Jesus said that when we are persecuted in one city, we should flee to the next (Matt. 10:23). The apostle Peter disappeared from the book of Acts a wanted man (Acts 12:17). The apostle Paul was lowered from the city wall of Damascus in a basket (2 Cor. 11:33). If we apply this thoughtfully, we can see that a case can be made for Christians making makeshift arrangements for their faith when the authorities are uncooperative.
So not only can a case be made for such carve outs, a case may be made for building such carve outs yourself. In other words, we may take up such liberties ourselves, to use Charles Murray’s wonderful phrase, ” without permission.”
When the Christian movement first began, it was routinely illegal. The early Christians thought that this was too bad, and kept right on going. They carved out their own space, in places like the catacombs. They met in private homes, and they had no permits tacked to the wall.
Now when the pagan system began accommodating the Christians, this was because paganism was decrepit, and the pagan leaders knew. They needed fresh blood and they knew it. They were ceding ground to the Christians, and the process was slow and inexorable. A time does come when the believers and unbelievers have to come to an understanding.
So the problem does not lie in making a temporary truce with unbelievers. That can be done in all kinds of biblical ways. It begins with heavily penalized Christian illegalities, then moves to accommodated illegalities, then to legal carve-outs for Christians, then to a Christian establishment with carve- outs for pagans. This is all a good thing, and it is good because of the direction.
What is the issue then? Picture a highway with Heaven on one end of it and Hell on the other. Now picture two cars, one driving to Heaven and the other to Hell. At some point in the process they will be at exactly the same spot in the road. Should they express their solidarity in that fact by beeping and waving?
Of course not. What matters is where they are going, not where they are.
Two kinds of Christian communities might be at exactly the same spot in the road, but one is advancing from strength to strength and the other is lame, feeble, and conceited. If we get to the point where they are sacrificing a garlanded bull during Super Bowl halftime, we will be in the same place as the early Christians. But they were in that spot because of their faithfulness, and we will be in it because of our fecklessness.
I say this because there is a difference between 5 million Christians on their way to 100 million, and 100 million on their way to 5. There is a difference between powerless and courageous Christians going to the lions rather than offer a pinch of incense to the emperor, and powerful but enervated Christians offering fistfuls of incense in hope of being thrown to the lions last. There is a difference, in short, between conquest by the weak and surrender by the strong.
Asking whether it is appropriate for Christians to look for accommodations — carve outs — for their beliefs is like asking whether it is all right to be at this spot in the road. Before we answer the question, where are we going? Are you one of those conservative thought-leaders preparing us for the next round of surrenders? Or do you want this accommodation as a staging area for our next offensive?
The sop that compromised thought leaders throw to us is the “retreat to commitment” sop. This is the move that urges us to retreat into our faith community, bow our heads, and then believe what we believe really, really hard. Pray hard at the ceiling. Believe it hard, but only on the premises. Food and drink are not allowed in the sanctuary, and what we say about Jesus is not allowed out. Apply all that diligently, but to your own thoughts only. The outside world belongs to the devil.
We should hold to biblical views of marriage only ” in the church.” Since we have ceded the outside world to the devil and his miniony ilk, those guys can screw the pooch out there if they want. And because it is in the outside world and it is Tuesday not Sunday, I can issue Burt and Fifi a marriage license, I can photograph their first dance, which was something to choreograph, I can make a beautiful bouquet that tells them ” you were made for each other,” and I can attend the reception as an old family friend to offer a toast. But on Sundays, during our time in the worship service, I continue to believe, with a manly firmness, that I am not going to do any of that stuff here. But if a friend at church makes a joke about it — “I hear the bride was a real dog” — I will later write him a rebukey email about it, more in sorrow than in anger. Apparently we are to have a testimony to the outside world, provided it is suitably and sufficiently supine.
You say that my examples are outlandish and overdone. Right, but you are only talking that way because you are 25 and not 45. When you are 45, let’s look each other up in the Happy Joy Sensitivity Remediation Camp and have a good laugh over it.
It is not whether we have to do everything all at once, but rather, if we do not, why we do not. Driving the tribes of Canaan out slowly is fine, lest the beasts become too much for us (Ex. 23:29).
But of course, in the real world, which incidentally includes the entire world, if we make an ungodly peace with the tribes of Canaan, the Lord God sends thorns to afflict us (Num. 33:55). Some of those thorns have been to the best seminaries.
“Some of those thorns have been to the best seminaries.”
Is is? Some of those thorns have been sent to the best seminaries.
No, the original. Some of the thorns that have been sent include men who have graduated seminary. The have Christian credentials but are thorns.
What if my principled ‘carve out’ is to believe that because of my christian science or I have the right to deny life saving treatment to my daughter who is dying of cancer? What if my principled ‘carve out’ is that I wish to keep my children under abusive lock up up discipline of the Sea Org in the Church of scientology? You make a big mistake in failing to remember that your religious views are decidedly on a spectrum, and the far end of it in a very decided minority. The 1st amendment is to protect one spectrum dweller… Read more »
let me guess as to which way your car is headed.
No need to guess. My religious liberty stops when it infringes upon the rights of others. If I was an elected official and refused to grant marriage certificates to christians, muslims, or paganists for that matter based on my religious faith, I would hope that jail time and ridicule would ensue if I did not comply. Humans have the right to be loved and recognized. This has been decided. And this is not a fight you can win. The argument against the rights of same sex partners to express their love through marriage has officially been carried over the threshold… Read more »
Don’t be silly; two perverts shacking up is not marriage and never will be. Speaking of the wrong side of history, read the writing on the wall for the Sodom Confederacy. In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, We The People (i.e., normal human beings; the 99%) stipulate that CONGRESS gets to put “such Exceptions, and…such Regulations” on the SCOTUS as Congress shall please. Up until this time, the 99% have been as clueless about the law as they are spineless about pushy (sexual pervert) haters. As we see just beginning with the sin of abortion… Read more »
Well, your rant speaks to itself very well. So I have little to say about it.
As to your homophobia (and that of others here), I’ll offer this idea up again from that left-wing conspiracy- the National Institute Of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
You’ve missed the point it seems, but so has the mob. Being against homosexual sin is an act of Christian love in principle – albeit not always carried out in a loving manner. The real hatred is from those like you who encourage their brothers to sin and refuse to guide them in God’s truth. Would you encourage an alcoholic to drink himself to death? (See also: Heb. 12:7-11) I have recently begun to wonder whether people of the modern progressive mindset would be more likely to *encourage* a man to jump off a high building rather than talk him… Read more »
Lose the phobia,puke. It is disgust and revulsion over sin. NIH? The same “Nation” that supports in their laws the murdering babies and selling baby parts? Well then, I do not care what the hell they think. Furthermore, if you are going to make a statement, make the darn statement. Clicking your links to DailyScienceKos is not something I have time for. Furthermore, why do you use homosexuality as a slur? Shouldn’t you be glad that I was a homosexual? Or are you just playing the closet hypocrite line your type finds so clever. You gotta up your game RandMan-boy… Read more »
No need to call me names timothy.
Why do you think I am using homosexuality as a slur? The study mentioned is not a slur in my book, but interesting. What is my type?
I do not wish to weild influence here. Only to weigh in on matters that are important to me. Take it down a notch.
No need to call me names timothy. A rhetorical punch to the nose is often useful in changing the tenor of the discussion. It worked. You have changed your snark to inquiry. Why do you think I am using homosexuality as a slur? The use of the study (which I will not read, it is the SJW Scientific American) is referred to as Jamming (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.html) . It is a propaganda technique used as a club to beat people over the head with by labelling them as closet homosexuals and disarming them by creating conflicting emotions within them. First, you picked… Read more »
“And this is not a fight you can win. The argument against the rights of same sex partners to express their love through marriage has officially been carried over the threshold to the wrong side of history.”
That is precisely where we like to be, because when we win, you will know that God did it.
Good luck there. Seriously, examine what it is that you are so concerned with: a sexual act among consenting adults. And Love itself. Get ahold of yourself man.
Why do so many here blaze forth with the old testament when it suits them and toss it aside as mere ‘context’ when it doesn’t?
You heard it from me first, bruh. And keep in mind that I am not at all concerned about sexual acts between ‘consenting adults.’ I just think that a society that calls sodomy ‘marriage’ has jumped the shark. It is also in outright rebellion against God. He instituted marriage from the beginning as a way to demonstrate his nature and the relationship he has with his people (also to provide godly offspring). Marriage is not about so-called love.
I don’t know what capital-L Love is, but it reminds me of White.
Sexual perversion is *also* an institution of God; read Romans 1. Unlike rape, adultery or fornication, perverted (same gender) sex is a particular hell into which God “gives them over”, who refuse to acknowledge or glorify Him.
I agree. Homosexuality is as much a judgment as a sin.
Distinguo. Many things are judgments of God; sexual perversion is a judgment resulting from a particular sin, *despising and refusing God!* Do you get that part now? The LORD is a jealous God. I love that about Him.
Could you expand on that please?
Is this similar to Lewis observation …”Heaven is man saying Thy will be done. Hell is God saying thy will be done”?
thx.
In verses 19-32 of Romans 1, Paul reiterates *thrice* that God “gives them over” to this unnatural sexual drive. Same-sex copulation is a unique sin *in that regard*; one does not see anywhere in the N.T. God “giving over” a sinner to murder, rape, adultery, theft, what-have-you. It is a unique sin in that it is also an institution of God against a prerequisite sin.
Do you mean despising and refusing God on an individual level or a corporate level?
Both. Paul was speaking to the senescent Roman civilization all around them, but obviously a civilization does not make choices; individuals do.
I have to confess to struggling with Romans 1. Because my daughter attended a performing arts middle school and high school for musical theatre, she has had many male gay friends. I informally fostered a couple of them during their teen years, and I have had a front row seat on their struggle with their sexuality. What I noticed is that even for the kids whose families had no religious objections, it is not easy. Many of the kids who talked to me about this told me they had struggled for years, that they had wept and prayed to be… Read more »
Whoa, Nellie! The apostle Paul does NOT say that God “gives them over to damnation”! The LORD gives the rebel (who refuses to glorify Him and instead glorifies everything *but* God) over to his own desires, which are gross, and only become grosser as time passes. Christ has *SALVATION* to offer the sexual pervert, as He offers to every other sinner! We are here discussing how this particular class of sin is unique in its origin, NOT that it is beyond redemption! No one has suggested that. What, you think the old gray-haired lesbian or rapist or murderer has an… Read more »
Dig around in the archives of Commentary for E.L. Pattullo’s “Straight Talk About Gays,” December 1992.
This worked for me but I’m a digital subscriber. I’ll bet your local librarian can find it, or check with a university near you.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/straight-talk-about-gays/
Rand, A couple of comments. If I approached the issue in a secular manner,I think I would say exactly what you just did. I’m not being sarcastic by writing that. It is possible, however, for two consenting people to mutually agree to a relationship that is degrading to both parties, and that may be a facet that needs more discussion. Additionally, the issue of how children are raised, and whether pairs of people, regardless of their gender pairing, provide for societal stability has been assumed to be unaffected in the debate over SSM by the pro-SSM side. I realize just… Read more »
Way to take the bait and drink from the toilet, bro!
No need to be a bully David.
Calling the score is not ‘being a bully’. Don’t be so silly.
I think secular society would be happy leave it where is should be, a private matter between consenting adults. That is like blaming civil rights advocates for hollering about Jim Crow and segregation. “Why are those people always bringing it up?”
Again, I am not directing the data at any specific individuals, but if the absolutely fabulous shoe fits…
i appreciate your thoughtfulness here though. Thank you, because it was a serious post- to me.
Not Old Testament. Read Paul’s letter to the church at Rome; Chapter One. He was cataloguing the stuff going on in the Roman world in real time. Men refuse to glorify or acknowledge God, and worship everything else instead — mostly themselves. They do perverted, really gross stuff and eventually start dropping like flies. Athens and Rome were clear precursors for use and because our civilization was founded on the Way of Christ, millions of us are reminding our neighbors of these scriptural admonitions, so I think these United States will avoid the fate of those fallen civilizations. Time will… Read more »
Capitulater. Your ilk I loathe.
Who am I capitulating to? My own conscience. How dare I.
(misspell edit)
You are capitulating to the flavor of the month mob and network television ethics.
History ends once.
It doesn’t take a majority, it just takes enough to build an alternative people can turn to when the current government loses legitimacy. Culture is downstream from politics.
A dream, your dream perhaps. But even if you could export it, your alternative is not attractive. It has a very rigid appeal to a very rigid constituency.
The gospel is life unto life and death unto death, oh and it is narrow and a bit rigid. Sounds like you get it.
Wrong, ‘ashv’. The ‘current government’ does not lose legitimacy; by definition, the government in these United States is: Apex sovereign- We The People Subordinate sovereigns- the States Servant with only enumerated powers- federal offices and their occupants That is what we ourselves stipulate in the Constitution. THAT is our government. You are confusing criminals in various offices (all three branches) who daily violate the Constitution, with ‘government’. In this republic, government is what the Constitution stipulates. As for outlawing the Sodom Confederacy and Moloch Confederacy and its abortuaries, as I wrote above: read Art III, Section 2, Clause 2 of… Read more »
” . . . or I have the right to deny life saving treatment to my daughter who is dying of cancer?” No, you don’t. I could dig out cases if it matters but, no, docs have won cases where they did a blood transfusion on a minor after an auto accident over the objections of parents. The law has a presumption that the child is entitled to reach 18 (back then it was 21) so he/she can decide for him/herself (a) to stay in that faith (b) to follow it to that degree. 19 year old denies the blood?… Read more »
a list of those seminaries would be fun
There’s that civil disobedience-speak again. I’m not 25, brother; I’m 60 — and as you know, my sharpest barbs have been for you, my dear brethren (and I mean that sincerely) of the ‘Reformed’ camp whose shoes are just tight enough, megaphones just large enough, and writing more than gifted enough to keep the crowds asking for more. What I want to know is, when are you guys going to stop stacking those really pointy arrows, and get into the battle? Law is not a joke; but because the lawless servants jeer as they violate it, you speak of ‘carve… Read more »
I do agree that carve outs are piffle. But mostly because they declare such a marginalized point of
view in this great democracy. No-one wants Wilson’s biblical republic except for Wilson and his band of thousands- it is a ridiculous notion. Fantasy that undercuts Wilson’s ability to be take at all seriously outside the CREC.
And I’ll say it again. What is the guarantee for those who desire a theocratic republic that it will be a christian one?
I disagree with you 100%. No one here is calling for a ‘theocratic republic’. I take it you’re one of those Muscovite Liberal irritants who play on this blog, from your mother’s basement? Secondly, “this great democracy”? Calling these United States a ‘democracy’ is as inaccurate as calling the republic a monarchy, viz: James Madison: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” John Adams: “Democracy never lasts… Read more »
Actually Douglas mentioned on his blog the future day of his ‘Biblical Republic. Does that not qualify?
Feel free to imagine me as a liberal irritant in my mother’s basement. Considering my actual who/where that made me laugh for real. Thank you for that!
Sure! Happy to make you happy on this Friday afternoon!
Seriously, the founders of this civilization had in mind a biblical republic. One cannot read the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (or many other colonial constitutions), the Northwest Ordinance, etc, and conclude anything else.
So. We *want* a biblical republic; we do not *demand* one, or *stipulate* one in law (as the Christian Reconstructionist or Hypercalvinist is wont to do).
I think it is more representative to say this. That we understand the King has mandated a biblical republic and it is now manifesting and will come to full fruition. More slowly than some of would like, still.
Every knee will bow, The question is not if your knee will bow but when.
Which King? My King said that His kingdom was not of this world, and even allowed Himself to be put to death (it was the Father’s wish) by a very UNbiblical republic. Can you point out a passage of Scripture in which God ‘mandated a biblical republic’? Every knee will most certainly bow and confess that Jesus Christ is King. But I cannot find the place where He tells us to set it up for Him as a biblical republic; show me that part. The framers of the Constitution gave us more than we need; we need only apply Art… Read more »
Psalm 2 is an important passage in all of this. It pertains to the question of whether kings of earth need to bow to Christ by-and-by, or whether they are obliged to render homage now, before they perish in history. I believe, with Wilson, that Christ has been installed (coronated) on His throne with the Father, and is asserting His rule as King of kings now. This obligates all earthly rulers today. The kingdoms of the earth have become of our Lord. Of course we can still ask if Christ’s rule is carried out by revolution and force, or is… Read more »
Yep! we see what happens when nations are baptized at sword point.
Olaf Tryggvasson did that with Norway.
And Norwegians ceased being polytheist pagans. Yes, we see what happens.
My point was it didn’t take very well look at them now.
Look at them now. Today Norwegians still do not worship imaginary deities and practice human sacrifice. Even the falling away to nothing in particular is a fairly recent development in Norway; history shows Christianity took well enough for 900 years or more. Nominally, the country is still by far majority Christian. Nominally is not the real thing, but sometimes it is prepared ground for revival of the real thing. No, I’m not Norwegian by nationality or ancestry, in case you’re wondering.
Not of this world (not originating here) but having come from outside and overcome this world. “In this world you will have trouble but fear not I have overcome the world” And then He went and proclaimed Himself King of the world, and instructed us to act like he was in fact King. Matt: 28 18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth. 19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,… Read more »
I do not disagree with a thing you posted just now, but the biblical republic of which you speak is the new Israel of God. As C.S. Lewis suggested, it probably includes ‘other sheep not of this flock’ on countless other planets, too. RandMan is peevish about theocrats seeking to transform America’s political economy; the grail of Hypercalvinists and Dominionists. I submit that such plans have about as much biblical support and practical likelihood as the Sodomite horde’s unholy grail. Aslan is on the move, but these things take time to manifest. With our High King, a thousand years is… Read more »
Glad we have so much agreement. Not sure how anything I have ever said here or elsewhere can be construed as calling for a “sanctified government bludgeon” to love the lost with. If I have please point it out to me and I will repent. As far as conflating church and state. My only position is this. That Christ is now and evermore King of everything seen and unseen. At some point all human institutions will reflect that fact. It is my job to labor until they do, and to teach my sons to do likewise. Part of my labor… Read more »
Again I say: I do not disagree with a thing you posted just now.
In what practical manner does the US government, in your view, differ from a democracy? I hear “a republic not a democracy” a lot, but never any definition of what difference it makes in actual practice.
A lot of us outside the CREC take Wilson seriously. He is leading figure in the Christian schooling movement and his ability to trounce the Left at their own game is fascinating.
All things considered, he isn’t bad for a moderate.
Boy howdy…you just made me shoot beer out of my nose, Job! In another lifetime, I was so impressed, edified, instructed and encouraged by Doug and the gang in Moscow that I planted four classical Christian schools in three states (all of them still going strong). I just picked up my 32nd book by Doug Wilson (‘How to Exasperate Your Wife’) and I can honestly say that the brother has been the most seminal teacher in my life on how to follow Jesus. Do I agree with his theology? Mostly. His eschatology? Categorically. His ecclesiology and soteriology? Not really; I’m… Read more »
Maybe by some evangelical standard he is a moderate? But any one outside of that small world would say he is beyond conservative. He is unknown in the world at large. If most americans did come to know of him, none would take his views very seriously once they got to some of his main issues. And he would be proudly rebuked for his views/comments on slavery and his terrible handling of the sex abuse in his church and extended CREC world. I don’t see him trouncing the left anywhere. In fact he regularly got his ass handed to him… Read more »
Wilson has been taking over Moscow using Leftist tactics. Contrary to your view, he handled the slavery and abuse issues very well. He never apologized and didn’t back down. Whether he was right or wrong to do so, is immaterial. His enemies have been calling for him to crucify himself for ages and he has refused. Honestly, Evangelicals are the largest religious demographic in the country. Their opinions matter by shear force of numbers. Your attempts to disqualify Wilson are silly. Finally, Wilson is moderate. Actual radicals are busy throwing sodomites off buildings and bragging that they will conquer entire… Read more »
I don’t find Wilson radical- he is exteremly conservative and CREC ideas are on the christian margin. But yes, christians account for the majority of americans but are over-all declining, down almost 10% over the last seven years. Unaffiliated and other religions are increasing. But shrug.
I don’t think ideas running contrary to out understanding of human well-being like the repression of woman and fear and rejection of homosexuals really is going to capture the hearts and minds of a modern american population.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
Most of the decline in Christian comes from the mainline denominations, which has nothing to do with evangelicals. Dismissing Evangelicals is like dismissing blacks and Hispanics. Also, as Non-western people become more prevalent in America and as whites lose their dominance and become just another ethnicity, is it likely that views on women and gays will become more Non-western or less Non-western? How are women and gays generally treated outside the West? Your second paragraph is paranoid. No one is repressing women, except the Muslims that are lining up to slit homosexuals’ throats. Oddly, Muslim girls find this kinda hot.… Read more »
An ideology or religion is not a race.
If you think no one is advocation repressing women based on scripture, read Wilson’s newest blog.
Yes hate is love.
Hispanic is not a race either. The point is that it makes no sense to try to marginalize a group that is about twice the size of blacks or Hispanics in sheer numbers. Their opinions matter. They can’t be forced to the back of the bus simply because their opinions are unpopular in the media. If you are referring to the covenant home post, there is nothing in it that advocates oppressing women. The real women oppressors are buying and selling them as sex slaves, groping and raping them in the streets, teaching them to be whores and to get… Read more »
Huh.
Yup.
Its always amusing when a smug yuppie walks into the wrong bar.
I don’t think ideas running contrary to out understanding of human well-being like the repression of woman and fear and rejection of homosexuals really is going to capture the hearts and minds of a modern american population. Why? Imperial Rome society was far more degenerate then yours currently is. Yet, the power of the Holy Spirit worked its way and Christianity supplanted it. Why is “the modern american population” relevant? They are: 1. modern., 2. mortal. 3. not new. Tomorrow they will be 1. irrelevant 2. dead. 3. old news. And the Gospel will be 1. true 2. the same.… Read more »
He also quotes a Pew Research survey of religious belief that runs counter to far larger samplings like those cited by Philip Jenkins (see his book ‘The Next Christendom’) or George Barna (see his book ‘Revolution’). The latter author reported, as of three years ago, that over 20 million American churchgoers had simply walked away from the INSTITUTIONAL churches and from denominations, to follow Christ in spirit and in truth. The house church movement has been one beneficiary; others feel (I disagree) that ‘virtual church’ can fill the Scriptural mandate to ‘assemble together’. However that may be, millions of Americans… Read more »
Did the Romans or the Roman government take Jesus or Paul seriously? Ever stop to consider that maybe being taken seriously isn’t part of the strategy?
Some thoughts on two different types of carve outs. First there is the religious exemption carve out. We need to be clear headed about this. This is a appeal to the mercy of the sovereign. In this case the sovereign is a group including the courts but also the media and academia that influence the courts. These people think your beliefs are arbitrary and cruel. You are a hater of mankind. If you think that the handling of the case of a Muslim girl has any bearing then you don’t understand the game. Islam is another weapon to use against… Read more »
I see you’re working the problem; bully for you! Two comments. First, you are grossly mistaken about who is the ‘sovereign’ in our system. In constitutional context, as the first SCOTUS chief justice, John Jay, said: “The people are Sovereign. …at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country…the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Three resources I would recommend on this head: – ‘Inventing the People’ by Edmund S. Morgan – ‘American Sovereigns’ by Christian Fritz – ‘The People Themselves’ by… Read more »
Sovereignty is a function of power. One may write on a piece of paper that “The People are sovereign” but organizationally and functionally this can never be the case since The People, whoever they are, cannot act with the unity of purpose that actual military or police do. If enough folks get together to seriously stand up to them, they’re a militia, not “The People” as an amorphous mass. Overall it’s a dangerous fiction.
Oh? Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution is “a dangerous fiction”? Boy howdy. Let me suggest, please, that you take my free PDF edition book (the hardcopy at Amazon is over $35 and has no links!) and just read Chapter One, okay?
Sent your request to david.zuniga@AmericaAgain.net and I’ll send you the book. Just the first chapter alone will cut through your confused state, I promise.
OK I’ve looked over your website and have a general idea which direction you’re coming at this from. My main objection is from an engineering standpoint; the design of the USA federal government was highly experimental and the results of the past couple centuries’ test run indicates it’s not particularly stable or good as governments go, despite having every advantage (large mostly-empty resource-rich territory settled by high-intelligence, high-trust colonists). Supposing the clock can be turned back and the actual constitution of the government can be made to correspond to the written Constitution… why would things go better the second time,… Read more »
Engineering? (I was a P.E. for 28 years; this ain’t that.) Highly experimental? I’ve written elsewhere that this Constitution is the last in a 1,001-year-long genealogy of English Common Law. Not particularly stable or good as governments go? It’s the oldest written Constitution in the world (except for that of San Marino, a town of under 30,000 people). And don’t give me this “y’all” stuff, Cochise. I’m a Texan, born and raised; eternal citizen of the Kingdom of God, renting a body here in Texas whilst I’ve got it. We were a republic before joining you folks, and we’ll still… Read more »
I can’t understand this line of reasoning. If the Constitution has “never been enforced”, by what judgement is it “fine”, and how is “never been enforced” different from “failed”? Honestly at this stage the benefit of a written Constitution is unclear. Having one didn’t prevent the USA government from severe overreach, and plenty of historical forms of government without one ruled in a fashion much more obedient to the gospel.
You can’t understand? Okay; an analogy, then.
If your dad gave you a brand new exotic sports car, delivered to your driveway in a crate without a drop of fuel in the tank, I’ll bet you wouldn’t call it junk, sulking off and crying, “Just great, Dad! The stupid car FAILED! Waaaah!”
Right? Of course not. That would be silly.
Don’t be silly…like calling multi-trillion-dollar D.C. felonies ‘severe overreach’. Imagine if we used such terminology for mere multi-million-dollar crimes. “Your honor, we the jury find the defendant guilty of severe overreach!”.
No, don’t be so silly.
I had earlier things like the Louisiana Purchase in mind. Anyway, you’re still ignoring the big issue: if the Constitution is actually irrelevant to two centuries of USA governance, why’s it worth caring about now?
To close out the analogy: along with every other breed of anarchist, you scorn the sports car while the Remnant put gas in the tank and begin to finally enjoy it as its designers intended. Suit yourself; it’s a free country.
“Anarchist”? That’s quite a hasty generalisation. I’m just a skeptic of American political theory and of the mythology of the American Revolution. Plenty of Christian nations have had responsible, effective governments: as we seek a better one for ourselves, why should we limit our search to a single document with an unproven record and little evidence in its favour?
No; you’re a cynic due to increasingly corrupt* American political PRACTICE, not the black-letter Constitution — which is not ‘political theory’, but LAW. These American states comprise a Christian *republic* (read Art IV, Section 4, US Constitution) rather than a ‘nation’. But kindly name ONE ‘Christian nation’ on earth with a responsible, effective government. [*The corruption is the natural result of the apex sovereign — We The People — having never *enforced* the highest law by which we created, defined, and severely circumscribed the federal servant. The most blameworthy segment of We The People is the professing Church, that in… Read more »
Name one responsible effective Christian government? I’d say Frederick the Great’s did a creditable job.
I agree he was a great ruler, but I thought he rejected his father’s Calvinism and was more or less an unbeliever. Certainly his forty-year correspondence with Voltaire reflected a certain hostility to religion.
Personally, perhaps, but I was primarily thinking of the quality of government under his rule. The only person really in the same league on this continent was FDR, and the comparison does the latter no favours.
Paganism was decrepit, true. Looks like it’s Christianity’s turn for some decrepitude. Maybe the remnant will revive it someday. I’m sure the pagans reassured themselves with thoughts like that.
Christianity is by no means decrepit. Just look at its rapid expanse in Africa and Asia.
Well they’re a couple thousand years behind, you know. They’re just giving up the paganism after all. Give them time, they’ll get to where we are sooner or later.
So you say that Christianity is decrepit, I point out that it is not, and you say to ‘give it time.’ It sounds to me that the problem is with the West and not Christianity. No one ever denied that societies have a life expectancy. The church does not.
But it is. You don’t even deny it. Whatever is going on in Africa has little to do with us here. And it is a problem with Christianity or Christians. If Christians can’t make Christianity compelling then whose fault do you suppose that is? It’s always too easy to blame everyone else for your group’s failures (see: American right-wingers).
I most certainly do deny that Christianity is decrepit. There is one universal church. An African Christian is not 3/5 of a white Christian. He is a brother. You are either in Christ or you are not. I have asserted that the problem is with the West. It is not the duty of Christians to make the gospel compelling, merely to speak the truth in boldness. We proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. If the West rejects him, then so what? Christ didn’t need numbers when the church was just a few hundred men cowering in other people’s homes… Read more »
Amen. The author of http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/ offers this quote, which seems to fit Pastor Wilson’s theme: “God seeks connection with man, not only in the personal sense, but in the political sense. He wishes to have His laws obeyed, codified, and revered as the central axis of the state and society, through which the connection is established between the Divine Realm and the outer spheres of the physical world. This is the natural and divinely ordained order.”
Chestertonian again, Doug.
May I ask, would your hypothetical optimistic amillenial son-in-law correctly read your Exodus 23 interpretation as a dispensational postmillenial acquiescence to the acceptability of some beasts in the land? That is to say, for all the hurrahs you say you hope your great great great grand children will shout at their convocations, some of them won’t make it home due to lion attack. Pessimistic postmillenial, are you?
Here’s a very important piece of writing, guys.
http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/