So as I sat down at the computer this morning, I was wondering which particular box in my attic I should unpack and bring down. And one of the first things I encountered was an email from a friend with some links, in case I was looking for something to jump in on. Well, I was, as a matter of fact. Guidance, I call it.
A minor dust-up involving complementarianism outside marriage and the church has arisen. John Piper started it here by answering a woman who wondered if she could become a police officer. Aimee Byrd responded, as did Carl Trueman a couple ways, and we should not neglect mentioning Scot McKnight.
What I want to do here is agree with John Piper on the fundamental issue at hand, and to do so in a way that emphasizes how important this is. John Piper is on to something here, and to let it go is to fall into a conservative complementarian neo-orthodox retreat to commitment. I hope explain that shortly.
But first, I think some of Piper’s particular criteria for navigating the question (directive authority & personal contact) are not helpful across the board, the way they need to be. More work is needed here. I can easily think of counter-instances where I don’t think there should be any biblical hesitations, but which violate his criteria — e.g. the lady of the house directing the landscapers on where to plant the bushes, or telling the men from the moving company which rooms the boxes go in.
But Piper is right that we must function as biblically-minded men or women all day every day, and we must figure out what this looks like in all our daily interactions. This means making judgment calls, and so his interlocutors are hooting at him and conjuring up weird instances where his standard creates weird situations. But what about their standard? If God’s standards for femininity apply only when church is in session, and/or in the privacy of our own evangelical homes, then what do we have to say about women fighting in mixed martial arts competitions? All good Christians need to say that such things are demented, but given the premises of those sidling out of complementarianism, why? Why are they demented? You do agree they are demented, right?
Second, Aimee Byrd set out an ostensibly even-handed way of approaching such questions. On the surface, it seems preeminently reasonable.
“When I saw the question, I thought, ‘Well this should be a short episode. Yes, as long as she can pass all of the education, physical, and background requirements for the job.'”
Yes, but we live in a generation where the required outcome is that women will in fact start passing all those tests, and we will coax them along until they do. And when we have dragged them across the finish line, a great celebration will commence. If anyone points out what is happening, his sorry little male ego will be remanded to sensitivity camps.
The standard looks like a simple application of the biblical requirement of “equal weights and measures.” But once you have affirmed the “same standard” approach, good luck applying it. The same measuring rod will get you a first rate man but a third rate woman, or a first rate woman and a third rate man. Why? Because a defensive lineman is not a quarterback, a china vase is not a backhoe, and a crescent wrench is not a hammer.
And this brings us to our evangelical sophisticates who, unlike John Piper, believe that crescent wrenches are only “not hammers” in the church and family. Outside in the world, where complementarianism is thought to be the height of SILLINESS, feel free to pound in the brads with the crescent wrench, which actually can be done, come to think of it. You might run up against the limits of your theory when you try to get the lug nuts off your tire with a hammer though.
So yes, you heard that right — some folks think God’s creation pattern can be ignored out there in the creation.
Carl Trueman provides a great example of what I meant by the retreat to commitment on this issue.
“I rarely read complementarian literature these days. I felt it lost its way when it became an all-embracing view of the world and not simply a matter for church and household.”
God has given us a distinctive way of living in the world, modeling for the world how the authority of Jesus Christ extends to absolutely everything. The Great Commission did not tell us to go out into the world and settle for privatized carve-outs and ghettos.
Let us end with some Bible. That still okay? It is from Deuteronomy, so I might be pushing it.
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5).
This is a verse that prohibits cross-dressing for the men, but something else is prohibited to the women. Men are told not to put on women’s clothing, which is the sin of the transvestite. Women are told not to wear keli geber, the gear of a soldier. The phrase can be understood as the panoply of a warrior, but it could also perhaps be extended to include something like a telephone lineman’s tool belt. So, no. A Christian complementarian woman should not become a cop, especially when it involves riot gear. No.
The fundamental Christian confession is that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of the church, of the family, and of the nations of men. He is Lord of Heaven and earth. He is Lord of the private spaces and the public places. There is not one square inch in this cosmos over which Jesus Christ is not the absolute and final sovereign.
What this soft complementarianism jive is doing, what this accidental feminism is accomplishing, what this retreat to commitment is unwittingly trying to do, is to replace the triumphant cry that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords with the much more acceptable and palatable view that Jesus is our much beloved tribal chieftain.
Granted, the rules that Jesus has for us here in this village can sometimes feel pretty strict, but it is manageable because a bunch of us have figured out how to go into the big city on the weekends and take in some of the sights. One of the favorite attractions is to catch the babes mud-wrestling, which is, I can assure you, something we would never allow in the church or in our households. I mean, my word.
Thank you Mr. Wilson. This is something I’ve thought an awful lot about especially since I now have a couple of daughters. It’s always been clear to me that women should not be in the military, but for some reason I was less sure about the police. Thank you for helping clear that up.
Great piece. Although, in a society where it was normative for women to marry, stay at home and raise kids, I’m not sure a discussion like this would even arise. It would just be, well, obvious.
I’m curious of your reply to the standard argument saying, “That passage is from Deuteronomy/OT Law, so it doesn’t apply to us anymore.”
Also I’m interested in learning more about this retreat to committment. I’m not sure I fully understand it.
Steven – Pastor Wilson preached a sermon recently on the book of Nahum which went into depth on both questions. You can find it here: http://www.canonwired.com/featured/1864/
You are the sunshine of my life, Doug.
I don’t understand the “retreat to commitment” phrase either. I don’t understand the last paragraph coming from the penultimate paragraph. Maybe someone in Doug’s village can explain the seriousness or the humor in that, whichever it was meant to be. I find it fairly obnoxious for men to be so strict “biblically” on women, yet make jokes without disclaimer of “hot first lady with nude pics” and “favorite attractions is to catch babes mud wrestling”… I’m also trying to balance this view with his statements of Fiorina as being on his “possibles” list. Most I know that are traditional conservative… Read more »
Right, but isn’t that a bad thing?
Also, I believe the joke is an example of hyperbole. Using humor as a pseudo-formal Reductio ad Absurdum argument.
Isn’t what a bad thing? You mean it being “outside” the church? Sure. But when most churches AGREE with outside the church…maybe we ought to get real serious with rebukes within the church, also…and maybe he has…it’s just one of my main soapboxes…annoyed at us fussing at the world, when the church is just like it. Well, the hyperbole is getting lost on people that have a twisted society on one side of them, twisted church on another side, and are meeting up with a new “stripe” of philosophy on this blog. I find it a bit more dangerous to… Read more »
oh, ok. so you don’t read this blog a lot, then.
More recently, consistently, since the end of June since the Vines Q & A’s and SCOTUS rulings…trying to make more sense of the “state of affairs in the church”…
He isn’t saying that watching babes mud-wrestle is okay. He is insinuating that there are people who go watch, but would never allow mud-wrestling in their own churches and homes. People who are happy to have rules here, just so long as they can enjoy the lack of rules out there.
Yes. It’s pretty obvious from the context, to anyone who isn’t trying to play “gotcha”.
Regarding Fiorina for President:
I suppose one argument might be that it’s better to vote for Deborah than Sisera (or Jezebel).
I always find the Deborah argument exceedingly odd.
The story is presented clearly as “can you believe Barak wouldn’t go into battle without a woman coming with him?!?” And he is explicitly punished for that very demand … punished by a woman taking the battlefield glory from him. Because that’s not a good thing, apparently.
And it is Deborah who upbraids Barak for this, and Deborah who pronounces the punishment ahead of time.
Alex, I think you rightly point out the apparent inconsistency of Mr. Wilson’s views as expressed in this article, and his presumed willingness to consider a women for the highest political office in the land. I think clarification is in order. The same woman who shouldn’t be a cop might make a great leader of the free world? Is it the gun? ‘Cause if so, I’m pretty sure the CIC has a bigger arsenal.
Maybe I’m just not getting it… but both Ms. Byrd (can I still use Ms. ?) and Mr. Trueman were both stymied by this phrase: “The postman won’t relate to the lady at the door the way a husband will, but he will be a man” Like, they both said they didn’t understand it… I’m not a seminary graduate, but it seems to me that Piper meant something along the lines of “The relationship between a Postman and a Husband are different”. Or at least one would hope so. Is it me, or did it seem like both of them… Read more »
“The postman won’t relate to the lady at the door the way a husband will, but he will be a man” Piper is exactly right in this. Men relate to me, as a woman, in a certain fashion. He will be ‘mannish’, as he is a man. A nice old gent who frequents my marketplace loves to tell me jokes. But he always says that he won’t tell me any ‘off-color’ jokes because I am a lady. He respects me as something ‘other’ than his man-friends. I like that. I am not the least offended, and I enjoy this man’s… Read more »
Exactly.
And I pity those women who are so naive as to believe that they are “just one of the guys”, and who actually are proud to be included in the off color jokes.
No, ladies, you are not one of the guys. “The guys” are getting their jollies out of you letting them joke that way with you.
Two separate issues: Should a complementarian woman become a police officer? Answer: No. Second question: Should a secular state forbid women from becoming police officers? Answer, no. So long as it’s understood that theology and government policy are not the same thing, we’re good.
“Should a secular state forbid women from becoming police officers? Answer, no. So long as it’s understood that theology and government policy are not the same thing, we’re good.” It’s all nice and comfortable to keep theology and government policy “not the same thing” in talk…but…it is agreed (or not?) that those two merge and morph almost inextricably…it just depends whose “theology” is in the majority as to how the policy is likely to follow… i.e. if an overwhelming majority in society come from a theology that is complementarian…then, though it may seem idealistic to still say it shouldn’t “forbid”… Read more »
I agree that it is inevitable that if the overwhelming majority of a culture believes a certain way, there will be spillover into customs, mores, and how things are done. But that’s a separate question from whether the law should offer equal opportunity. I once worked for a company that was overwhelmingly Mormon. They were nice to me and treated me well, but it was unavoidable that there were times when I couldn’t help not feeling like I was really and truly a part of that company family. That’s to be expected; if you were the only Christian working for… Read more »
Mores…that’s the word I was after!
Agreed.
“whether the law should”…key word, “should”. not a TOTALLY separate question unless we’re weighing things under current law?
You are okay with a business hiring based on their beliefs? i.e. if a Mormon company did not want to hire a Jehovah’s Witness…etc.? Conservative Christian college not hiring lgbt faculty… or…a company that really just wants/needs men (or women) for the position? or does the Civil Rights trump the 1st Ad to you or? depends on what SCOTUS du jour says? :)
It depends on what the job is. I would not require a Catholic college to hire a Mormon theology professor because actually believing what you teach is part of the job. I would not allow a Catholic college to refuse to hire Mormons as secretaries, janitors, computer programmers or business managers because none of those positions has anything to do with a person’s beliefs. It doesn’t matter if the person answering the phone is a Jew, a Muslim or a Baptist. And I don’t see a First Amendment issue in that; if you do, please explain. That’s why the Catholic… Read more »
Well. Long as you don’t hate me for just saying what I think. And I don’t know if Kelly will have to roll his eyes at my ignorance of original intent, current law, and pertinent cases…so I speak timidly. (And remember, I think we’ve covered that you consider SCOTUS as the final voice of law and the Constitution up for current interpretation more than I would…so…I know that affects our perspective…) Oh, shoot. I don’t usually get this detailed in what I think because I don’t want anyone to think I’m screaming at them. If someone doesn’t want to bake… Read more »
Suppose the 9/11 hijackers had been caught and put on trial, and their defense had been that they were exercising their religious freedom, which requires them to kill infidels. Should that have been a winning argument? And if you think not (as I certainly hope you do), then what is the difference philosophically, between that case and the baker saying “no law means no law”? Obviously the stakes are higher — 3000 dead in 9/11 versus someone having to find another bakery to bake them a cake — but is that it? Why does “no law” mean no law for… Read more »
Looks like I ought to bring up some secular law after all. (I’m deliberating going to skip the Romans and the Werewolves because (a) we can solve this problem without going off into Laws of Armed Conflict and (b) I’m still thinking Hiroshima and Just War, etc, are distractions from the abortion question and so I’m still ignoring that whole line of questioning. Of course I know about those topics and am not afraid of them but they don’t belong here. Again, if and when Pastor Doug chooses to open such a stand alone thread on legal and illegal combatants… Read more »
Kelly, thanks for your detailed response. My hijacker hypo was in response to what I understood to be Alex’s position, which is that the government may never prevent people from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. And I think the bottom line, pure and simple response is that other people have rights too. If your religion is asking you to do things that interfere with the rights of other people, then your religious beliefs may have to yield. As a matter of policy, I think bakers who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings shouldn’t have to. As… Read more »
If Wooley and Thomas are still good law, then NM and CO got it wrong but KY got it right. If they are no longer good law after Obergefell, then we need to elect a Pres in 2016 who replace Ginsburg with a clone of Scalia, Thomas, or Alito. That way we can make them good law again. Doomed to flunk tact again, but while I’ll never have the patience to put up with McD’s ill-informed rants about law, neither do I wish to avoid a topic which IS on point. Make no mistake – McD can opine all he… Read more »
I don’t read Obergefell to have said a word about the religious freedom of those who oppose gay marriage. What Obergefell said was that gays have a fundamental right to marry, which is not quite the same thing as saying that they have the right to conscript other people to help them. I have the right to travel but that doesn’t mean I can force a particular airline to do business with me. Plus, the Colorado and New Mexico cases dealt with state statutes that expand the rights of gays further than either the federal or state constitutions require; not… Read more »
Your having a JD is a bonus; glad to hear it. McD has changed his name to “Rev. R. W. Shazbot” but he kept the same photo. Perhaps he’ll ask you if your JD came from Costco, too? Or if you’re supposed to take your Ambien at night? Due to the incorporation doctrine, I’m confident Wooley should have won in either CO, KY, or NM. Barnette should have won in all 50 states. Note also that HandsOn won in KY despite a state-wide orientation ban. Of course Sherbet (1963), Wooley and Thomas pre-date Emp Div vs Smith (another OR case,… Read more »
I’m not as worried about Hobby Lobby because that was a case about statutory interpretation; had the RFRA not been passed, Smith would have still applied and Hobby Lobby would have been a 9-0 decision the other way. Don’t forget, Scalia wrote Smith. I think under the Interstate Commerce Clause Congress could probably push a RFRA on the states, but so far they have not chosen to do so. That means that for now, unless a state constitution or statute provides greater protection to religious expression than the federal constitution does, Smith still controls in the states. But businesses have… Read more »
RILUPA was passed (institutions and land use protection) was passed after Boerne-Flores (sic?) struck down the RFRA as applied to states in 1997. ADDED by edit 7:25 am Sun 23 Aug; City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/case.html Respondent, the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, applied for a building permit to enlarge a church in Boerne, Texas. When local zoning authorities denied the permit, relying on an ordinance governing historic preservation in a district which, they argued, included the church, the Archbishop brought this suit challenging the permit denial under, inter alia, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act… Read more »
Now hold on, the baker was not fined 135k for being a Christian; the plaintiffs were awarded 135k in damages for violations of their civil rights. To a lawyer that’s a fairly important distinction. I’m not arguing that the amount isn’t ridiculous; had I been the hearing officer I’d have awarded them the cost of the wedding cake. But still, a Christian who baked the cake for them (which is probably most Christian bakers) would not have run into trouble. It’s not the Christianity that got them into trouble; it was the refusal to comply with the law.
ADDED by edit 6:56 am Sun 23 Aug; OOPS!! My bad. Just realized the post below could be taken as my holding that K2 has been spouting cant. No, I believe K2 and I only disagree. K2 strikes me as sincere. Rather, I think the plaintiffs and their activist defenders, such as Ellen Page, are squarely in the “cant” mode. If this distinction becomes important I’ll post another true story from law school . . . the correct “i” word, where the prof thought another student lacked “imagination” but I thought the judge lacked “integrity.” Back to our regular programming.… Read more »
Why should we care about or discuss what a secular state does?
Because you live in one.
Feel free to pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better.
I certainly don’t pretend otherwise; both the letter of the law and the behaviour of the government make it clear. As Christians, we should not expect such a government to pay heed to our desires or beliefs.
The government is not going to require any woman to become a police officer, a professional boxer, or a Navy admiral who doesn’t want to be. But neither should your theology stand in the way of women who does want to. Your desires or beliefs have nothing to do with it, unless you think you’re being discriminated against by not being allowed to run other people’s lives.
If you’re not a Christian, there’s nothing you can stand on for your “should”s to matter to us.
You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
You are correct. I will get you the link where Eric The Red admits it. UPDATE: The conversation ended here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/a_rook_for_a_queen/#comment-2168086712 Where Eric agreed that preserving the philosophical discussion for posterity would be a good idea in that Eric would not have to defend the indefensible. If you look at the sub-thread leading up to that, you get a flavor for nothing that is Eric’s position and the clarity of yours. Here is my statement of Eric’s philosophy: There is no God. Material is all that exists. Consciousness and ethics exist. Therefore in a materialist universe consciousness and ethics must… Read more »
Timothy, you just keep telling yourself all that if it makes you feel better.
Here is your comment agreeing that our discussion got to the heart of the matter: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/a_rook_for_a_queen/#comment-2168086712 Krychek_2 That’s actually not a half bad idea. Rather than continually derailing thread after thread after thread, you can just link to this discussion for anyone who’s interested. I suspect not many will be, but those that are can then read this discussion for themselves here rather than keep repeating it over and over. Hopefully we will then be able to discuss other threads on their merits rather than continue with this distraction over and over again. Sounds like a win/win to me. ashv… Read more »
The thing is, though, your arguments and Katecho’s arguments are completely ludicrous, and the fact that I’m no longer engaging them doesn’t make them any less so. I had an email from someone telling me they teach philosophy at the college level and have used Katecho’s and your arguments in the classroom as examples of logical fallacies. Your arguments convince no one except the already converted; everyone else points and laughs. So again, you just keep telling yourself whatever you likes if it makes you feel better. Everyone except the already converted will continue to point and laugh. P.S. You… Read more »
I hope you invite your college professor’s here to the blog where we can engage them. Your written words speak for themselves Eric. Ashv (and others) can decide on the merits. That once we get past the issue of whether I have a basis for morality and start talking about what morality actually is, that you lose that discussion? In a sense, you are absolutely correct, since by losing you mean: Everyone except the already converted will continue to point and laugh. (Modified?) Humian Utilitarianism is subject to the Argumentum ad populum and you demonstrate this wonderfully. It is hilarious… Read more »
Timothy, you just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I will just point out, though, that Humian utilitarianism holds that the masses are often wrong, so you obviously aren’t even familiar with the philosophy you hold in such contempt.
Humian utilitarianism holds that the masses are often wrong
You could be right. I read that it was subject to the Democratic Fallacy and took the statement as true; I did not attempt to verify it.
The important things are first things, and yours are nothing. You have written as such.
When a Christian, as ashv has done here, starts to wonder what your core is, we can point to it saving them the effort of finding the nothing that is the basis of your ideas.
That was a worthwhile project.
Dude, here’s the problem you’re still not facing up to. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that your “first things” are anything more than wishful thinking. I’d be happy to believe in your God if there were any evidence for it. In the absence of any real evidence, your God of the Bible is no better a foundation for first things than any other ancient text from any other ancient religion. So even if you were right that I’ve got nothing, that doesn’t help you any. In that case, we would each have nothing. Mine at… Read more »
Other than your bare, naked belief, do you have anything to support your own first things? Yes. Jesus Christ. The risen Lord is a real Person who loves us, died for our sins and welcomes us into His grace. He is not derived , He is met. He is more real than reality, Holy, Just and Kind. You have not met Him, I have. You have an education in Scripture, I do not. Yet, I know Him, you do not. The accounts of Him by men and women span millenia. They are, by necessity, autobiographical accounts. Remember, God is not… Read more »
In other words, your subjective feelings. So if someone shows up here to tell us how Allah or Buddha changed their lives, you’ll grant those subjective feelings the same credence you grant your own?
These things are spiritually discerned. They are more real than we are. We feel and live the effects of our spiritual condition. Sin has its own roads, Salvation another. The testimony of millions attests to it. For any non-Christian, I will ask them if they have met Christ. I will look at the objective evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit doing His work of Sanctification in lives–i.e. the fruits of the Spirit. I will pray to God and ask Him how I can best explain Him to them. I will point out the consequences of sin on their… Read more »
But anybody can start a religion and make the claim that if you don’t believe the religion it’s because you’re not spiritual. In fact, many people have. Any good scientologist will tell you that if you don’t “get” scientology it’s because of your own lack of spiritual understanding. So, suppose I have two people standing in front of me — you and a scientologist — and each of you is telling me that I don’t “get” your religion because I’m not spiritual. As between the two claims, is there any objective evidence, beyond subjective feelings, to support one over the… Read more »
If an atheist agrees with theists that human life has meaning now (apart from when either humans are extinct, or God ends this present world), and agrees also that human choices now are significant, why would he not focus on the ethical concerns we all face, like the subject of this blog post, instead of challenging theism? Even an atheist could have something valuable to say about the roles of the sexes in the family and society. Why might an atheist keep asking for evidence for God? 1) To proselytize for atheism. He can’t abide that unenlightened people don’t see… Read more »
And these two reasons do not exhaust the possibilities. An atheist might want to help Christians sharpen their arguments. His atheism is no barrier to his own morality, but he might think that most people need to believe in God in order to be good citizens.
Dude, you must be new here. My original comments are almost always on the subject of the blog post; it’s others who persistently then turn it into a Christian-vs-atheist debate. If you don’t believe me, go back and read my very first comment at the very top of this thread. In fact, I’ll make it easy for you; here’s what I said: “Two separate issues: Should a complementarian woman become a police officer? Answer: No. Second question: Should a secular state forbid women from becoming police officers? Answer, no. So long as it’s understood that theology and government policy are… Read more »
The blog post is on gender roles, and on the inconsistency of Christians who compartmentalize their views on gender roles out of the public square (in other words, abandoning the state to secularism).
Your comment affirmed a secular state. I can see why an atheist might promote a secular state, but why should a Christian? Maybe an atheist could defend the compartmentalizing Christian (even on a Christian’s own grounds), instead of simply asserting “the position of a truly secular state.”
Okay, so why would an atheist so often engage hijackers in a thread derailment over theism vs. atheism?
I’m trying not to engage; my responses to Timothy and Katecho at this point pretty much consist of “if it makes you feel better to believe that, then go ahead.” I’m engaging BJ because he’s raised an issue that we haven’t actually discussed before.
And not all Christians are theocrats. Some recognize there are legitimate policy reasons for separation of church and state, especially since Christanity may not be the dominant religion forever.
Half of your replies to Timothy were more than “go ahead, believe that.”
Nevertheless, please forgive me for speculations on your motives.
Whatever the reason for your interest in the evidence for God, my prayer is that you will be given time and a mind to turn to him in Christ.
And added to K2’s response, see Kelly’s comment above to ashv…the gist being, “In a pluralistic republic – – what we were designed in Philadelphia to be and what Franklin hoped we could keep – – people of many faiths (or no faith, such as K2) must find enough common ground and share enough generally agreed precepts to be able to live in a prosperous peace. That will require listening to atheists or at least respecting their right to argue a position.” Not PROMOTING a secular state as much as working within it and influencing it as we can. As… Read more »
I get all your points. Good points overall. But I must interject my nonsense (since I’ve been told it’s my hobby :) and clarify that it isn’t K2 that always directs a thread or other enjoyable topic back to “evidence for God” and the like (as you mentioned). Some seem to think it’s their calling of God to do this…fine I suppose (since they don’t appreciate our convos of “damn cold boring policy”)…while the rest of us sigh and wait for the next other topic to try, try again. Maybe that was your point, anyway. If so, ditto, on that,… Read more »
Not wanting to get further involved in this convo because I know where they ultimately lead (spiritual blindness on the brink of hell and all that :), but a quick observation with the response you are given to this and to other comments to you…it just hit me in seeing the most recent response (“sensible people…”), it seems to me that a more Calvinistic vantage wouldn’t be expecting or demanding or assuming so much of someone out of their faith circle. I assume you know enough of Calvinism from your studies to recognize the Arminian tendencies in these convos? This,… Read more »
Yes, I do know what you mean. I was raised Calvinist. Faith is a gift from God, and if I’m elect, God will eventually give it to me. If I’m not elect, then there’s nothing I can do about it.
As one who believes in biological determinism, I will note that determinism is Calvinism for atheists, and Calvinism is determinism for theists. The only question is whether the strings are being pulled by God or by the impersonal forces of nature.
An “a whatever will be will be…meanwhile let’s talk about other things” :)
Anyway, good. Thanks for sparing me. The fewer words the better in some situations…
“If I’m not elect, then there’s nothing I can do about it.”
Yep, you are right. Calvinism boiled down to its rudimentary nature is basically: Either you are predetermined by God to be damned or predetermined by God to be elect – and there is nothing either one can do about it. Its a done deal from the get go.
Sorry, but I’m not sure I can agree with you even from inside the faith/moral circle, while I am certain I cannot agree with you while inside the secular/law circle. Where you are standing at any given moment does not affect what you believe (well, at least I believe it’s not supposed to!), but it DOES affect how/when/if you argue for it. That’s why Paul so was so willing to change his style or argument and the rationale he cited to suit his audience; “all things to all people.” His goal and purpose never varied but how he tried to… Read more »
NOW I can go to bed. Have been pondering what to say here since yesterday but not wanting to say the wrong thing. (Had quotes of yours in my draft :) But I’m mostly speechless these days at this type of thinking. Which is why I waited…
And to K2, hopefully he could already tell it does matter to some of “us”. For it not to would go against both my circles as well.
Batten down the hatches and rig for collision (again!): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422844/another-malicious-leftist-attack-religious-freedom-david-french P.S. While it might be nice to be the Benchmark of Right and the Quality Assurance Division of this blog, no one should assume having the Kelly Stamp of Approval is worth more than you paid for it. I strive to see what is legit wherever I find it and when I stake out a position I believe it’s sound. But I’m as likely to stumble as anyone. If a working attorney shows up here and can poke a hole in a Kelly position, fine. Bring on the citations. If… Read more »
When you link to things relating to this topic (which everything seems to be leading back to it these days…), a phrase that keeps coming to mind from other discussions is that phrase “closely held”. (Was that term only used in Hobby Lobby?) Terms like that along with “compelling interest”…well…I’m not sure they can lead anywhere very good or stay “neutralish” enough very long, if at all. I’d be interested when these phrases were first presumptuously used…
P.S. :)
“closely held” referrers to small or family corporations, not impersonal giants such as IBM, GE, Exxon, etc. Laycock of U Va is one of THE 1st Ad authorities around. A strong supporter of both SSM and RFRA (Congress overruling Emp Div v Smith from 1990), he nonetheless thinks only mom-n-pops and similar small fry should be allowed to assert Thomas or Wooley defenses in flowers, photos, or cakes involving gay weddings. Presumably if the bakery of a Wal-Mart cannot refuse to make a gay wedding cake, neither can they refuse to make a Rebel flag cake. I have never understood… Read more »
Is the Chick-fil-A city council contract delay/rejections along the same line of legal law as Thomas/W/HofA…or something totally different?
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/denver-cites-religion-to-delay-chick-fil-a-contract/
And back to hiring based on beliefs…I’m thinking once there is no more legal path, we’ll have to hire more creatively…as in not advertise, etc. for job openings. But even with that, I’m sensing the vise will continue to tighten..
P.S. Lesson 4 in “What is a Southerner”…Chick-fil-A :)
We have Chick-fil-A here; nice place. The typical bureaucrat can screw you completely you can’t even prove you HAVE been screwed. As Robert Heinlein wrote some 50 years ago, “In a mature society, the term ‘civil servant’ is semantically equal to ‘civil master’.” My hunch is the US of A has gone past the tipping point; we’ve accumulated such a deep and wide administrative state that we are past the point of no return. If “Trumpery” actually results in a rollback of gummit regulations – – regardless of who/how/why – – I will be the most amazed person on this… Read more »
Americanism is opposed to God, and has been formally since the USA Constitution was written to specifically not require government officials to declare their allegiance to Jesus. Our responsibilities to the US government are no different from first-century Christians’ responsibilities to Rome — to live peaceably so far as it depends on us. But there’s no reason Christians have to listen to arguments based on false premises. Light has no common ground with darkness.
“Americanism is opposed to God, and has been formally since the USA Constitution was written to specifically not require government officials to declare their allegiance to Jesus.” I believe you are incorrect, both as to facts and law. If the US was opposed to God, we wouldn’t have the 1st Ad. Yes, given the Gang of Five, we are likely headed in that direction, but if so it is perversion of the US, not a celebration of it. If you are seeking a formal declaration that the US is opposed to God, not even art. 10 of the Treaty of… Read more »
Article VI, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution says “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” A government that does not subordinate itself to Christ the King is ultimately His enemy. Several of the American founders were not Christian, most notably Jefferson and Franklin, so it’s not surprising that a formally atheist state was created.
OK, one quick reply then off for a big day Fri.
Are you really trying to raise not just a theocracy, but a Christian one, as the standard? If so, could you accept a Catholic one? Would Greek, Russian, or Roman make a difference to you? Lutherans OK as top dog? Mormons? Jews? Or, my personal favorite, United Methodists? (Maybe not for long; a schism is in the wind for us because not even the “local option” for gay marriage is very likely to pass next year.)
Not sure what you mean by “accept” — I “accept” the government we have now, vile as it is. As for what I’d consider ideal, a tolerantly-Protestant government on the 18th-century English model seems like as good a starting place as any, despite the obvious flaws that arose in its practice. There’s plenty of room for disagreement. (Not sure what you mean by ‘theocracy’ or why you bring up Mormons and Jews, since neither are Christian.)
Perhaps I’ve totally misread your last two posts, but below is what I’m seeing. If I’ve not connected heard your meaning, please correct me. “What [I] mean by ‘theocracy’ ” When you assert that the only legitimate status for a civil government is to be “subordinate . . . to Christ the King,” then I submit you have not only merged church and state, but further you have also held that the church controlling the state must be one which meets your definition of Christian. That’s why you stipulate that the controlling church may neither be Mormon nor Jewish. That’s… Read more »
I don’t think we have to drag Locke into it since he’s been proven wrong in both theory and practice.
I don’t think a state-established church is fundamentally evil, though it might be unwise. The US has had them before, even after the ratification of the Constitution. As for toleration etc, this (Catholic) blogger offers a useful perspective I think: http://orthosphere.org/2015/08/21/can-diverse-christian-sects-coexist-peacefully/
Ideally Christians of different opinions will have their own lands and communities, but we all have plenty of practice coping with less-than-ideal governments. ;-)
Read the column, stopping frequently to look up words (that author is Wm F Buckley w/o the charm). More puzzled than I was before. You’re the first I’ve heard that Locke has been proven wrong in either theory or practice. And I didn’t see how the column’s idea of tolerance in action either conforms to Locke or invalidates him. This is NOT what either Locke or I had in mind as an operational definition of tolerance: “They mostly share the same taboos. Then they do not irritate each other; thus only may they get along . . . .” That’s… Read more »
No, the USA never will since it’s not a nation, but a multicultural empire, hopefully one that’s nearly dead. It was founded as a compromise government holding multiple nations together and never produced a sense of shared identity that lasted beyond the latest opponent in war. As for Locke, Karl Boetel provided the public service of actually reading some things he had to say: https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/democracy-and-the-intellectuals/#wise-locke Even without getting into most of the details of Locke’s arguments, it’s sufficient to observe that no one has ever existed in a “state of nature” antecedent to actual human relationships, thus there’s no validity… Read more »
Tried to read some of that rant, then did a search for “tolera,” which produced three hits – – none of them by/about Locke. I read his Second Letter on Religious Toleration in college (Poli Sci major). This rant does not speak to that book, which is what I had in mind. (Although Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” became our “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”)
Does this Radish fellow ever get to a poli sci theory author of whom he approves?
He has positive things to say about Thomas Carlyle and Henry Sumner Maine. Anyway, I didn’t realize you were referring to something other than the Treatise on Civil Government the eighteenth century revolutionaries loved so much. Not really familiar with his other work.
Now the picture is in much better focus. I just dropped a “think piece” up at the head of the comments.
As I try to catch up and keep the order of convo straight…by “think piece” are you referring to the inspirational “City on a Hill” comment?
Yes.
” In Locke’s scheme, it’s when you DO feel strongly about something and you DON’T share the same taboos and you ARE irritated a great deal . . . but you get along with them anyway because you’ve allowed the other guy to believe/practice his goofy/Satanic/evil rituals . . . since they’re cutting you the same amount of slack.” Yes. As an atheist friend told me, “defending your right to your God is also fighting for my right for no God.” It’s not about demanding the other to accept my One True Way…it’s about the freedom for each of us… Read more »
I’ll try to keep this simple as I don’t want to interrupt the eloquent and detailed flow of your and ashv’s, imo, hugely important discussion. These might be more in the faith circle, but maybe not…and sometimes it’s hard to extricate the two…but in case you see any worth or relevance in working in or through…here goes: You are dealing clearly with one of the concerns expressed. And maybe you are doing that as it might be the most important before the other two can be addressed. The other concerns mentioned were… 1)”Our responsibilities to the US government are no… Read more »
An admiral, no, but if the need for a draft returns (and how could that ever happen, with all the deft foreign policy we see going on?), the government may well require that a woman be a seaman.
What would be their ground for not doing so? Carl Truman says that complementarianism is only for the church building and the house.
I think it’s highly unlikely we will ever see a draft again. If I am wrong about that, then she could apply for conscientious objector status. If her application was denied, she would then be in the same position as thousands if not millions of young men who object to military service on religious, moral, or other grounds but who are serving anyway. Why should her conscience protect her when a man’s conscience won’t protect him? Look, I find a draft objectionable on multiple levels. I don’t think anyone should be conscripted into military service. But in general I am… Read more »
Actually, many governments do require women to join the military. Without a Christian view of womanhood, why shouldn’t our daughters be drafted the next time.
I am opposed to anyone being drafted, male or female. I don’t want your daughters drafted, but I don’t want your sons drafted either. And I think a draft is highly unlikely, at least any time soon. However, if we have a draft, one of the best ways to get an unjust law repealed is by applying it to everyone equally, so its burden doesn’t fall only on disfavored groups. When the favored groups see that it applies to them too, they will then usually lead the charge to repeal it. Which means that including women in the next draft… Read more »
I completely agree Eric. But should the state also lessen the standards to be a police officer so that women can pass the qualifying tests? Answer: still no.
Well, that leaves a good many Christian women exempt. And a raped woman would almost always prefer to have a female police officer assist her.
There is a need for women in law enforcement because otherwise, the men have to do the pat downs of women, oversee the women changing, etc. how would you suggest these variables be addressed? No matter if you call them matron or police officer or agent, whoevre the woman is doing this, is in the occasionally violent aspects of law enforcement. Unless we are content to leave this part of life to unbelievers, we have to address the role of women in the incarceration of other women.
Good questions. Policemen also need someone to make sandwiches and tea from time to time and have the phones answered.
So yes, I could see women fulfilling some aspects of police work. But would I want my daughters packing a weapon, buns against a barn door ready to storm a crack house in New Orleans? No.
upvote
So, you see, we need to know our lines of “complementarianism” outside of marriage…
don’t these women need to be “keepers at home” making sandwiches and tea for their own families…are the policemen too helpless to do it…?
I’m not saying what I believe or don’t…I just shake my head because I see no answer in agreement in the church in this beyond most all other things…and we expect society to “get it” or be postively influenced by “us” :)
The policemen are busy, Alex, gunning down the intruder who is presently breaking in to the homes of single women who are at work.
Oh, and the girls in my vision were single and their fathers at war so no, there was no need to be at home making cheesy toast melts. :-)
bwahahahahaha!
and if the women just had a few lessons from daddy, they could be at home gunning down any intruder (long as they were in a skirt) if daddy and brothers weren’t home thus giving the policemen time for tea…
btw, or rather it appears you know where I’m headed…yes…strict complementarians say single women would be under the provision and care of daddy or relatives until marriage and caring for their family…rather than being tempted by the “freedom” of a job or tempting men on the job…. :D
Alex, I think it is possible to both have a job and be under the care of your father. Don’t you?
Eyes wide! Ooooh, these direct questions make me nervous.
So….while I collect my thoughts…do you at least agree or not that the church “has come a looooooooong way, baby” in what it excuses or allows in this whole area?
Alex, I think we are recovering some things (like the fact that the distinctions matter) but regressing in others (like our ability to discern where our surrounding culture is taking us). I also think that you have to take each congregation and weigh up where they are at. I don’t feel comfortable lumping them all in together. As an aside, Alex, I notice you raise a lot of questions and also quite a few objections but don’t often state any conclusions or why you hold them. It would be helpful if you did and I would encourage you to do… Read more »
Did anyone else notice that the girl in the picture is holding an air rifle, little more than a glorified single shot bb gun? It’s seems beautifully poetic in relation to the article content…
We all know the inherent sexiness of Babes with Guns. Thus the reason they should all be packing.
Thus, because of even those religious folks who find that more sexy or noteworthy than a “meek and quiet spirit”, Christian gals are tempted to feel lesser and find their more equal place packing the powder…
Don’t mind me…feeling extra contrary today :)
Started a post for you and K2 at the top of this “Crave-Out” thread.
Just thought of this; for ease of “convo,” please respond up there and not down here. Thx.
Aw, you beat me to it.
Spoken like a true prophet.
“A telephone lineman’s tool belt”?
How is that either masculine or feminine? Repairing things is a Biblically male thing? So to repair a torn piece of clothing would be masculine too, right? May not a woman be a gardener, landscaper, wood worker, truck driver?
Aren’t we confusing cultural norms with Biblically defined roles here?
This, I think, is the central question. I’m trying to decide what to do with Rosie the Riveter. Is there really a Biblical principle against Rosie being a riveter…whether in wartime or peace? Scripture defines the roles of man and woman in church and home quite clearly; how far we extend that into society in general seems to be the heart of the matter. And, frankly, I’m not sure what to do with it.
I think a home and church with clearly defined Scriptural roles practiced and preached within will lead to healthy gender normative behaviors without.
Girls will embrace the honor and glory of their sex because it was assigned and defined by the Living God.
But again, how her vocation involving line repair in any way diminishes this glory is difficult to see, Scripturally.
I can see it culturally, I suppose. But that is not the standard we are to use in order to judge these matters, correct?
Well stated, Jay. About cultural influences, there are some examples where these are embraced and absorbed into a biblical world view. For example, in some indigenous tribes of Australia, moving in together is the act that institutes a marriage along with all of it’s biblical expectations. There is no ceremony. They also don’t have the category we call, “defacto”. So we can’t call it that. Missionaries rightly acknowledge this cultural quirk while not diminishing the biblical laws of marriage. So, could a utility belt in our culture be seen as a symbol of masculinity? Quite possibly. Here is a thought… Read more »
Our responsibility to maintain a gender distinction cannot be carried out except culturally. The Scriptural standard has to be expressed in subordinate cultural norms. It’s true that if enough people rebel against a cultural norm, it can change its gender label (e.g., slacks are no longer solely “menswear.”) But our cultural pacesetters are looking to get rid of all gender norms. In this situation it is not helpful to observe that it only involves cultural items.
(I wonder if we’ll get to the place where men and women no longer prefer slacks styled and made for each sex.)
“Our responsibility to maintain a gender distinction cannot be carried out except culturally.”
Love it.
Not sure what the “it” refers to or what you mean here…
“In this situation it is not helpful to observe that it only involves cultural items.”
Could you expand on this a little?
Presumably you mean the second “it”? The antecedent is at the end of the immediately preceding sentence. Is this less puzzling: “In this situation it is not helpful to observe that getting rid of all gender norms only involves cultural items”?
If not, how about this:
“In this situation, we are faithless to the truth if we state that the male and female practices that our cultural pacesetters want to abolish are merely cultural, not Scriptural, and are therefore readily dispensable.”
I wouldn’t let her endanger herself in any way if I could shoulder that burden. Similarly, any significantly arduous physical activity of a dangerous nature should be borne by males if at all possible. I must confess that this is also a point that, stupidly, slipped my mind. I was only thinking about the tools and technicality involved in line work. For some reason I hadn’t considered the deeply hazardous nature of the profession. (You know, I prefer my crow to be much more rare than this.) Still, I think my point stands about Non-arduous/hazardous work, like finish carpentry, structural… Read more »
Absolutley. I think the matter requires wisdom rather than rules. If we can get the pattern and the biblical principle right wisdom will hopefully follow.
Without getting into a debate about 20th century total war practice, Rosie was part of a national mobilization mindset. She wasn’t drafted, but the government encouraged women to do work that men would normally do, because the men were fighting. Men, not women, were sent to war. The women helped by making the tools needed to fight, and supporting the national economy. Gender norms in the wider world necessarily have a large cultural component because of changes in technology, farm and home based production, and geographic and social mobility. For a believer, it’s not totally a question of ability. Some… Read more »
This is a good summary, I think, and something I wish I could “bookmark” for future reference. I know a single woman who is a welder for a large industrial company. She is relatively feminine in all her womanly qualities, as I see her every Sunday morning at church, but she is obviously “buff” from the heavy lifting and physically demanding work required of a welder. I don’t believe I could conclude from anything I’ve read in Scripture that this woman is in the wrong vocation or that she should be more docile. Scripture has a lot to say about… Read more »
I’m afraid Rosie must be relegated to the dustbin. We can’t have women rejecting their femininity in such a crude fashion. No…no…no!!!!
Jay, women may repair a dress or shirt that is ripped, or a china knick-knack that is broken with super glue. And she may bake cookies, and make beds, and do laundry, and cook dinner, and dust furniture, and do gardening at home ONLY, but never, never, never is she allowed to do any of those unmanly jobs that you have listed. And she must stay within the confines of hearth and home. This is the Role of woman and it must be obeyed to preserve the Gospel! Complementarianism and Patriarchy handbook rules. Now get with the programme!
Another issue with women as police officers and soldiers has to do with the physical qualities needed for these roles. Physical qualities that women just do not have. By not understanding these differences and doing things for the sake of “equality” or “diversity ” you will get people killed. “Putting women into close combat roles isn’t fair to the men who will be relying on them, and isn’t fair to the women who will find themselves continuously at a deadly disadvantage. ” “A recent study, for instance, by Britain’s Tri-Service Review found that mixed-gender combat units have “lower survivability,” a… Read more »
Never mind what men and women in emotionally charged situations can and will do when there’s a moment of respite…and the layers of complexity that will result when female soldiers discover they’re carrying the results of such “downtime activities.”
The title appears to have little to do with the post. Hopefully its a teaser to an upcoming post on actual carvouts and ghettos.
“Carving out” the church and family as places where different rules about sex apply; thereby treating them as ghettoes. Sounds pretty actual to me.
I have 3 girls and Lord willing they will all know how to shoot and have the mindset and understanding that they my have to use that skill someday. I see that as very different than them growing up to be soldiers. I also would support them learning how to gouge out someone’s eye in a fight. Why? Because there are bad men out there and there might not always be a good man around to help them out. I’m not sure if Pastor Wilson would be at all opposed to this but these are thoughts/beliefs that came to mind… Read more »
I, too, am in favor of women knowing martial arts, not so they can become Rhonda Rousey, but so they can knock the living crap out of a would-be mugger in the parking lot. Better, I would favor them learning how to wield a 9mm so they wouldn’t have to get that close, but as you said, this is not the same thing as preparing them for war.
Nice timing. Just announced, women will be allowed to join Navy SEALS.
I see what your saying a Truth has to be the Truth from beginning to the end. (church, family, world around you). I get it thanks. Amen and amen.
Pastor Wilson: One question I have about complementarianism is how it determines what is feminine vs. masculine? Many gender roles and professions seem completely arbitrary. I’m a male nurse for instance and I have yet to discover what makes nursing feminine and say computer programming masculine. 90% of nurses are women, but the work is far more physical than anything a computer programmer does and that profession is 90% men. To borrow your example of the telephone lineman, other than the nomenclature what exactly makes that profession masculine? Most people aren’t soldiers and I don’t see a lot of consistency… Read more »
That’s the thing about seeking to apply the gospel to all areas of life: it’s tricky, and requires wisdom and maturity. Some people act like the existence of hard questions like these invalidates the whole idea. I work as a computer programmer, and the reason it’s mostly men is because very few women have the aptitude for it. There are a handful of notable women who made major contributions to the field, but in general it’s just not interesting to them. There are nurses in my extended family and they seem to report a similar situation in their line of… Read more »
Several comments, supported by some Bible, because I like that too: 1. You assert that some believe that God’s creation pattern can be ignored in creation, which you disagree with, by which you mean that the complimentarian position of wives submitting to husbands should be reflected outside of the home and church doors in the broader sense of women submitting to men (please correct me if I misread you). Where in Scripture does God prescribe this? What I see is God creating mankind in His image (male and female He created them) and He charged them all and equally to… Read more »
Briefly, I think maybe you are confusing “authority” with “responsibility”, as pertains to roles the two genders pursue.
As you and someone else noted, there is probably a place for women in law enforcement. I question whether they have any business trying to subdue aggressive, violent men. Most would not be able to do so without a weapon.
Also, while mud wrestling degrades the dignity of some women (and perfectly illustrates the dignity of others), the argument could be made that police and military work degrade women as well.
I wonder if the former days of women staying at home and men going to work was only IN PART due to cultural norms and/or theological complementarianism. Could it also have been that “in those days” is was actually NECESSARY for women to stay at home simply because there were children, laundry, dishes, etc, and NOT enough time in the day to do all that plus hold down an outside job? Could it also have been that our culture “in those days” didn’t place such a premium on “stuff” such that folks thought they HAD to have two incomes just… Read more »
This is a secondary point I often make on this topic. Look, SOMEBODY has to care for the kids and do the dishes and laundry and errands and keep the house clean. Why it’s self-evidently stifling for the female half of the partnership to do this without direct compensation, but somehow not exploitative for her to pay other people to do it with money she earned doing something else, is far from philosophically obvious.
Not all women have children immediately after they are married. Furthermore, people are marrying much later than they used to. So what does a woman who is single do in our society? Patriarchy thinks the answer is women marrying right out of high school and having babies. Problem is: not all women desire to marry right away and many cannot find suitable mates. And they want to have a profession. None of these things are sinful. Industrialization changed societies back in the day, and now our societies are once again changing. And this paradigm of women’s roles only addresses married… Read more »
I wasn’t referring to the case of single women; I was referring to the case of married women with children who have been sold a bill of goods about how it’s demeaning to take care of your own domestic business.
This is the best comment I have read on this thread thus far. Your well-reasoned arguments supporting female officers did not fall flat on me. They make complete sense. But when a system has as its priority retaining and fulfilling gender roles above common sense, then you end up with Piperism and those who blindly follow him. I think fear and fear of losing control are at the heart of this system obsessed with Christian gender roles.
Not many “babes” commenting on this one. How popular could “mud-wrestling” be? ; -)
Pastor Wilson, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not thought of this. I am a Christian woman and I want female police officers for this reason: if I fled to a police station because my husband was beating me; or because I had been raped; or because I had been kidnapped or abused or in some other traumatic situation; or if my little daughter was lost and picked up by the police; I would want a female police officer there for me or her. There are certain situations for which it would be more comforting… Read more »
Christy, I agree that it would be helpful for women to be available in such situations, but they could be present in an auxiliary role rather than as cops.
Not all cops wear riot gear And that is kind of the point of this comment. So, no. A Christian complementarian woman should not become a cop, especially when it involves riot gear. No. It all depends on how “policeman” is defined and what they do. Wilson’s main complaint here is about physical defense. Much as women should not be directly in combat, neither should they be directly chasing down criminals. But having women in the role of helping women who are abused, frisking and searching female suspects at the station, or even aspects of (non-confrontational) detective work would seem… Read more »
Yes, I agree with you 100%, Christy. But you see, to one who defends Patriarchy, the offense isn’t just that this woman is a police officer, but that she is working outside the home – which is the ROLE for all Christian women. Now I know some may try to deny it, but that is the gist of it, and a good study into Patriarchy and hard Complementarianism will bear this out.
Pastor Wilson, what do you do with Nehemiah 3:12. Wouldn’t that be “telephone lineman’s tool belt” type stuff?
They’re basically women construction workers.
>>So yes, you heard that right — some folks think God’s creation pattern can be ignored out there in the creation.
I think this lays the whole issue to rest…
There is no male or female in Christ. Paul tells us in Galatians to live out the gospel by erasing gender roles. Our primary identity is in Christ, don’t make your gender an idol.
Well done.
Their is direct relevance between your example and the discussion on ‘nation’ in https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/ann-coulter-and-the-disease-of-american-conservatism.html
(btw, you are, given St. Paul’s explicit admonitions to men and women qua men, qua women, being sarcastic, yes? )
Brother, I’m just trying to apply scripture consistently. The unbelievers may place their trust in divisions over gender but we are all one gender in the body of Christ.
Spiritual hermaphrodites if you will.
Anybody else have that weird moment when you read “John Piper started it…”?
I’m getting a kick out of it now. :-D
Thank you. I was just trying to discuss this with my wife last night and was frustrated in my efforts to articulate what I meant. You (and John Piper) have captured the nuance I was attempting to wrangle. I will just share this with her.
From the Alex and K2 exchange about hiring by churches for various types of jobs: “And I don’t know if Kelly will have to roll his eyes at my ignorance of original intent, current law, and pertinent cases…so I speak timidly. (And remember, I think we’ve covered that you consider SCOTUS as the final voice of law and the Constitution up for current interpretation more than I would…so…I know that affects our perspective…)” Let’s go higher up the ladder of abstraction so we can see more of “The Big Picture.” Away from the pointed end of the spear (“If we… Read more »
Wow, I have to say that after hearing Piper, Aimee, and Carl it was truly refreshing to hear your helpful insights. Thank you……….but no woman ever a cop under any circumstances?…….really? That’s it? Just like that? “we must function as biblically-minded men or women all day every day, and we must figure out what this looks like in all” Amen. Thanks again.
Yep, roles…roles…..roles….and more roles. In fact, be consumed that you are fulfilling your ROLE at all times! No deviations from that socially stratified system ever! It is your function….function….function. Perhaps there needs to be a Christian Role Players for Gamers. That might help all those who are deficient in understanding their place and yes, Role!, in Christian society.
All, Request for second opinion(s). The last time McD accused me of being a liar and changing my position, I posted a rebuttal. His only response was to ask about me about Ambien. [BTW, accusing me of being on Ambien is on par with his ability to read and understand a case or his asking about my attending the Costco School of Law. Further, allowing for McD’s sensitivity about the extent of his formal education, I’m leaving qualifications aside. Besides, if he were correct about the law, being a 3rd grade dropout would not make his analysis wrong. Education increases… Read more »
I may be doing McD an injustice but I think his conduct here is sometimes that of a gadfly–stinging, stirring up trouble, and flying away. I would not dignify with a response accusations intended primarily to annoy and enflame.
I think I’ve already made my position clear, but in case it got lost before, I agree. I’ve used the word troll and would argue in favor of it, but at any rate your point that whether you want to use that label or not, the pig/teach/sing/annoy thing is in play, is spot on. Actually, no, I’m going to retract that. It’s more like the pig wrestling thing — you won’t win, you get all dirty, and the pig likes it. I don’t think McD is the least bit annoyed by attempts to reason with him. I think he finds… Read more »
Confusion over traditional marriage and biblical gender roles arises from the conflict between scripture and social liberalism. The idea that human equality is a universal good is so engrained in American Christians that those who would make an effort at preserving biblical marriage are stuck trying to piece together compromises like complimentarianism or servant leadership. Its amusing to see Christians debating the proper ordering of gender roles among non-believers in the general populace. If human equality is a universal good then patriarchal marital roles must be eliminated. Propaganda and economic forces have been very effective in this project but its… Read more »
You seem to play very fast and loose with Scripture. The Great Commission, last I read, was in the Bible — you know, God’s word to all of us. From Matthew: “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the… Read more »
Where do you see women being told not to fulfill the Great Commission?
White and male and old! Oh my!! Well, okay, I am, but you malign a good many other folk here. And malign was your intention, right? Now I’ll be fine, I’ve got all that privilege to console me after all, but you really should apologize to the others.
Alex in W posted this link a few days back . . . http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/denver-cites-religion-to-delay-chick-fil-a-contract/ . . . and asked me this question: “Is the Chick-fil-A city council contract delay/rejections along the same line of legal law as Thomas/W[ooley]/H[eart]ofA[tlanta]…or something totally different?” I read his URL, which led to a boatload of other Denver things; news stories in their local paper (The Denver Post), a Post anti-city council editorial, a Post blog saying the national pressure has caused the Council to back down, a statement by some Council members backing down while pretending not to, and so on. Back to K2’s… Read more »
While I support gay marriage, I do not support conscripting bakers and florists who don’t wish to be part of it, though as I said earlier I don’t think it violates their First Amendment rights if they are. Neither do I support governments using viewpoint discrimination to award contracts; so long as a contractor competently performs under the terms of the contract, I don’t see it as the city’s business what the contractor thinks about gay marriage or which causes the contractor donates to. There may be a separate issue with giving Chick-Fil-A an airport contract since they are closed… Read more »
First, thanks for taking the time to weigh in, and so quickly. Next, I’m glad I left out the flame-throwing at Kneich; almost as glad as you seeing the same thing I saw. IMHO, the back-tracking by the city council is cant squared. They were so far off base even the Post called them on it. But we both agree they got picked off at first. So moving on . . . . Here’s where it gets tricky; actually TWO different tricky things. We disagree on the scope of the Wooley-Thomas tag team. But if Obergefell was correctly decided, and… Read more »
With respect to your first point, the Constitution only applies to state action, which a baker is not. That’s why, i.e., I have the fundamental right to free speech, but not on this blog; Doug can ban me any time he wants without running afoul of any rights I may have. That’s why anti-discrimination statutes directed at private employers and landlords had to be passed in the first place; if private actors were constrained by the Constitution, discrimination based on race, sex and religion would already have been illegal without the need of a statute. So if bakers are given… Read more »
Here’s where we disagree; among other things, a public accom law is a state action. That’s also why Barry Goldwater and Wm F. Buckley opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They thought the best remedy/cure for discrimination was reducing the barriers to entry of new businesses. Jim Crow was an intrusion between a business and a customer; so was the 1964 Act. “As law professor Richard Epstein has been arguing for decades, ‘Competitive markets with free entry offer better and more certain protection against invidious discrimination than any anti-discrimination law.’ Bans on private racial discrimination were necessary to shatter the… Read more »
In the case of this blog, Doug is exercising his own free speech rights, which are protected in a way that engaging in commerce normally is not. There are actually three different distinctions at work: The state actor vs the non-state actor, commercial speech vs non-commercial speech, and constitutional rights vs statutory rights. As a non-state actor engaging in non-commercial speech (which is religious speech on top of it), I think Doug’s blog is safe; the Supreme Court is mostly still pretty good on pure First Amendment issues. Any statute requiring him to give equal time to heretics and apostates… Read more »
K2 – some of the URLs/references (“Selma Envy”) are too far down from my answers here, so scroll further down to “Kelly M. Haggar > jillybean • 3 hours ago” which starts with “On McD, speaking of Ambien, it’s simpler to imagine . . . ” and you’ll see them. &&&&&&&&&&&& I forget the case name but the Supremes struck down a law many years ago requiring newspapers to give equal space to candidates they had criticized in an editorial. So, even within the “commercial speech is different” – – a doctrine I have never supported – – a for-profit,… Read more »
I remember that newspaper case, and a companion case in which a newspaper was told the First Amendment didn’t protect its right to run discriminatory employment ads. Just because you are on one side or the other of a particular distinction doesn’t mean you always win; in Korematsu the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to a race based classification and upheld the internment of Japanese Americans in wartime anyway. It just means that it’s that much easier or harder to win, but ultimately it will come down to how high the stakes are. And ultimately it also depends on how… Read more »
“I’m not persuaded that the bakers are participating in the wedding, any more than the restaurant that serves a gay couple is participating in their lifestyle.” Excuse the caps, ‘cause I can’t import bold, BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. As I’ve said before in other places, it doesn’t matter if you, I, and the Pope, and the Pope of Jehovah’s Witnesses (if there could be such a person) were all convinced Thomas was not participating in war simply by making the tank’s turret. It doesn’t matter that a second JV in the same mill had no problem making a turret.… Read more »
“Please go through Thomas the opinion far enough to reach the part where they beat up on all the lower courts for making those inquiries at all. It was improper to even ASK those questions. The only factual issue is sincerity. Is this a pretext, or does Thomas really believe his faith? If “sincere = yes,” we start the “strict two step.” I get lost with that reasoning. Why is it okay to even ask “sincerity” questions…how is that even a “factual” issue. Or do they simply ask the person “are you sincere”, or do they go about proving it… Read more »
First, never, NEVER be afraid to ask an honest question. Not here; not anywhere. No matter what happens, you’ll learn something worthwhile, even if it’s only that the other person is a total horse’s rear end. All honest people of good faith (civil or religious) will try to answer a reasonable person who is also acting in good faith. And a soft answer really does turn away wrath. Second, in response to “the part where they beat up on all the lower courts for making those inquiries at all,” you got lost; why is okay to even ask “sincerity” questions?”… Read more »
I’m not fond of the courts deciding what is and is not sincere religious belief either, but they do so out of necessity, because sincere religious belief is protected whereas pretending to believe so you can derive a benefit is not. Suppose you have two pastors who both preach hellfire and damnation. One of them actually believe in hellfire and damnation; the second one doesn’t but pretends to because he thinks it will produce more money in the Sunday collections. If somehow their religious beliefs became an issue in litigation, the first one would have First Amendment protection and the… Read more »
“I’m not fond of the courts deciding what is and is not sincere religious belief either, but they do so out of necessity,” I’m not convinced about the “of necessity”. Sometimes I think the Supreme Court took too much upon themselves, and sometimes we or the states (for our own biases or whatnot), willingly handed too much power to them on matters not delegated to them. Are you okay with states, if any have the courage to do so when, trying to take back or challenge overreach? Or should they just always accept “it is now the law of the… Read more »
I am not a fan of the United States Supreme Court. I think many of their decisions have been wrong, misguided, and produced terrible results. I would love to have an alternative. The practical problem is that somebody has to have the last word. If there is a conflict between the states and the federal government as to what the Constitution actually means, somebody has to have the authority to tell us. Otherwise it either gets resolved by force, as in the Civil War, or the federal constitution means nothing because every public official will simply interpret it to mean… Read more »
There’s a fairly important distinction you’re not drawing. If someone’s religion says it is sinful to associate with people with Type AB blood, that is a sincerely held religious belief, no matter how silly it may seem to the rest of us. But, if someone’s religion says that Type AB blood isn’t really blood, it’s molasses; well, the rest of us (including the courts) aren’t required to accept their cockamamie definition of either blood or molasses. Which, by the way, is the answer to those who because of their religion claim that same sex marriages aren’t really marriages; You may… Read more »
I’ve thought this through in case I were ever in the same situation…and I have said to myself, “Self? What IS participating. Where is the line drawn.” I think we’d all draw it differently. Personally I have a very hard time, noted elsewhere, with photographers, etc. who also can tell full well they are providing a service for divorced thrice over or interfaith (where the Bible says Christian is to not be “yoked” with non-Christian)…and claim they can wash their hands of the sin, yet then say no to a homosexual “marriage”. But I come up with the same answer… Read more »
I think the quote I pulled out of Thomas 1981 is long enough to cover all by itself to answer you here.
I’m in the middle of replying to Alex. I see a lot of overlap in his questions and your comments. Check out his Qs right below and look back in the am. If I haven’t covered all of both of you two then I’ll try again after lunch Wed.
You may also choose to ignore me. My thoughts are quite shallow in what they offer. I’m learning what I can as you two do a great job of varying/opposing/agreeing. I feel like I’m in a college class or in a seminar (an honor yet free of charge)…just soaking in as much as I can. I know, perhaps, others might see it as “pointless” to discuss because the “kingdom of God is at hand”…but my main opinion on that is…while there is some bit of legal recourse left (and before it all goes completely looney…) we ought to know where… Read more »
“isn’t participating in the wedding” I believe the Thomas extract sent to Alex in W below answers that objection. If it doesn’t, I can only think of one other thing to say . . . ask yourself if science (any discipline) can EVER answer a moral question or a value judgment. IMHO, the answer is “No.” The use of barbed wire to separate bulls from cows does not tell us a thing about its use to separate East from West Berlin. A collection of PhDs can tell us how much any number of physical properties and the costs and risks… Read more »
“I’m not persuaded that the bakers are participating in the wedding, any more than the restaurant that serves a gay couple is participating in their lifestyle.” I expect Christianity to ease into mostly fully agreeing with you and into chiding any of the few who don’t. They most easily enough have done so a “don’t ask don’t tell” or a “not my place to judge” or “I’m providing a service” with photography, etc. with divorced weddings, Christian marrying non-Christian weddings, weddings with drunken receptions… There will always be sources/businesses to (for money/livelihood sake) to accommodate where the few can’t or… Read more »
“, safety is a compelling state interest.” that’s what I don’t get, too. who in the world is it hurting for a business not to serve someone based on whatever. except for some touchy feely emotional something…is it the Civil Rights stuff that turned some of this into “hurtful” territory? baking a cake or repairing a car…those aren’t actively causing harm to someone, they are refraining from action…whereas proceeding to bake a cake with poison in it, or repairing a car yet messing with some other safety feature…that would be inflicting harm and invading someone’s else’s “life”… why is everyone’s… Read more »
This has NOTHING to do with money. Neither did running off Eich (sic?) at Mozilla. This not just about silencing all dissent. It’s demanding approval as well. CO has sentenced the baker to attend “sensitivity” training,
If any of them were still alive, Charlie Hebdo would be running a “Pol Pot, call your office” parody this week.
I’m trying to be all serious minded and learn as much as can saturate my mind…but this made me laugh: “Besides, under the leave-no-tern-unstoned viewpoint of many” :D “how can this blog not be a public accom if a bakery shop is? Pastor Doug has no entrance tests here and it’s not a private club under any definition.” would a blog/news source be more entering into freedom of speech territory… give it 10 more years, and there will be serious limitations on what we can blog about…and searches of our IP addresses…checking up and limiting “hate speech” and all that…more… Read more »
You ARE focused. Google the phrase “You will be made to care.” If the folks who ran off the CEO of Mozilla have their way, your worst fears won’t come close to their minimum demands.
“Next, I’m glad I left out the flame-throwing at Kneich”
:( I would have enjoyed that. too :)
JFK got really angry during the steel strike of 1962. “My daddy always told me steel men were sons-a-bitches!”
There was shocked, stunned silence in the room. Long pause. (Back then they would have said a “pregnant pause.”)
Finally someone barely, but bravely, spoke up. “Mr. President, at this delicate time in these sensitive negotiations, perhaps that wasn’t the best thing to say.”
Not quite as long a pause . . . sheepish grin.
“Yeah, you’re right. But it made me feel good!”
A very good night to you all.
Ha! Always a difficult choice… it’s nice to trust some people to reliably say the the best thing in the right way even in “sensitive negotiations”…it makes their earnest sudden outbursts…quite enjoyable :) Feel free, any time.
The other good prez story is Harry Truman ending a Blue Streak with “Now all of you shut up and bring me a ONE ARMED economist!”
Another stunned silence. “Mr. President, what in the world for?”
“Because I want somebody who can’t say ‘On the other hand’ . . . . !!!”
That Advocate article link…seems to be no longer available or something…is there another article that summarizes the shenanigans fairly well?
I think what I quoted was the meat of it. It was enough to enable K2 to spot what I hoped he/she would also find; Kneich was abusing her office to silence a point of view she disliked.
Abuse perhaps, but is such a thing really “illegal” in this situation…or more of a community “majority/political bias opinion wins” or let the public make good use of how they can sway their communities…
i.e. would/should Chick-fil-a have a case
(though they would do just fine without the opportunity at Denver…that’s the best way to prove their own case more easily perhaps :)
Feminists successful in removing paternal authority over the sex lives of daughters. Frat boys take notice and mock them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/banners-old-dominion-university_55d90270e4b04ae49703769d?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
When I was growing up, my dad didn’t let me watch boxing or wrestling because why should we glorify violence by making it a sport?
And now we are all OK with men in MMA competitions? Alypius seems to have opened his eyes too far.
Just for fun, here’s a little something from the physical world. We don’t live on static place. When Paul wrote to Ephesus, it was a thriving port on the coast. Now it’s 4 miles inland and what’s left of the harbor is a tiny oxbow lake. On pg 418 in “Rapidity of Rising Sea Level,” Russell wrote: “A few miles to the north, in the Little Meander Valley, the old port of Ephesus now lies inland some four miles, for the reason that the Little Meander Delta has pushed its front forward that distance during less than 20 centuries. Insufficient… Read more »