness. We are not in favour of sin and it’s sin that we have a problem with as we join the dots between Roe and Obergefell – not constitutional funny business. The funny business is secondary. Now, you may say that many Christians… Read more »
If I attempt to explain “how we got here” and fail to mention one of Vespucci, Cortez, Erikkson, Madoc, Sinclair, la Salle, de Soto, Narvaez, Raleigh, or Smith, but focus only on Columbus, would you feel similarly justified in lambasting me for the intellectual dishonesty of leaving out these important explorers?
Or, if I say, “Hey, you’re absolutely right about Loving” would you please stop bringing it up? There’s a reason we grab the needle when our records start skipping…
Please tell me you’re not really still playing records?
Dude, compact discs are where it’s at.
I cannot give compact disks to my choir students for rehearsal anymore because they no longer have CD players. Today it is all done by computer and sent to their iphones!
In terms of legal precedent, you’re obviously right about Loving. But rhetorically, you’re tryin’ to pound nails with a screwdriver.
No; you’ve got me confused with Rev. Wilson. He’s the one, along with just about every other Christian leader, who’s trying to pound the nail of Obergefell with the screwdriver of Roe, instead of using the hammer of Loving.
That’s a sword that’s going to turn in your hands and skewer you.
Yikes!
ashv, Chase the “legal analysis” of the “one semester of Bible college” to your heart’s content. Just don’t labor under the illusion that McDivitt’s “legal analysis” is worth even what you paid for it. On second thought, why in the world would any of you bother to respond to his “legal analysis?” Now his theological comments? – – fine – – different story. No needs an ordination to have an opinion about something in the Bible, just as no one need be an attorney to have an opinion about what the law OUGHT to be. But, start spouting what the… Read more »
Kelly, are you planning to sue me?
Of course not.
But now I’m curious . . . even within the Law According to McD, WHAT possible cause of action can even you on your most highly fevered day manage to conjure up?
Reply #1 seems to have been deleted. Here’s a second – – and much milder – – reply:
No, I’m not. Why would you think I might, and on what grounds?
test msg No I’m not but that “test” was the first of three tries to show up and stay. No clue why the first two disappeared.
4th try – No.
You’re wrong about more than a little. But in this post of yours I couldn’t get past the wrongness about “how we got here”. The essay linked below (1) doesn’t mention Loving, and (2) is not intellectually dishonest and (3) explains pretty well how we got here.
https://theopolisinstitute.com/before-obergefell-some-thoughts-on-how-we-got-here/
Anyway, do you have a positive point to argue that you can state in sentence or two – or are you really just here for color commentary?
Hopefully not the latter; that would be sort of sad.
A sentence or two? Should we limit our comments to 140 characters now? The essay linked below (1) doesn’t mention Loving It certainly doesn’t. (2) is not intellectually dishonest Yes, it is. But not in the same exact way as people who keep insisting that Roe, not Loving, was the legal precedent that led to Obergefell. This article isn’t discussing the same thing I’m discussing. You’re trying to compare apples and oranges. (3) explains pretty well how we got here No, it doesn’t. Not from a legal/judicial standpoint. It doesn’t even try. Again, apples and oranges. Your first point is… Read more »
I was ignorant of your position. I must have missed it among your many one-liners. I honestly wanted a summary of your position – not a tweet. Just a thesis statement. You provided some of that. I think your thesis statement would be: (1) Judicially, we didn’t get here from Roe. (2) Judicially, we got here from Loving. Is that about it? And more generally, I’m also honestly trying to discern if you really want to advance your position or just critique and criticize others. Do you want to build something up or tear something down? A lot of your… Read more »
Yes, that’s my main point. Which I made in the comment you were replying to, so I don’t know how you could’ve missed it. As far as the “vinegar” and “one liners”, I started off on this blog by leaving straightforward comments about the relationship between Loving and Obergefell, and Christians’ refusal to acknowledge it. I was then inundated with a whole bunch of responses to the effect that I’m stupid, crazy, trolling, or evil, or some combination thereof. That’s when I started becoming sarcastic. Probably the most frustrating thing was this: after I argued that Christians should’ve been denouncing… Read more »
And I do have another major theme, which is that we’re in a Proverbs 1 stage of history. We’ve rejected, denounced, and spit in the face of wisdom for decades now, and God isn’t going to pay any attention to our prayers for His help. Instead, He’s going to laugh and mock as America goes down the tubes.
This seems to be nearly as unpopular as my other main point, if not more so.
Matt,
Does it matter to you whether or not McD’s history/origins of Obergefell is correct? Whether or not his understanding of Loving is correct? If it does, let me know,
As to his theology, of course it’s entirely possible to reach any and all of his doctrinal positions without ever reading a single American case/opinion. Secular law is simply, utterly irrelevant to Biblical interpretation.
But I have real problem with non-attorneys laying down the law to laymen as though they have any qualifications to speak with authority as to what the law actually is.
kmh
Excellent thoughts! Good assessment of the seeker friendly trends. At Pentecost the response of 3000 men to the truth was to be cut to the heart and inquire about what they must do.
Godly people are supposed to be “salt and light”. Many christians only achieve being “sugar and shade”. God says many things, one of which is that we show our love for Him by obeying Him. When people are “sugar and shade” when they are supposed to be “salt and light”, that is disobediance. Disobediance #6 according to some! This post sounds like “salt and liught ” to me! By constrast, some of the posted comments sound a bit “shady” by comparison! ; – )
Hmm, not sure how a Gospel which does not include political involvement is somehow incomplete. Wouldn’t you agree that the politics of a nation can’t be changed unless the hearts are first changed? Wouldn’t you admit that trying to force people to live Gospel lives when they hate the Gospel is not really a Christian thing to do?
Don’t agree at all that the sum of a nation’s hearts have to change before political change, good or bad, can happen. The American Revolution was won with only about 1/3 of the Colonial population supporting. The Bloshvics and Nazis started out small as well. “Our clear duty is to present the scandal and offensiveness of the truth both winsomely and pungently. “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt,..” Wilson is not “trying to force” the Gospel on anyone. He advocates salting the people with the truth and letting God’s truth lead people to Gospel redemed lives.… Read more »
“Don’t agree at all that the sum of a nation’s hearts have to change before political change, good or bad, can happen.” Where in my post did I say the “sum of the nation’s hearts” have to be changed first? Where did I say Doug was trying to force the Gospel on anyone? I said he was trying to using politics to force people to live Gospel lives, or perhaps better stated, lives that represent the outward manifestation of having been saved by the Gospel. Minimal statists like Doug force people to do this when they support penalizing people through… Read more »
I was being generous, “a nation can’t be changed unless the hearts are first changed?”, your sentence could mean all hearts, which would still be a “sum”. ” Wouldn’t you (Doug?) admit that trying to force people to live Gospel lives”, “Gospel” is in your sentence. Anyway, to state my point, (and I think Doug’s) better, compared to your comment; In his day, Noah was the only one with a heart in the right place, Noah did not “force” politics on anyone, but he did do some prophetic Ark building, in obediance to God. A short time later the “politics”… Read more »
“lives that represent the outward manifestation of having been saved by the Gospel. Minimal statists like Doug force people to do this when they support penalizing people through the State for nonviolent behaviors such as prostitution, drug use, and pretending to be married.” Is this completely inescapable or avoidable depending on what the religious ethos is of any country? some things will rise to a legal level given the sway of the moral opinion/belief? (Sharia or whatever). The 1st Amendment and those of Cyrus the Great mentality are way cool…but how long that lasts… Or are you saying Wilson believes… Read more »
My practical recommendation is to privatize every service in a society. There is no reason to believe that we can’t have governing authorities who are funded by voluntary contributions rather than taxation. The thing is, we don’t have any sway in what the Powers That Be do. Whether they’re liberal or professing conservative, they do not follow the Constitution. In fact, the fact that we live in a society in which we ostensibly do have a voice in the government actually enables the PTB to be even more authoritarian. We think that the screwjob we’re getting is of our own… Read more »
Romans13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Well guys, per Romans 13, God at times is some sort of “statist”, minimal or otherwise. God, The Power That Is, is LORD over the powers that be. Beyond that, we do have some sway over the powers that be, and God has all sway over the powers that be. Ecc.12 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this… Read more »
Pastor Wilson wrote a wonderful post on this dynamic
here: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-the-lam-for-jesus.html
It is an example of St. Peter, the Apostle who wrote Romans 13 (?) breaking the letter of Romans 13. From there a discussion of the why and how followed and it is marvelous.
I highly recommend you read it; I think you will enjoy it.
Yep, we are on the same page. “a Christian’s first duty is to obey God. All else flows from that.” We obey God first, any secondary authority, we obey, if moral, after Him. If any secondary authority is at odds with God’s authority, we go with God, not the wrong authority. I am in the middle of an issue like this now. A church in my area committed a felony against me, perjury. This church is so lost that they filed a law suit against me, in offence to 1 Cor. 6. The church lost their law suit. I am… Read more »
I have been listening to and reading Doug for quite some time and am hard pressed to find support for your charge,
“he was trying to using politics to force people to live Gospel lives, or perhaps better stated, lives that represent the outward manifestation of having been saved by the Gospel.”
Perhaps you could help me out with this.
It’s because he wants to use state violence to prevent people from engaging in certain nonviolent behaviors which are contrary to the gospel, such as drug use, prostitution, pimping, etc. My point is that, no, he’s not trying to force the gospel on anyone, but he IS trying to force people to live the way they WOULD live if they loved God, even though they do in fact hate God.
Leaving aside for a moment that prostitution and pimping does in fact do violence, at a minimum to the mind and spirit of all involved, and substance abuse does violence at a minimum on the person abusing the substance. You still haven’t offered up any statement by Doug Wilson that supports your charge.
They are not violent activities. They are voluntary. Prostitution and drug selling involve a mutually agree-upon voluntary transaction. As a libertarian, I subscribe to the non-aggression principle, which simply states that it is wrong to initiate violence against an innocent person. No such thing is happening with these activities, as immoral as they are. I know for a fact, based on previous writings by Doug, that he wants prostitution, pimping and drug-pushing to be illegal. This is violence, because it’s saying that if you engage in these nonviolent behaviors, you will be kidnapped and thrown in a cage to be… Read more »
I do not know your testimony (Christian or not or if so, what stripe)…so…heading into a Bible circle…maybe even a “generally known by anyone” circle…that sins or deviant behavior or not so good choices are bound to increase and affect more than just those in the “mutually agree-upon voluntary transaction”…we just let it overtake? do nothing? to me libertarianism has almost seemed…close to anarchy when we tie our hands and utopian-ly limit our influence this much… and i do know what you mean…as far as how invasive anyone’s theology and propensity to tyranny can be… but i think given history… Read more »
By this logic we should make alcohol illegal since it can potentially hurt someone who didn’t use or sell it.
i’m not saying what we SHOULD or should not do…i’m presenting the quandry or the realism in the idealisms. and i’m saying how any type of “non-violent” behavior can and will become law depending on any manner of majority in a community. I’m not advocating one line of logic over the other…I understand where you are coming from…and where your concern of that line of logic leads (too invasive or even tyranny from the religious side–trust me, there are some thoughts on this blog where I think “heaven forbid” :)…SO! what I’m doing is expressing concern or finding out where… Read more »
I am an anarcho-capitalist, which just means that I believe the governing authorities should be funded by service fees rather than taxation. In other words, I don’t believe there should be any central governing authority which has a monopoly on the use of coercive violence. I believe that the “laws” of society should be based on the non-aggression principle, that is, only behaviors that represent coercion or fraud against innocent people should be punished with violence. How exactly society would go about punishing such behaviors, I can’t possibly know, nor should I be burdened with knowing. Though I assume that… Read more »
I think we come to the crux. ” As a libertarian,I…”
The difficulty is that the Christian definition of violence and the libertarian definition of violence are not the same. Damage done to the psyche of a woman by making her body the object of trade. is violence, whether you like it or not.
I’m talking about a legal rather than moral definition of violence. Do you want to make porn and strip clubs illegal too? Do these things not also objectify women? And what about the psychological damage to a male prostitute? Does that count as violence?
The problem is that no one really knows where to draw the line on this, except to say that unacceptable violence is that which involves coercing an innocent person. Prostitution (assuming the prostitute isn’t underage) simply isn’t doing this.
Dont give Ben. Christians don’t have a different definition of violence. “Violence” is not anything I don’t like or anything sinful. There is no moral definition vs legal. Words mean things.
Correct and violence is violence regardless if it feels good at the time.
Violence done to the image of the Living God is not something that a professing Christian can honestly say is tolerable in a just society.
Not only do I wish them to be outlawed I know that they in fact will be. See my reply to Alex above. And yes the damage incurred by male prostitutes, constitutes (I cant believe I did that) violence just the same.
or damage to families, communities, minors…
and I type this carefully because I’m all about limited government and states’ sovereignty and the 1st Amendment…
so it’s a messy situation between the faith and the legal…
someone’s belief system IS going to have the greater pull (and we are just now as Christians beginning to barely feel “anti-Christian” gaining momentum)
I find myself wrestling with the same tension Alex. However I am reminded that these things are in fact going to be outlawed in all human society, and even on the real estate we now refer to as the American Republic, whether you or I or the American Republic is around to see it notwithstanding. Christ assures us that He has in fact overcome the world. He then instructs us to go and make disciples. This being the case and Him the reigning King. I am persuaded that arguing for human institutions to be conformed to reflect the fact is… Read more »
Forgive if I repeat a question along the way… 1) What do you mean by “state violence” 2) Isn’t ANY society with any sort of laws going to cross over into the “nonviolent behaviors”? Our imperfect effort at controlling our imperfect, differing selves… 3) Are you advocating no regulations on these things or simply saying you long for consistency or want people to realize inconsistency? They might be nonviolent behavioirism, but they can easily cross over into “their liberty invading my liberty” situations. I don’t think there can be any perfect balance…as much as I don’t mind fewer laws…(and think… Read more »
Perhaps this has been stated here before, but I will risk being repetitive. Regarding “Gregory McDivitt”, my advice would be to “Answer not a fool…”
I doubt that ignoring him will make him go away, but at least it may rob him of the satisfaction of thinking anyone here has condescended to cast any pearls his way.
Pray for him, but don’t play with him. Life’s too short.
A well known pastor and a well known Christian intellectual, both friends of Rev. Wilson’s, write/publish an article that says Christians should be grinning about Obergefell, because the decision means “It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas, y’all”, and I’m the fool.
LOL
Yes, you’re the fool. Now what are you going to do about that? You going to side with David or Goliath? from the article: “We are being taunted. The giant’s name is Obergefell; he is a six-fingered descendent of the Anakim. He has come out onto the battlefield arrayed in his impressive armor. He wears the media elites like a helmet of brass, and on his chest, he wears the deep pockets of multibillion dollar corporate CEOs. On his legs and shoulders he is clad with the brass of the apathetic masses. He is the hero of the Philistines, the… Read more »
LOL
Evan, in 25 years, evangelical pastors will be denouncing David as a hatemonger for killing Goliath, and not marrying him.
LOL, maybe. For now they are tepidly having sympathy for David having SSA with Jonathan…or is that recognition, or attraction, recognition…or…
McDimmie has premillenial pessimism written all over his anemic diatribe.
Gregory I think you confuse (regularly) the PCUSA with “evangelicals’. Just my color commentary for the morning.
You are the one! Or, yes, someone did say similarly. Yes, I reminded people of your advice not long ago if they do consider him a fool…
People, stop feeding the trolls.
Who do you consider to be the trolls? The term is much like “racist” to me…in the eye of the beholder…
Alex,
I dunno. Maybe suggesting I’m off my meds could qualify as either trolling or whining? Scroll up to McD’s latest contributions to history, political science, and law.
P.S. Notice the adult, logical, rational rebuttal to his claim that Obegerfell flows from Loving, not from Roe, and that inter-racial and SSM are the same thing. Recall “Selma Envy?” Or “You Will Be Assimilated?”
kmh
McDivitt’s not a troll, just a whiner.
Hey, thanks bro!
Prayer and obedience….let’s not forget prayer, beginning with personal, and corporate, mourning over our sin; then joy in Who our Christ is. Pray!
Let me give a bit of support to McDivitt, if I understand him correctly. We will not be judged for abortion. Abortion IS the judgement (likely just the beginning). Why should God remove his hand? Has the church learned much yet, much less the heathen? And wouldn’t it be more biblically sensible to sit in the street with ashes on your head rather than wage a twitter campaign? Go ahead and fight your good fight. Who knows. Absolutely mourne and entreat God for mercy. At the same time, may God be glorified through his judgement. Maybe think about shaking the… Read more »
It must be characterized by glory in worship. It will be characterized by forgivenness that laughs According to Rev. Wilson, these are two of the keys to becoming “a salty church”, which has to happen before the world glorifies God and overturns Obergefell and Roe (although last week Rev. Wilson assured us that we’re on the verge of overturning Roe, and that these PP videos would destroy Roe, but never mind, that was last week) A forgivenness that laughs? Really? What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. It’s just pious sounding mumbo jumbo. We need glory in worship?… Read more »
Joel Osteen was here in San Francisco last night. Mickie D, pretty safe to say Osteen’s services lack glory because God’s Law is not explicated nor is the Gospel salve properly applied.
Right – many of Osteen’s beliefs and practices differ from your own, therefore worship at his church services lacks “glory.”
Pretty much the sort of thing I figured many people on here would say.
But I think you’re confusing “glory” with “orthodoxy.” There’s a huge difference.
Definitions. So you are the arbiter of how glory is defined and the context it is used? Says who? By what standard?
My point exactly. A dictionary defines glory as “magnificence; great beauty” Synonyms: magnificence, splendor, resplendence, grandeur, majesty, greatness,nobility; opulence, beauty, elegance Which doesn’t sound much like what you had in mind when describing Osteen’s worship as lacking glory. Which is my point. It’s essentially undefinable. So, 25 years from now, when gay marriage is still the law of the land, Rev. Wilson and his followers can say “well, we still haven’t restored glory to worship so of course gay marriage is still here”, and it won’t matter a bit what the typical worship service in the average church is like.… Read more »
You forgot. The Bible interprets the Bible. Sure, a bunch of secular scholars define a word but the Bible provides the context as to how that word is defined.
Great. So, since the Bible interprets the Bible, there won’t be any disagreements among Christians as to what constitutes “glory in worship.”
Man, that’s a relief. Guess I was stressing out over nothing.
Say, just curious – what are the indisputably biblical mode and subjects of baptism?
And what are the crystal clear biblical teachings on eschatology?
The Reformers called it “The Analogy of Faith.”
Scripture interprets scripture. It’s a fundamental hermeneutical principle. Apparently, not everybody has read or studied with the late Greg Bahnsen on this issue. You lack meaningful clarity because you violate basic hermeneutics principles of biblical interpretation. You quote Moore as though that is meaningful. The man couldn’t hermeneuticize out of a wet paper bag.
I’m not sure what you’re saying? That you were wrong, and the Bible doesn’t interpret the Bible, but humans do? Russell Moore’s not a Christian because he rejects the clear biblical teaching about the mode and subjects of baptism?
And you are saying what exactly? That because the Bible interprets the Bible, there will be no differences in humans figuring out how it does, and if they do, then there is only true way…and if we don’t agree with Bahnsen or you or whomever on an issue via the Bible or on how what we take a passage to mean, then we’ve missed the “One True Way”? But then the Bible, which interprets Bible, did not declare that only one group would get it perfectly… Or maybe I didn’t properly interpret your comment :) And disclaimer, I am not… Read more »
And you forgot to answer the questions, Freddy.
Say, just curious – what are the indisputable biblical teachings on the proper mode and subjects of baptism?
And what are the crystal clear biblical teachings on eschatology?
Thanks!
Dispensatipnal premillenialism is necessarily false.
It assumes the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resumed. Hebrews refutes that fairy tale.
Indisputable?
You do err when you forget about the sinful and hardness of human hearts.
Just because we come to different doctrinal conclusions has no bearing on the fact that the bible teaches one true doctrine.
Because of your lack of herneneutical precision has left you in this present state is totally your fault.
It’s only mumbo jumbo too those who haven’t finished reading Martin Luther.
Martin Luther? The guy who wrote that we had sinned by not killing all the Jews? Really? You’re a big fan?
I really like Martin Luther. I don’t much like the quote you are attributing to him. Can you give me a reference?
Why not read his entire book, The Jews and Their Lies, for yourself? https://ia802606.us.archive.org/3/items/TheJewsandTheirLies/JL_PDF_1.pdf Here are a few highlights: “Let their houses also be shattered and destroyed . . . Let their prayer books and Talmuds be taken from them, and their whole Bible too; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of death, to teach henceforth any more. Let the streets and highways be closed against them. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money, and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in safety. And if all… Read more »
Not that I recall. Could you provide the quote you referred to earlier?
“I really like Martin Luther.”
You’re a big fan, you say?
“Not that I recall.”
LOL
LOL. You seem to have trouble staying on track. Next you will be saying that Luther was anti-semetic. Back to the point. Doug’s reference to forgiveness that laughs is akin to Luther’s reasons for laughing at the Devil… Namely the triumph of Mercy over judgment. No mumbo here unless by mumbo you mean depth.
Others have already said it and even apologized for it…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
http://www.awitness.org/books/luther/luther_jews/14_jews_persecuting_christians.html
“We are at fault in not slaying them.”
Luther said we are at fault for not killing all the Jews. And David says that next I’ll be trying to claim he was anti-semitic.
Amazing.
Next you will be saying that Luther was anti-semetic.
What part of “we sinned by not killing all the Jews” don’t you understand?
Doug’s reference to forgiveness that laughs is akin to Luther’s reasons for laughing at the Devil… Namely the triumph of Mercy over judgment.
Sure, the old “Relax, folks – I read the last chapter of the Bible and we win!” dodge that takes some people’s minds off the fact that they’re losing their losing their country, and it just keeps getting worse all the time.
No mumbo here unless by mumbo you mean depth.
There’s nothing deep about happy talk, whistling past the graveyard, etc. They’re all just forms of make-believe.
Historically that’s a pretty common attitude towards Jews, and that’s hardly the same as “killing them all”. Is this the first time you’ve read an old book?
Well, I’m pretty sure if you asked Jews, they would say there’s not all that much difference between the above, and “killing all the Jews.”
And really, there’s no difference at all between Luther writing that “we were wrong for not killing all the Jews” and Luther writing that “we were wrong for not killing all the Jews.” If he wrote that, it’s pretty much the same thing as if he wrote that.
Add him to the polygamy discussion… “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter. (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)” Edit: Oh, good grief. Ignorance is bliss. “However, the context was a situation in which the sickness of a wife prevented… Read more »
By the way, Russell Moore says it’s going to take about 100 years to overturn Obergefell.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/evangelicals-same-sex-marriage-convention/
“This will not be resolved by a presidential election or two,” he said following the ruling. “This is a 100-year struggle in front of us in terms of what the definition of marriage and family means and should mean.”
Better grab a Snickers, kids, because it’s gonna be a while.
Thus saith Russel Moore
Is Moor saying it will take 100 years to overturn Obergefell or that it will take 100 years to define what family and marriage should mean?
BTW, who cares what Moore says?
Apparently somebody thinks highly of Moore.
I think less of him, not more.
Moore is less.
Sorry for the broken record, but the US Spm Ct reversed itself in only 3 years on mandatory flag pledging; 1940-1943. Moreover, at the most united time we have ever been, in the middle of the largest war we have ever fought, the right of dissent was protected. OTOH, “separate but equal” took 58 years to reverse (1896-1954) while Dred Scott took a civil war to reverse. If the pro-choice folks weren’t so worried about “super precedent” every vacancy wouldn’t be a “litmus test” and a call to man the barricades. Obviously they fully realize how NOT “well settled” Roe… Read more »
Kelly, what’s your prediction as to how many years before Obergefell is reversed? I predict that it will never be reversed as long as our present form of government continues. (Which won’t be forever, but could be quite a while.) You seem to disagree. Do you see it being reversed in the next five to ten years?
My prediction? “It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, [start of pg 13] has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part. This was evident in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question.” So in about 40 years we went from “SSM is not even a federal question” to “the Constitution requires SSM.” (BTW, note… Read more »
Kelly, I think you’re only supposed to take those Ambiens at night.
“Sorry”
The neat and tidy replays or new renditions are greatly appreciated.
Helps keep me on track, because:
http://cdn2.notonthehighstreet.com/system/product_images/images/001/812/600/original_alice-in-wonderland-famous-quotes-print.jpg
:)
Glad to help out. See my prediction response below to McD. If I had too much fun with ol’ McD, such that you don’t follow the argument, I’ll write up a plain one – – if YOU’RE interested.
But my teach-pig-sing days are over.
Dude, that is so deep. Although it’s quite derivative:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/why-we-need-more-of-moore-and-also-less-of-moore-more-or-less.html
If you’re implying I think highly of Moore, you’re way off base. But certainly, many people do. You generally don’t get to be a top leader at America’s largest Protestant denomination, and get invited to speak at all kinds of evangelical conferences unless lots of people in that denomination and the broader evangelical world think pretty highly of you.
I think this was your most recent post. When correcting your mistake in an earlier post of yours, I asked this and wanted to make sure it was asked where it was more likely to be seen.
Do you have a positive point to make that you can state in one or two sentences? Or are you really just here to provide “color commentary”?
Matt, what’s your hangup about one or two sentences? Can you not handle any thoughts longer than 140 characters? And, far from correcting any mistake of mine, you made yourself look like someone who doesn’t read very well, and/or doesn’t know the difference between legal/judicial arguments and moral/cultural arguments. Anyone who wants can check it out here for themselves: https://dougwils.com/s8-expository/on-christian-disobedience-6.html#comment-2186243990 Maybe you should stick to Twitter debates. You seem to have trouble following longer thoughts. But this isn’t Twitter, and I see no need to truncate my arguments to follow Twitter’s restraints. I’ve made myself quite clear about the fact… Read more »
Demon goddess Kali projected onto Empire State bld.
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/new-york-city-fierce-maa-kali-lights-empire-state-building-photosvideo-642330
More of that polyglot multicultural society you Christian ladies love so much.
McD, Alex Are we about to agree on something??? Looks like I may have stumbled into something by accident while doing some river research. I’d heard of this idea before – – when a few benefit a LOT but most hardly pay then a subsidy is forever – – but only just now discovered it’s from a book: Finally there are the pervasive governance problems in an increasingly indulgent, indignant and selfish society. In his seminal work on the logic of collective action and economic growth [fn 11], the economist Mancur Olson described how small, determined coalitions with common interests… Read more »