You Know, Trump
“Trump represents that kind of threat for all kinds of reasons, mostly having to do with the divine sense of humor.”
LOL. Isn’t that the truth!
Mike
I appreciate the wisdom in this article – particularly that voting is not a sacrament. We would all do well to remember baptism and communion as Holy endeavors instead of be swayed by the culture’s constant prodding that voting in the “MOST important election in American History” is somehow similar. They’re not in the same hemisphere. Thank you for your healthy framing and perspective. It’s not often that I advocate such a non-piratical article, but No-Quarter-Voting is unhelpful.
Of course there is liberty to vote or not according to the conscience of the voter.
As a pro-life voter I’m for human flourishing in all endeavors. Innocent life in the womb is where that flourishing begins. Economics, self-defense and art are all large factors as well in a flourishing culture.
I agree with your final point that our culture is torn between two Constitutions. Many rely on your first “4 more years!” point of the federal judiciary being remade in Trump’s image. As I’ve watched the TrumpStock ban and other RKBA issues inflamed instead of quashed by DJT, much scrutiny has come to the judiciary. I commend FPC’s twitter page in order to better understand, DJT’s record on appointments and the future of federal jurisprudence.
Watching the arguments made for gun control by the Trump administration is where the rubber meets the road.
You also raised the issue of Roe, and, as M Pittman often points out, that ruling came down with a R-appointed super-majority. In fact one D and one R voted against Roe. (7-2 in an ideologically 6-3 court). In short, Trump is not an originalist nor constitutionalist on very much, if anything. He’s been deceptive on “Gun Free Zones”, “Red Flag Laws” and the aforementioned TrumpStock ban. Some consider these 4 years of Trump more destructive to the 2nd Amendment than the 8 years of Soetoro’s reign.
In any event, as the folks in Virginia are showing us, a reliance on a properly functioning federal judiciary is not where sovereign authority should reside.
Constant handouts to farmers and cheer-leading/jawboning the stock market further damages his economic principles. Justice begins with equal weights and measures: The US dollar, Trump’s “gold standard” is simply a fraud of liability and debt, sold as wealth.
If I could be so bold, It is better with my soul to write in Douglas Wilson or Edwin Vieira, PhD, JD than pencil in 4 more years of PT Barnum 2020.
Ron
Ron, thanks much, and I obviously agree with much of what you say. And while it is true that a Republican super-majority upheld Roe a few decades ago, the real question is whether a Democratic super-majority would ever overturn it. Republican appointees frequently wobble, while Democratic appointees never do. When Roe is struck down, as I am trusting that it will be, who will have appointed the justices who voted to strike it down?
In “An Evangelical Case for Four More Years,” you present a best case scenario in which the courts are reconstituted for a generation and Roe v. Wade is overturned, however, as racial demographics in the country continue to change (primarily through mass legal and illegal immigration), it will become much harder, and eventually impossible, to elect an even nominally pro-life president, and whatever temporary gains we’ve had from four more years of Trump will be permanently reversed as the left’s imported electorate grows. My question is, in light of this fact, would you be willing to support the idea of maintaining a white majority in the U.S.? If not, I’d be interested to know your rational and philosophical basis for that.
Armin
Armin, quite a few of the destructive policies we are dealing with were thought up by our very own white people. I don’t think that should be the boundary marker. That said, I do support policies that would curtail massive illegal immigration, otherwise known to Democratic politicians as voter-registration drives.
Re Plodcast 132: How We Should Be Praying for Trump Thank you for that. I so agree with the need for us to pray for him as a man. As a side note, people who despise him and buy into the liberal guilt trip they wish to put on Christians who vote for and support President Trump, please note praying for him will change your disposition toward him. So if you want to continue hating him, then don’t pray for him because if you do, you will start to love him like you’re supposed to. Jus’ sayin . . .
David
David, thank you. If he is your enemy, then the Bible says to love him. He qualifies.
Re: An Evangelical Case for Four More Years. Excellent! Another reason I’d suggest for voting for Trump is that he seems to be genuinely committed to rolling back significant portions of the regulatory state (although that is somewhat compromised by his willingness to give the state even more of our money). Then I think that we’ll see an acceleration of these positive aspects as we see Trump getting more of his people in place to carry out His agenda. Finally, while I agree with you that it is possible to “see a route to where we ought to be from a post-Trump era,” it is not so easy to see the Republican Party leading us down that route. But, hey, O me of little faith, I didn’t see that coming from Trump either!
Bill
Bill, right. I think our focus should not be so much on what Trump plans to do (because I don’t think he is driving all this), but rather to look at how God is playing some kind of wild card.
A Few Socialism Questions
“3 Reasons Why Socialism Should Not Be Considered as the Butterfly’s Boots”
I am in general agreement with your criticisms of socialism. However, what kind of provisions from the government for the poor, if any, do you think are established or supported by the provisions for the poor that God commands in the law (e.g., Lev. 19:9-10, 23:22)?
Thank you,
Ryan
Ryan, the gleaning laws were a wonderful example of workfare, as opposed to welfare. Farmers were told not to get all the way out to the edges so that the less fortunate who were willing to work hard could have access to that bounty. But this ensured that all the poor who received something were the deserving poor, the working poor. Ruth was blessed by the generosity of Boaz, but Boaz was generous because he saw how industrious she was.
I expect you may have seen this, but here is a response to your recent post on socialism from a UK pastor whose blog I enjoy.
Adam
Adam, I don’t know — not stealing would seem to be a biblical principle. And if the civil government is capable of stealing . . .
When it comes to U.S. government fiscal policy, one Scripture I don’t think I’ve seen anyone interact with is Leviticus 25, the year of Jubilee. Each family in Israel is during the time of the conquest guaranteed enough land on which they can grow crops to support themselves (“each man his own vine and fig tree”). If, once Israel occupies the land, any man becomes poor, sells off his family land, and is too poor to buy his land back, it will be returned to him in the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:28). If, as you argue, 1 Samuel 8 can be used to justify limiting tax rates to ten percent, can’t Leviticus 25 be used to justify some kind of tax policy encouraging the redistribution of wealth to help ensure a more level playing field among members in society? Might one call the economic system of the old covenant “theocratic socialism”? Thanks in advance for your response, Doug. I sincerely appreciate how you wrestle with the Scriptures and try to apply them to all of life.
John
John, yes and no. Applied to an agricultural society, the Jubilee laws basically ensured that farmland could not be sold permanently. It was not redistributed, but rather reverted back to the original owner. This meant that the original owner could not divest himself of his land in any permanent way. If he got into financial trouble, he could lease it for x number of years, but that was all — and the value of the lease would be adjusted to how close everyone was to the Jubilee. Homes in urban areas were not protected in the same ways, and that is more applicable to our situation, I think.
You mentioned taxes should not be higher than a tithe. That sounds like a quantitative issue you would have with our current tax system, but do you think there is a qualitative difference in the types of things the government taxes for? For example, what if the fed collected taxes for free healthcare and education so long as it stays under the 10%?
Thanks.
Tim
Tim, I think that if there were a hard limit of 10%, and the government was focused on those things that God requires of the magistrate, there wouldn’t be anything left over. So I would argue that they should take their portion, and spend it all on what God assigned to them as their specified task.
Thanks
This doesn’t have to do with a post on your blog, but I feel compelled to say it to you. I have just now been watching your daughter, Rachel Jankovic, in her interview with the Cross Politic guys at G3. I have to say, that woman is razor sharp. Kudos to you and Mrs. Wilson.
Andrew
Andrew, thank you. God has been extraordinarily kind to us in our children, their spouses, and their children.
Good Idea
Hi, are you considering making “A Study Guide to Calvin’s Institutes” as a pdf/epub/kindle format?
Much appreciated.
Shawn
Shawn, thanks. Good idea, thrown in the hopper.
Hang Tight
I love your “Flying a Cast Iron Skillet” article. I hesitated to share the article on Facebook because every time I share anything you say it leads to trouble, but the line about being “soft on sin means being hard on righteousness” was so on point I had to share it. The problem is that everything you said in the article is contrary to what my Pastor is preaching; he’s preached 3 sermons on the last verse in James 3 (only one of which was actually in the text) and the result is always that wisdom from above produces peace (the emotion) rather than righteousness (which is what’s produced in the field of peace in the actual text).
Can you move to Illinois and become a Reformed Baptist? I’m kidding of course, but I wish more churches would grab a hold of what an amazing impact a community of believers being obedient to Christ can actually (and not just theoretically) produce in the world.
Jay
Jay, thanks. As we used to say back in the day, keep on keeping on.
Do you have any book (or other source) recommendations for learning how to better engage with evolutionist teaching. I know what I believe about creation and the history of the world based on what the Bible teaches, but I find myself struggling to put together a coherent argument when specific evolutionary claims are made. For example, if someone states that the La Brea tar pits in LA are a great source of info on the Pleistocene epoch, I immediately want to discuss how the flood explains that. Admittedly, the right place to start and end, but I would like to learn more about the arguments of today’s evolutionist position and why they don’t stack up so that I can engage past the first question. I also think as my kids are growing up, it’s important to be able to help them form a robust ability to engage with this pervasive worldview. If you can help point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Thanks.
John
John, I would start with The New Creationism by Paul Garner.
Sanity as Insurrection
I am listening through Sanity as Insurrection for the third or fourth time, because my brothers around me in my current church body desperately need to begin looking at themselves and at their places in their families, their church, and their world covenantally. I suppose that I’m assuming that either your 7-concept extrapolation of Why and Who Says will either necessitate covenantal thinking and its joyful responsibility, or vice versa. When I stop and think about it, however, that is quite an assumption.
So I’m writing to tell you that God told me that He wants you to flesh this out into a book (go ahead, try to tell me He didn’t), and be quick about it. The eighth, and most welcome chapter, is to be “Thinking from Covenant to Worldview, and Back Again.” A welcome Afterword would be “How to Convince your Friends that God Made Them for More Than Being Good Between Sundays.”
PS – You know, when people with an unpracticed wit “try this at home,” and send it to you, it’s because your jovial steadfastness gives us a joy and enjoyment we may not find elsewhere. Like excited kids, it just makes us want to play too. Thank you for all you do.
Chandler
Chandler, yes sir. I will get right on it, if I can. I am peddling as fast as I can.
Back to Baptism
So this is a comment that addresses Trey’s question to you about the equivalent of circumcision, though I think it applies to all paedobaptists since they have the mistaken impression the circumcision in the OT is equivalent to baptism in the NT.
Romans 4:11 explicitly states that circumcision is the “seal of the righteousness of faith”. Ephesians 1:13 says that we are “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”. Ephesians 4:30 says we are “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.”
This shows us that the equivalent of circumcision is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism. Therefore it is only believers who are sealed. I find this to really be a huge gaping hole in the arguments of paedobaptists.
Lance
Lance, thanks for the response, and here is my all-too-brief rejoinder. I agree that circumcision and baptism are not precisely equivalent (because the Jews were the priestly people, not the saved people), and now in the new covenant baptism is for all believers because of the priesthood of all believers. So with that acknowledged, Colossians 2:11 does draw a line between circumcision and baptism.
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).
So the circumcision “without hands” corresponds to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, also accomplished without hands. Imagine a square, with spiritual circumcision at the lower left and spiritual baptism at the lower right. You can draw a line from one to the other, each representing heart regeneration. But you can also draw a line from spiritual circumcision straight up the left side to physical circumcision. The Jews were told to circumcise their hearts, meaning that the internal reality ought to line up with the external sign. And Peter, when he sees the household of Cornelius baptized in the Holy Spirit, asks, “Who can forbid water?” So we draw a line up the right side of the square also.
Now, why should we not be allowed to draw a line from the upper left to the upper right, completing the square?
That article by Steven Kneale is pretty bad. He starts out by saying that if everyone in society agreed to willingly pool their capital into public coffers, then a socialist society would “pop into existence by unanimous consent.” While technically true it has never, and will never, happen – short of absolute society-wide repentance (in which case it would not be needed.) Later, Kneale even grants that it could never happen: ” Total depravity tells us that the rich will not – out of their generous and good nature – simply share what the Lord has gifted to them.” One… Read more »
Armin, public opinion on removing or restricting abortion access has remained amazingly constant for at least the last ten years. Other than with black women, race/ethnicity is not in itself a reliable predictor of someone’s position on abortion. Hispanics living in Texas are more willing to impose significant restrictions than Hispanics living in California. The predictors of support for elective abortion remaining legal are age, geographical location, religion, party affiliation, and number of years of post-secondary education. I think it’s hard to deny that recent and current levels of even legal immigration are going to make it increasingly difficult for… Read more »
Jill, I’m not concerned with nonwhites’ personal positions on abortion, I’m concerned with whom they will vote for, and overwhelmingly they will vote for pro-abortion politicians. Regarding Roe v. Wade being overturned, Doug was presenting that possible outcome as a justification for voting for Trump, so I granted that possibility as legitimate for the sake of argument. A low chance of victory is better than no chance, which is what we will end up with if demographic trends continue. You seem quite certain that the “ship has sailed” on maintaining a white majority. Why? Could we not decide tomorrow to… Read more »
Armin, … racial demographics in the country continue to change (primarily through mass legal and illegal immigration), …Could we not decide tomorrow to begin the process of returning to pre-1965 demographics if we wanted to? I wonder if the change is due primarily to “immigration” or higher birth rates among non-whites. If the latter, as I suspect, I’m doubtful that “we” are going to decide to have more children than they do. I also suspect that the younger the person, the more likely they are to support abortion as being a “freedom” all women are entitled to have. Age trumps… Read more »
Immigration and higher nonwhite birthrates are both happening, and they’re both incentivized by government policy. Even if whites didn’t decide to start having more children, it would still be entirely feasible to reverse the demographic decline of whites if we just had the will to do it. Deporting illegals, closing the borders, not renewing visas, and repealing birthright citizenship are things we could do today. If you remove enough foreigners, their relatively high birthrate becomes a moot point (that is, assuming it would even remain high once it was clear to them that they would no longer be incentivized to… Read more »
You’re right. A detailed survey done in 2019 found support for legal abortion “in all or most cases” to be highest among adults under 30 (70%). Opposition to abortion doesn’t really begin to climb until age 50 and after that.
OK,
I think it is due to both, but second generation immigrant birth rates typically collapse to near normal American rates. And even rates in undeveloped countries have been rapidly declining. We are headed toward a white plurality rather than white majority nation and 20th century immigration policy is the primary cause.
In 2017 TFR for non-hispanic white American women was 1.7, black – 1.8, hispanic – 2.0. Enough to cause slow divergence, but all below replacement.
Armin, even if legal immigration were drastically cut back and every illegal immigrant deported, that would do nothing to alter the fact that the white population is so much older than any other. The most common age (the mode) for white Americans is 58. For Hispanics it’s 11; for blacks it’s 27, and for Asians it’s 29. We white baby boomers are starting to go to our eternal reward, but white fertility rates are below replacement levels in all 50 states. In California, 27% of citizens are foreign-born. White children are now the minority in the nation’s public schools. Eventually… Read more »
Jill,
Can you provide the link for the survey you mentioned?
My goal in this discussion was not to talk about what was feasible in the current political climate (things would have to change quite a bit for even the things I mentioned above to happen), but rather, to talk about what pro-life people should be advocating for. You haven’t disputed my claim that the decline in the white population will make it harder to combat abortion politically.
Armin,
Here is the data: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
I’m surprised that the cohort effects are so strong. Although questions about abortion are notoriously sensitive to wording.
I was referring to the survey Jill mentioned that showed 30% of whites are troubled about current demographic trends. The link you posted does not break down views on abortion by race, apart from distinguishing between “white evangelicals,” “white mainline protestants,” and “black protestants.”
The point I’ve been making is that even if nonwhites’ oppose abortion at the same rates as whites, they will still vote for pro-abortion politicians at a higher rate.
Ah, I thought you were referring to the abortion statistics by age. I’ll let Jilly provide the numbers on feelings about demographic trends. For a breakdown of opinions on abortion by race see here: https://www.prri.org/research/legal-in-most-cases-the-impact-of-the-abortion-debate-in-2019-america/ “With the notable exception of Hispanic Americans, majorities of every race or ethnicity believe that abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (60%) and African Americans (58%) are most supportive of abortion legality. Native Americans (53%) and white Americans (55%) have the slimmer majorities that support legal abortion in most or all cases, with around four in ten… Read more »
Why do you think it would be far easier to pull more Hispanics and Asians to the Republican party than to stop the broad demographic trends? Do you think that deporting all illegals, closing the borders, ending chain migration, ending birthright citizenship, and not renewing visas wouldn’t have a major effect on the demographics of the country long term? And these are just the methods that aren’t considered “extreme” (and by “extreme” I don’t mean genocide or something like that). Do you have any evidence to support the idea that we could convince Hispanics and Asians to embrace conservative values?… Read more »
Armin, You may have missed the part where “deporting all illegals, closing the borders, ending chain migration, ending birthright citizenship, and not renewing visas” will not keep whites from becoming a plurality. School age Americans are already majority minority and fertility is skewed toward hispanics and to a lesser extent blacks. And, yes it seems far more feasible that Republicans will improve their standing with Asians and Hispanics than that they will pass your wish list, or the more “extreme” measures that would actually change the trajectory rather than delay it slightly. The last time Asian Americas voted Republican was… Read more »
Bush ran on legalizing illegal immigrants in 2004 (and he actually got 40% of the Hispanic vote when they recalculated it), and there have been fewer deportations under Trump’s first three years than under Obama’s. It’s not as hard to get their vote when you just give in to them, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’ve somehow become more conservative. Is a 10% increase in Hispanic support worth not having meaningful border enforcement? The fact that Hispanics support Republicans more when they’re weak on immigration only validates the claim that Hispanics vote in their own ethnic interests. I don’t blame… Read more »
Armin,
Wait, I thought all you were worried about was getting Republicans elected because they may have a positive effect on abortion… but it turns out that encouraging relatively anti-abortion hispanics to vote Republican through policy inducement is off the table.
What a shocker that this whole pro-white for the babies is a stalking horse for your ethno-nationalism!
By policy inducement, you mean appealing to the ethnic interests of Hispanics? You’re totally OK with that, but heaven forbid we appeal to the interests of whites. I’m not sure what else to say here, but I’ll present two choices: 1) My approach, which is to put policies in place that will reverse the demographic decline of whites and lead to a better chance of victory on all the issues we care about, abortion being at the top, or 2) your approach, which is to essentially destroy our national sovereignty through mass immigration for the purpose of some (hoped for)… Read more »
Armin,
Just curious, what role do you see class playing in this discussion? It seems clear to me that wealthy white folks are more to blame for our national woes than anyone else. I grew up in a poor rural white world, and I see more continuity between lower classes of white and black and hispanic than I do between my people and the white Wall Street crowd, or the urban cosmopolitans.
Thoughts?
BJ, I don’t know what you mean by “continuity.” There’s certainly not continuity in voting patterns. You seem to be making a point similar to Doug’s in his response to me, but I’d ask you and him both, why does the fact that whites were primarily responsible for our bad immigration policy make it wrong to reverse that policy? Why not just say, “Yeah, we made a mistake and now we’re correcting it”? Many conservatives seem to have this assumption that it was morally valid to replace whites with non-whites. If ethnic replacement is morally OK, then you shouldn’t have… Read more »
Armin, in what way can you say whites are replaced? No white citizen have as far as I now been driven out of the U.S Just adding new people is not replacement. Adding a second car to the household, and becoming a two car household, is different from having one car and replacing it with another. I think most of your critics here would be very critical of a displacement of white people that meant they were violently driven out of the country, just as they would be critical of violently driving out non-whites. P.S Remember that immigrants, settlers and… Read more »
BJ, I think it is obvious that much of the mess we are in has been caused by class interest. Primarily white folks but increasingly asians as well. There is an enormous demand for cheap labor in for domestic and commercial service. High earning power couples have their standard of living enormously increased by hiring SE Asian or central American nannies. Construction firms get great work at a low price by hiring Mexican workers. Agriculture’s terrible employment and environmental practices keeps food dirt cheap for all of us. Supply chains have a constant drive to reduce costs which can (could)… Read more »
Armin, You keep changing the frame of the conversation when it becomes clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Try to stay on topic. You position, if I understand it correctly is that given the importance of the abortion issue Christians should support policies that will slow or reverse the demographic trends toward greater numbers of non-whites. You support this by stating that regardless of their personal views on abortion non-whites are more likely to vote for pro-abortion politicians. I showed that if abortion is your primary concern it would be much easier to recruit additional… Read more »
Demo, you’ve done nothing to disprove my point, except point out Bush’s relatively high approval rating with Hispanics in 2004 that had nothing to do with them being “natural conservatives.” If your only alternative to my “ethnonationalism” is to give the country away for a marginal increase in the Hispanic vote (at best), you really have nothing.
I’ll continue to wait for an actual sane alternative from you, with actual evidence to back it up.
Somehow I don’t think that will be forthcoming.
Armin, No one in this conversation, except you, has used the term “natural conservative” or implied that hispanics are going to be converted to conservatism . I certainly haven’t said anything of the sort. I was engaging in good faith with your initial point that restricting immigrants and rolling back demographic changes would be a plausible and effective way to enact pro-life reforms. It is clear that this was never your actual purpose and you are just trying to find additional angles to sell your political program to normies. I exposed your bad faith and you became hostile. It’s really… Read more »
Also remember that Latinos aren’t nearly as pro-immigration as most people assume. Though, like many other things, this has become more polarized recently (only 14% of Hispanics think the US has too few immigrants)
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2018/10/25/views-of-immigration-policy/ph_2018-10-25_national-survey-of-latinos-2018_4-06/
Armin,
I went looking around after all and found the survey: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/03/21/public-sees-an-america-in-decline-on-many-fronts/
28% of white Americans think being a majority minority nation would be “bad,” and 46% of whites think being a majority minority nation would “weaken America customs and values.” I guess 18% of white folks think weakening American customs and values is good or neutral.
Doug said “I am peddling as fast as I can.” And with all those sales, you’ll – what?
Methinks “pedaling” may be the intended verb.
Don’t kid yourself, Doug Wilson is always peddling, especially when he’s pedaling.