Contents
Cremation
Is it wise or even right for Christians to be cremated? I have heard Christians from both camps with the general arguments for cremation of being “good stewards” financially, and burial being an image and hope for the resurrection for others to see. What are your thoughts on this matter and thank you for all the years of excellent teaching along with good humor as well.Mark
Mark, there is no express prohibition of cremation in Scripture so I don’t think we have grounds to declare it unlawful. But the example of burial is ancient, going back to the book of Genesis, and with no examples of godly cremation. I believe that burial is a good and scriptural way to testify to your hope in the resurrection, and so I believe that would be the course of wisdom.
Leadership Training
I’m not in pastoral ministry, but I am in training for a smaller leadership role at my church: think “rulers of 10” from Exodus 18:25. I was wondering if you could recommend three or four biblical (yet practical) books on leadership (besides Rigney’s, I have those).
Thanks, and God bless.MM
MM, I would start by trying Basic Christian Leadership by John Stott, Leadership and Self-Deception by the Arbinger Institute, and Wooden on Leadership by Wooden.
A Real Challenge
I have recently been appointed as the General Manager of a Christian Children’s Home in South Africa. I have learned so much from your books on discipline that I thought it prudent to lay my conundrum before your feet.
As I am going through the old files I am appalled at the manner in which discipline has been doled out. Yet being a children’s home, dealing with the psychological constraints of children from abuse, and the legal constraints of the nation, I find it difficult to find a good alternative to the plank wielding love I bestow on my own children.
We deal with serious sexual misconduct as well as things like rebellion and running away. Can I mine your grey matter and pastoral experience on this topic.
You may feel obliged to answer since we named our favorite and quite heavily bearded male Nigerian Dwarf goat after you.
Thank you and God bless.Jaco
Jaco, who can resist an appeal on those grounds?
A lot depends on factors you don’t share here. A big question would be how many kids are in the home? Are they adopted out of the home, or are they there until they are grown? Questions like that would be relevant, to my mind. But imagining the constraints you are under, I would not subject them to passive discipline (like time outs) and would assign extra chores, perhaps taking the place of the victim (assuming it was something like bullying).
A lot depends on factors you don’t share here. A big question would be how many kids are in the home? Are they adopted out of the home, or are they there until they are grown? Questions like that would be relevant, to my mind. But imagining the constraints you are under, I would not subject them to passive discipline (like time outs) and would assign extra chores, perhaps taking the place of the victim (assuming it was something like bullying).
Well, That Didn’t Work Out
I am writing because I just read a news article (link below) which truly appalled me. In the article it described an “experiment” in Amsterdam wherein female students were housed with African migrants. Unsurprisingly there were . . . issues. The article came to the appropriate conclusion—that system as established is without redemptive potential—and while that is comforting, I can’t help but think that it’s only because it was written not in the US.
Anyway, I’m writing to you the because a term they used made me think of you; “suicidal empathy.” Quite appropriate for what is happening in many places of our world right now.
Thank you for your column. My family has been blessed by your ministry.Martha
Martha, what amazes me is how they even got to the point of experimenting with something like that
Just Great
You might enjoy this:
My mom shared it with me; we have family in the area and the word on the street is that you have to buy tickets to get in because there are so many men wanting to come and sing.Dinah
Dinah, thank you. That is just great.
Stricter Than God
What are some scriptural arguments against the stricter view of fellowship held by Lutherans who use verses like Romans 16:17 and others as the basis for not praying/communing/worshiping without full doctrinal agreement? The argument I heard that praying with a convinced baptist is like being okay with a little bit of “rat poison” in their food.Anon
Anon, the root problem with this attitude and approach is that by implication it says that God’s standards of fellowship are too low. If God is in fellowship with someone, then I have no business standing aloof. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:4).
Some ICE Pushback
In a response to another letter you say “Interposition on behalf of rapists, killers, and gang-bangers is unrighteous.” I’ve seen a lot of the sentiment that Minnesotans are trying to protect criminals and therefore have no moral justification to oppose federal operations. I don’t think this has actually been established.
Data released by ICE last year shows that, as of November 16, 26% of their detainees had criminal charges, 26% had pending criminal charges, and the remaining 48% had civil immigration charges. The data does not distinguish between violent crime and misdemeanors or illegal re-entry, which means that the percent of detainees who are convicted of the serious crimes you mentioned is somewhere under that 26%. This data also shows that since January 2025 ICE has ramped up detainment of non-criminals significantly more than that of criminals.
DHS claims that Minnesota authorities release criminal aliens with ICE detainers onto the streets instead of into ICE custody. The Minnesota Department of Corrections contests this, and has shown that criminals they transferred to ICE have been listed on the “worst of the worst” arrest lists along with criminals ICE had to actually hunt down, obfuscating the fact that the state authorities are in fact cooperating. (It seems Hennepin County specifically is NOT, but I have yet to see anyone noting a problem with them rather than with “Minnesota.”)
I’m also seeing a lot of confusion about what makes an immigrant a legitimate target for detainment and deportation. It seems at least some detainments are for people whose status is being re-examined despite previously being considered legal. Or you have the issue of the family of the 5-year-old who has been all over the news: ICE says they entered illegally and Adrian Conejo Arias has an order for removal; their lawyer says they entered legally using the CBP app and have no order for deportation. But they entered under the Biden administration, and I’m seeing people say that Biden-era authorities admitted people and assured them they had legal status without actual legal justification, and that those people should be deported.
On top of all that, ICE has been instructed to meet a quota of 3,000 arrests per day, and officers are rewarded for arrests even if the person in question is later released without charges. This doesn’t incentivize going after criminals; it incentivizes going after anyone you can plausibly claim “reasonable suspicion” about, which is consistent with Minnesotan complaints about ICE operations.
I’m sure some are against any enforcement whatsoever and have no problem with protecting violent criminals. But what I hear from people local to the Twin Cities is that they’re seeing random stops and mass arrests, detainment of large numbers of community-integrated non-criminal illegals, legal immigrants, and the occasional citizen, unnecessary violence (again sometimes directed against citizens who are mistaken for immigrants), and mistreatment of detainees (some of whom are being denied access to counsel). In these circumstances, to represent the Minnesotan attitude as being about defending criminals, without referencing federal misconduct, is to miscommunicate the situation and the Minnesotan response to it.
Having said my piece on that, “Marriage, Miscegenation & More” was a fun read. The assumptions that get people to the one drop thing ARE pretty wacky. I was a big Cave of Adullam fan back in the day and appreciate the wit.Cat
Cat, since many millions were let in during the Biden years, it is going to be some trick to get them all out, especially without any commotion. My own preference would be to target violent criminals first (not only), trusting that this will cause many “normal” illegals to self-deport. When the bad actors are gone, then I would want attention to turn to those who one offense was the one that got them here.
Marrying Young
I’d love to hear any valuable thoughts or wisdom you have on young marriages (ie. 18-20 range). Where should lines be drawn about financial/physical independence? What kind of character does the man need for a young marriage to be prudent?
This is pertinent since I am a college student in that age range. I’ve always been a very internally motivated person: substantial scholarships, top of the ROTC OML, actively memorizing the catechism, and whatnot . . . and I think that is important in this case because of the nature of who needs to be getting married in our society. I think a young marriage would be helpful for the church guy who needs a kick in the butt, a workout plan, and an anti-porn software, but I don’t fall into those categories. My life could be aptly summarized as “consistent hard work over time.”
I guess my thought here is that aside from sex and children, there is nothing a marriage could give me that I couldn’t get from God. Fulfillment, love, connection, and so on. And I am too young to have children. Sex is unique in that I do have a strong sex drive, but currently I just put that energy into working hard. I am certainly not called to constancy, but aside from sex, I don’t know that marriage would do much for me in this season of life. And yet, I still long to be married. How should I navigate the tension here between rational thoughts and longings?
One other, more practical question. I feel like Christian girls my age are afraid of settling down young. If a girl doesn’t want you to wreck her plans, her problem is with you, not the plans. But being young is a flaw that only clocks can fix. How do I become the kind of man, that even at 20, a girl would call herself blessed to be mine? I don’t want to date for four years, but girls get squirrely about settling down young.
Blessings to you and yours,Josh
Josh, you know one side of it, which you are comparing to the side you do not know. In such circumstances, it is best to trust the wisdom of human race (and not just this generation), and the principles of Scripture. You should work to get to the point where you can support a woman, then find one, and ask her out. 20 is not at all too young.
I’ve written a few times previously about this question. Regarding the Zionist controversy, I’m looking to understand to what is in public, verified by witnesses, and confirmed to be factual. With all the animus and goofy antics on display, it’s not helpful in my view to bat around conspiracies right now, even if we discover later some of them held water. So in terms of stuff we can agree is reality, I wanted to get your take on this post by Aaron Renn:
He confirms a less insidious version of what the dissident right is saying: that a coalition of Jewish leadership in America pursue a strategy of “Shtadlan” or “intercessor” politically—they attach themselves to a bigger power to do things for them that they need rather than focus on building their own sovereign wealth and powe
Unless I’m missing something, that is a naked admission that they want to co-opt America’s interests for Israel. Speaking carefully, I note this strategy is a mind set of the political power players in this community, but perhaps not its majority. With that qualification, can we agree their described strategy lends credence to a less rabidly venomous notion that this Jewish coalition—whoever its membership comprises and however fringe they are among the living descendants of Jacob—is motivated by a political will to oppose the interests of the American citizens? And is willing to use their wealth, political capital, and levers of power at their disposal to co-opt American leaders to serve their interests rather than ours?
I ask because it seems to me that there would emerge a mutual recognition between the C.N. Right and the Resentful Right that, yes, this form of Jewish political interest group is by definition not to be trusted and by default its opinions are to be considered bad for America until investigation determines otherwise. Which I think would go a long way to at least granting a logical point we all share about the Jewish controversy. My hope after that would be that the Resentful Right could take the sin of resentment at those who persuaded our government to wrong us more seriously. Obviously some of those folks are into their resentment quite deeply, but unlike Caleb Campbell, my heart goes out to guys caught in the lie that the darkest red pill justifies all rage. After all, when it comes down to it, they may well be putting their lives on the line for me in a second Revolutionary War.
But maybe this is an old news argument you’ve made a few dozen times before, so please let me know where I have failed Stephen Wolfe to do the reading he told me to do. Thanks,Patrick
Patrick, I thought Aaron Renn’s article was really interesting. Just a couple of things. Placing Jewish influencers throughout societies that are predominantly something else is something that Jews have been doing for centuries. You see it in the book of Esther. But there the wire-pulling was entirely defensive. So “infiltrating” that way need not be sedition—it might be, but it need not be. I thought the point being made in the article that this old investment is one that is now failing. I agree with that. But the idea of a sovereign wealth fund I think would only exacerbate the problem. Jewish members of the president’s cabinet is one thing, but to have the Jewish wealth fund buy the Chicago Bulls . . . significantly greater outrage and concern.
Second Coming or 70 A.D.?
What do you make of the timing of 1 Jn. 2:28? Just a few verses later when he mentions the present reality of antichrists and that they are in the last hour of the Judaic aeon, it seems like the natural reading here of v. 28 is that John is still speaking of Jesus’ coming in judgment towards the covenant breakers at 70AD. Thoughts?
P.S. I just wrote you on 1 Jn. 2.:28, but meant to include 1 Jn. 3:2 as well, what are your thoughts there? Second coming or 70AD?Benjamin
Benjamin, I take those references to be describing the Second Coming.
A Stranded Methodist
I want to thank you for all of your content; it has had a wonderful and edifying impact on me and my ministry. Faithful men like you and John MacArthur completely transformed my outlook on pastoral ministry.
I am a pastor in Northeast PA of two small, rural churches belonging to the newly established Global Methodist Church, a conservative breakaway denomination started in reaction to the radical progressvism of the United Methodist Church. Forced to leave behind all of our assets and buildings, the two congregations voted to leave the UMC and start from scratch, and I am thankful to God for how he put me there for that moment and used me in leading the flocks.
However, the Global Methodist Church, while more conservative and orthodox, is not without its problems, mainly, the ordaining of women, which has long been accepted in mainstream Methodism. Having grown up in the denomination, I never even heard it questioned. Women pastors and bishops were as commonplace and ordinary as potluck dinners and grape juice for communion (another problem.) I hope to open up the conversation from within regarding the biblical qualifications for a shepherd and reform this part, but I have little capital or influence. My question is this, am I sinning by being a part of a denomination that makes this allowance? Should I be trying to reform, or is my presence there as a pastor sinful approval? The congregations would not likely vote to leave the GMC, since they just affiliated with them a year ago, and these congregations until me have never heard the idea of women pastors ever seriously questioned, and I, having only recently come to the conclusion that it is not biblical (again, grew up Methodist) haven’t pushed the issue all that hard.
I admire your courage and wisdom, any advice for a young pastor would be greatly appreciated.Daniel
Daniel, what you need to do is conduct a serious inquiry to determine whether or not challenging this would ever be feasible. If it would not be (as I suspect it would not be), I would start praying about a good and godly exit. Leave peaceably, but leave. I don’t think you are sinning in the meantime unless you are asked to participate in an ordination, or your people call the Rev. Suzy to be your assistant. That would accelerate things.
Homeschooling Decisions
I’ve listened to you for a while on podcasts and other interview formats but recently decided to pick up a few of your books. I’m glad I did. I have been reading through Keep Your Kids over the past week or so and it’s left an impression on me. I often grieve over my poor parenting decisions and think “boy, I’ve messed up my kids.” Thankfully I know that isn’t entirely true, and my kids are relatively young, my girl being six and my boy being two. Still though, I get in my own way far too often.
A big topic between my wife and I for almost two years now has been homeschooling. I don’t know much about it, I didn’t grow up around homeschooled kids and only recently in our church have befriended families that do homeschool. I was a public school kid, as was my wife and so far my daughter is also a public school kid—but we don’t really like it. We want to have more influence and oversight and have been slowly moving against the current of our culture (one example being that we no longer have Wi-Fi or internet in our home. We do DVDs, but we are thoughtful in choosing which ones to buy).
Chapter 6, “child discipline in community” from Keep Your Kids got the homeschool wheel turning even more in my head. I know we need to surround our children with faithful Christians and good Christian doctrine but my wife and I both work away from home. Thankfully my wife is a hairstylist who works 4 days a week (she’s probably the best hairstylist in Texas by the way!) so there are days when she is home. My in-laws also live with us, so they’re able to watch our boy when she works and could watch our girl if she wasn’t attending a school (they don’t speak English though so teaching is limited when they’re on the clock). But I have this idea in my head that homeschooling should be more rigorous than 2-3 days a week. How can we take the homeschool leap in our current life stage? Do you have experience with similar families that are able to make homeschooling fruitful while mom and dad go to work during the week?
Any advice about homeschooling and family life would be really helpful to my wife and I.
Thank you for all you do.
Sincerely,Brandon
Brandon, I’ll bet there are some readers out there who might have some suggestions for you. I want to encourage you to keep thinking about the private education option. It involves sacrifices, but millions of people have taken that step. It can be done.
A Marva Dawn Story
About twenty years ago the mainline Academy of Homiletics had its conference in Chicago (an hour from me) and I went out of curiosity. It was as bad as I expected. I had to walk out of their “communion” service when they called God Father and Mother. But before that I sat down on the grass at lunch to chat with Marva, who, after me, was probably the second most conservative person at the conference. I asked her why in her lecture she seemed to be avoiding masculine pronouns for God (she did NOT refer to him as “Mother”). She said it was because she felt that she had a mission to these liberals but would never be invited back to their events if she overdid the male grammar.Ken
Ken, thanks. I don’t quite understanding the allure of being invited back.
A Sewing Project
What is missing from conservative Presbyterian and other reformed churches who pride themselves on their morning and evening services, prayer meetings, expository preaching, Bible studies, and pristine theology but who have no impact on their local community? How do people like me who have been burned by pietism and radical two kingdoms theology during COVID don’t twitch while listening to our pastor’s sermons on pursuing personal holiness whose only practical application is more prayer and morning/evening church attendance? I agree with you that worship is warfare, and I believe revival is the only hope for our nation; however, I do understand the temptation of falling in with the New Christian Right when the ordinary means of grace appear to bear no fruit. If you have written or spoken about this, would you please provide a link? Thank you for your time, ministry, and continued correspondence.
Sincerely,Brent
Brent, the central problem is that the modern church has grown allergic to application, which has the effect of sewing elbow cushions for sin.
Where God Fetched Us From
Thank you for sharing this. Here’s what came to my mind as I reflected on it, and I expect something like this is behind your reflection.
I am a CREC Presbyterian. The son of two convert to CREC Presbyterianism. (I was born a Arminian Baptist and ended up a Calvinistic Paedobaptist Presbyerian, kicking and screaming the whole way). The grandchild of Swedish Baptist General Conference and CMA people, and the great-grandchild of eight Swedish Baptist General Conference people. My great-grandparents include three of whom were saved at tent meetings, two of whom walked the aisle at the First Baptist Church in Minneapolis (later pastored by Billy Graham for a time), and one of whom came to Christ after seeing an angel appear to her over her Milaca, Minnesota farm. (She was not the sensational type to make up a story like that).
“But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children; To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.” Psalm 103:16-18.
Folks, if you’re in the CREC now, and your parents and grandparents and past generations were not, but loved the Lord, don’t look back on your history with scorn, because “you’ve arrived” and “you have it all figured out.” (Odds are, you don’t.) Look back on your history with respect, honor, and gratitude.
Apparently God was applying Psalm 103:16-18 to my family even though they didn’t have the covenantal framework to understand how or why. How much like the Lord to do something like that.
Now my young children, seventh-generation Christians, are baptized as babies and are taking the Lord’s Supper in a covenantal renewal worship service.
Praise God for where I am now.
Praise God for where I came from.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.JP
JP, thank you. And amen.
Foremostly, many thanks for your ministry and that of your associates; it has been of great blessing to a Reformed Baptist of twenty-something. I pray the Lord’s blessing upon you all.
I am writing, sir, with a question regarding the Christian and practicing law. Being in the third year of legal studies, (South Africa requires a four-year L.LB. degree for both lawyers and advocates) the inevitable reality that my studies must bow the head to full-time employment in the near future, is beginning to impress itself upon me most firmly. I would accordingly much value any advice regarding :
1. The practice of law by a Christian in a godless system; and
2. any written resources regarding the issue, in any language whatsoever, particularly if Christians in past godless states have addressed the issue.
By way of brief background, we in South Africa, regardless of culture or creed, do not enjoy a Constitution written by Christian men, based on Christian principles. Though our common law is derived from the Roman-Dutch system—brilliant in every manner—it has all been brought into crumbling jeopardy by the 1996 Constitution, which is written by the godless to advance their own agenda. Though I am disposed and encouraged to D.V. put all efforts into the academic aspect of the law, aspiring to professorship, I am still somewhat befuddled as to how one will be a faithful Reformed Calvinist in a teleological system which is grounded upon the much lauded brilliance and inherent value of man, in et ex se, and the accompanying values. They have reached the point where they are unashamedly proclaiming their own theology. (Reference, exempli gratia, the decision from our Highest Court: Helen Suzman Foundation v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 07/14, CCT 09/14) [2014] ZACC 32) How then forward?
The grace of our Lord with you in a nation divided.Aidan
Aidan, I couldn’t hope to advise you on the South African situation. I would recommend that you give yourself to the study of biblical law. Start by looking at Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law, and his The Nature of the American System.
A Doctrinal Snarl in the Family
This letter comes to you from a concerned sister and daughter. For context, I am the second-born of a family of four children (now all married adults with children of our own) raised in an (albeit imperfect) Christian home. I write to you as a last ditch effort to address a tragedy in our family.
My brother has estranged his family, his wife and three children, from my parents after a heated conflict in late August.
I’ll spare you the details unless you ask, but long story short: My father has recently stated that he holds a belief that his children believe is heretical. On the day in question, my brother’s stated intention was to clarify a belief my father holds in order to determine some boundaries for the time my parents have alone with his children. During this conversation, my brother, by his own admission, mocked my father in order to make his point. My father felt disrespected and felt he and my mother were dishonored. My brother holds very strongly to the belief that his mockery was righteous and biblically justified, and he uses your book, A Serrated Edge, to support this argument. My father responded with a fit of anger, and because of that, my brother has removed his family from relationship with them.
Mr. Wilson, I have reviewed A Serrated Edge as well as its critique by Mr. John Frame, as well as your response to his critique. I have read many of your blog posts and listened to some sermons.
I don’t believe you would condone the way my brother talked to my father or the fallout that has occurred in what was once, a tight-knit Christian family, unified in Christ if not in denomination.
My other two siblings and I have approached my brother and begged for his repentance and reconciliation with my parents. (It should be noted, we also respectfully met with my parents to address their sin in the conflict. It was fruitful and we can praise God for increasing our intimacy because of it.) My parents have reached out to my brother, but their attempts were rejected, deemed “insincere.”
This letter is intentionally lacking in many, not unimportant details, being mindful that it may not ever be read and I have a husband and five children to prioritize, but if you could lend a wise word to the issue, I believe it would be helpful. I’d be happy to answer any questions that would be helpful in guiding your response.
Thank you for reading.Kate
Kate, from what you describe, it does seem that your brother was out of line, and should seek forgiveness (for the mockery, not for his position on the doctrine in question). This would be my reasoning. Paul tells Timothy how to deal with older members who are misbehaving in some way: “Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers,” (1 Timothy 5:1). In other words, I believe that satire and mockery really are appropriate in certain situations, but dealing with a father in a situation like what you describe would not be one.
A Miscegenation Question
What I am having trouble following in your hypothetical is how likely is it that two families would reside in the same town for centuries, share so much in common, and somehow still retain starkly different physiology. I agree that it is possible to foolishly make a small difference (like skin color) too much of an issue by ignoring all the other unifying factors. However, I do think that the generations in the same place part of your scenario would be incredibly unlikely. The reason white and black Americans have not blended into a mono ethnic group with an identifiable skin color over centuries in the same place is precisely because they generally have stark cultural disunity. Do you think the inability to see all of the potential unifying factors causes political policy to gravitate toward ethnic origin and skin color? For instance, perhaps those who passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 were not all evil men who committed the unspeakable sin of racism but instead were making policy based on what they could see and not what they couldn’t see and they they thought it was the best for our nation at the time.Joshua
Joshua, sure. They still have different skin color because they have maintained a distinct sub-culture over those centuries, during which time, everybody married within their tribe. But in the meantime, there was a great deal of cross-pollination in other cultural areas—music, food, education, language, and so. And in my scenario, the black family had for doctrinal reason migrated out of “the black church.” In other words, the two subcultures do not have to map onto each other perfectly to make my point. It just has to be a lot closer than my Romanian example.
Circumcision Faded
I am working my way through your book “To a Thousand Generations” to help me work through the question of baptism for my children. I just finished your chapter on circumcision where you made the point that Christian Jews were correctly practicing circumcision in the first century but it was fading away. Would you say that the practice among Jewish Christians ought to have ceased after 70 AD even though the practice predates the temple and the law? If it continues, how Jewish does one need to be to still require it? I have always been under the impression that circumcision is to be done away with considering Galatians 5:12.Stephen
Stephen, after the destruction of the Temple, those Jews who had converted to Christ were gradually assimilated into the Gentile church, and practices like circumcision (as a religious rite) faded, as it ought to have done.
Correcting Misconceptions
I am leaving this here because YT is regularly deleting my comments. Imagine that.
I have no idea the context of this. If it’s a Xitter thing, I’ve been locked out of there for 3 1/2 years now.
I’ve heard this is a debate among professing Christians now. I haven’t seen it in real life. Thankfully. It’s appalling. Doesn’t anyone read their Bibles?! It’s all right there, as clearly as you stated.
“God made Miriam even whiter than she had been before, but this was not considered an improvement”
I laughed way too hard at that. I actually had to “rewind” the video because I wasn’t sure if I’d heard it right the first time.
I have to admit, I was a bit nervous when I saw this title. Despite the many videos/articles I’ve watched/read, I don’t think I’d heard it directly addressed. At least, not as directly as this.
And, after all, the internet told me you’re a big ol’ meanie and r-word. That’ll learn me to listen to the internet!Maureen
Maureen, thanks. May your comments never get deleted again!
The Proper Use of Bigot
Just gotta say, completely agree with the article, but having been called by a certain name for three quarters of a century . . . I still can’t help but cringe-chuckle when I read the word “bigot,” even though it’s the, uh, first correct usage in 75 years. Perhaps you’ll find a way to make definitions great again! But no, there’s just got to be an unused word for racism that hasn’t been DEI’d to DEath.
It is a bummer though, when we have younger guns that are appreciably in possession of real backbone and a willing to take the blowtorch of the entire global Commune for saying unpopular things, only for these same guys to jump the shark with sloppy thinking that serve no purpose other than to make us look bad. It was this issue that left something to be desired for me with the teaching of Joel Webbon, personally. I have a hard time understanding why we can’t all just be honest that some of us hope to be a part of keeping pale skin variants in the species alive, so we would like to marry that way or encourage our children to. Being the image bearers of God, we shouldn’t be AGAINST some physical features that aren’t our favorite, but it seems innocent to be PRO “casting your genetic vote” for beauty you find pleasing and wish not to vanish from the globe. So long as we joyfully submit to God with an openness to retrain our sensibilities as He providentially sees fit.
So well done and thanks for the fish. But, eh, how bout we put our heads together scouring ancient thesauruses and gently guide to a well-earned retirement the old favorite “bigot”? If we meet at a conference and I hear you call someone that, I want you to know in advance I’m not laughing because I think you’re wrong.Patrick
Patrick, thanks for the feedback. You are right. We do need a word that has not been beat to death.
More on Divorce and Remarriage
Thank you for your response. Funny imagery about the kick on the shins, but that’s not how I intended it. Hopefully your bruises have recovered by now.
In your response you encouraged me to think through some scenarios more thoroughly, which I appreciate, but after doing so I wanted to push back a bit.
You mentioned that to be remarried, even if done Biblically unlawfully, would be to remove the possibility of marital reconciliation for the first spouse. You said that to dissolve that new marriage would be a genuine divorce because Scripture does treat a certain class of marriages as true marriages even though they were unlawfully begun. However, I would challenge this a bit and not let it end there.
The closest example I can think of would be a polygamous relationship—let’s say a man converts to Christianity and asks you for advice on what to do about his 3 wives. You would likely advise him to keep all his wives, but to inform him that he must repent of his sins in marrying them and that you will not be conducting any more marriages inside your church for him. Ok, I get why you would advise him not to essentially ruin the lives of his extra wives, because they were entered into thinking it a legitimate practice. But you wouldn’t allow him to take a fourth because it is in fact not a legitimate union of holy matrimony to enter into, as marriage was created for one man and one woman and you would be sinning to conduct such a ceremony.
Let’s pair this with our modern culture views on abortion—as Christian’s, we know that abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. It is an act of murder and all faithful Christian’s should be in favor of legislation that would treat the obtaining of an abortion as murder, as justice for the unborn. However, that doesn’t mean that the second that the abolition policies pass that we should round up anyone who has ever had an abortion in the past. They obtained it legally and under false pretenses and it would not be ethical to judge them as knowing criminals. But if that glorious day ever comes where all abortion is made illegal and people are educated on the proper facts of abortion, then it would be right to treat women as murderers if they get an abortion after the fact.
There are lots of sticky hypothetical situations that one could argue would justify them in finding a new spouse, but I want to see the Scriptural receipts. I don’t see any case of divorce and remarriage in Scripture (with the exception of Herodias divorcing Philip to marry Herod Antipas, which we all know was slammed by Scripture, and the woman at the well, which is hardly a case in favor of the practice). Rather, I see texts like Mathew 5:31-31 and Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 as very clear evidence that even if a legal divorce is obtained, God does not recognize it as a right to marry another while the first spouse lives. The only explicit mention of lawful remarriage found in Scripture (that I know of) is found in 1 Corinthians 7:39 — “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
If I were placed on a jury, and a man’s life was at stake, and the lawyer was using hypothetical arguments, presumption, and emotion as its driving force behind substantiating itself, I would not in good conscience rule in favor of this lawyer’s arguments. Especially with such strong arguments to the contrary. As such, I would imagine pastors (who have to give an account for souls one day) would be as conscientious about ruling in favor of potentially allowing adultery.
Getting to my point—could remarriages of divorced individuals be the modern day equivalent of polygamy? These marriages shouldn’t be broken up now because they were entered into thinking it was a legitimate practice, sometimes with the blessing and encouragement of a pastor. However, if they truly are adulterous unions, then they should be repented of. Also, the pastors would have to repent and turn aside from this practice going forward.
**Side-note; the alternative to this concept would be to view it in the same way you would a homosexual “marriage”, that even though vows were made, it would not be a marriage to begin with so it holds no binding marriage definition and can and should be dissolved. I find this scenario a bit more destructive of an outcome for the potential children born into remarriages, so it falls into a second place category in my mind.
Anyhow . . . I freely admitted previously that this view is fanatical and that I’m very much willing to deter from this view if proven otherwise. Hence why I originally was searching for your defense, and have read the defense of other’s perspectives. I look forward to your in-depth thoughts on the matter.
Thank you for your time!Hannah
Hannah, there are many directions we could take this. For example, Jesus says “whoever divorces his wife except for fornication . . .” That would one thing. But let me appeal to a passage that puts a magnifying glass on the remarriage scenario.
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance” (Deut. 24:1–4).
Notice two things about this. The first is that when she is on her second marriage, she is called a wife, and her second husband is called a husband. The second marriage, even if contracted immorally, requires a divorce to end it. That means the Bible treats it as a marriage. But then, when the wife is freed from her second husband, she is prohibited from marrying her first husband again. I believe there were peculiar reasons for that, grounded in Israelite law, but the point at issue here is that she is prohibited from going back to what some would argue is her only “real” husband.
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance” (Deut. 24:1–4).
Notice two things about this. The first is that when she is on her second marriage, she is called a wife, and her second husband is called a husband. The second marriage, even if contracted immorally, requires a divorce to end it. That means the Bible treats it as a marriage. But then, when the wife is freed from her second husband, she is prohibited from marrying her first husband again. I believe there were peculiar reasons for that, grounded in Israelite law, but the point at issue here is that she is prohibited from going back to what some would argue is her only “real” husband.
“Mark, there is no express prohibition of cremation in Scripture so I don’t think we have grounds to declare it unlawful. ” Some folks may take it to the next level of the cremation URN being in the shape of a grammys trophy!
Since a question was asked about theonomy (or rather, it wasn’t – the answer was about theonomy, but anyway…..), here’s one for you CREC Christian Nationalists. It seems that you often declare both of these: 1) Every nation has a right to set its own immigration laws; there can be no pity for any illegals, who cannot complain if they’re simply rounded up and deported, and thus, we are very much in favour of the current US administration’s policies. 2) We are theonomists, who hold that Old Testament civil law is binding for all nations today. We are Christian Nationalists,… Read more »
Hi David, I’m not sure I understand what you’ve posted. Could you please clarify? You write, “The commitment to 2), however, commits you, as a matter of non-negotiable principle, to changing immigration law to be generous and welcoming to the foreigner / stranger.” I agree. Would you also say that there’s a difference between welcoming those who wish to sojourn temporarily/permanently and granting them citizenship? Would you say that having a generous and welcoming attitude means having an unlimited open door policy? (I try to be generous and welcoming to strangers. If a stranger knocked on our door needing food… Read more »
Really I’m just asking how folk who claim to both believe that 1) if you’re an illegal alien then that is sufficient to end any right you might have had to immigrate and 2) the laws of the United States should be based upon the Old Covenant theocracy – as Greg Bahnsen (who was recommended in the reply referred to) says, “in exhaustive detail”. Someone who believes 2) ought logically to be committed to the belief that the current laws in 1) are immoral, and not to see their enforcement as an important priority to support (if indeed a thing… Read more »
Hmm. I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of supposed theonomist (which isn’t super difficult since I think the “civil” OT laws provide important moral principles that endure). I’m guessing the question lies in premise 1. I think the way you’ve phrased the question, the theonomist who defends the current practices of the US government is probably backed into a reductio absurdum corner. My question would be whether this supposed theonomist would agree with the way premise 1 is stated. Not sure…
> “which isn’t super difficult since I think the “civil” OT laws provide important moral principles that endure” That’s not Bahnsen/Rushdoony theonomy, which is the position that the specific laws are meant to apply in exhaustive detail, insofar as is at all possible. “Theonomy thus teaches that we should presume that Old Testament laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation” – https://www.bahnseninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Bahnsen-Institute-What-Is-Theonomy-.pdf . “The author insists that the whole Old Testament civil law, including the penalty structure (execution for adultery and so on) is binding upon present-day civil… Read more »
Greg Bahnsen endorsed the confessional concept of “general equity.”
And the WCF introduces “general equity,” not merely for the Ten Commandments, but specifically with reference to how the “sundry judicial laws,” given to Israel “as a body politic” obligate other peoples now.
The answer to this is very simple. When it comes to immorality and the gays, or sabbath obervance we should continue to implement the law of Moses.
When it comes to the legislation on ‘sojourners’ we are no longer under the law of Moses.
I think I prefer the NT that once the law has brought us to Christ it no longer has any function other than to inform us how to love our neighbour as ourselves, and that we are simply ‘in Christ’ and ‘under grace’.
Where the law of Moses coincides with the biases of MAGA it applies to the governance of the U.S.
Where the law of Moses contradicts the biases of MAGA it only applied to OT Israel.
Spot in
Reminds me of the regulative principle. It commands what we’re used to and want, and forbids what we’re not used to and don’t want. Churches should meet in homes (as in NT), for the Lord God Almighty is the Temple so a ‘holy building’ is a damnable idol? When something is revealed to the 2nd prophet, the 1st prophet must shut up and listen? Passing the plate was invented a couple centuries ago, so now the RPW requires it during the worship service, as opposed to a box at the door, which we do see in Scripture?
So you can just pick and choose which are applicable now? Or does your pastor tell you?
Well it’s interesting how some Christians can be incoherent in their thinking. You get into a discussion withi Calvinists over Eph 2 and they will insist that dead in trespasses and sins means the sinner is utterly unable to respond to God. Later you discuss Rom 9 and they will tell you God hardens the heart of whomever he wills. They are most insistent on his sovereign right to do this. You then scratch your head as these two ideas are contradictory. If being dead you already have a heart as solid as granite, why would God ever need to… Read more »
Maybe there’s a difference in the meaning of the two passages? As in maybe an unregenerate heart is spiritually dead (Eph.2), meaning unable to choose for God. But that unregenerate heart has some “light of nature” still, meaning he recognizes what is outwardly honorable and what types of behavior will lead to human flourishing. And maybe when God “hardens Pharoah’s heart” (cf. also Romans 1) this doesn’t mean that Pharoah could freely choose to love God, but rather that God was giving him over to his sin so that he reaped the increasing consequences of his sinful rebellion. In other… Read more »
Ruth totally assimilated and Boaz was fine to marry her, but Solomon’s wives did not assimilate and were a problem Did they have a right of refuge, or were they invasive?
Wouldn’t polygamy be the problem and not where his wives were from? Solomon brought them in, so whether the were refugees or invaders, it doesn’t matter…comparing apples to oranges, man…
Comparing his idolatrous wives (rejecting assimilation) with Ruth (rejecting idolatry; assimilating.)
Since you set up an unworkable situation, please tell us why it is OK to steal from citizens to give to those in good health, able to work but won’t work. After all, the Bible doesn’t allow for that activity. The Bible tells us that the foreigner and the native are to have one law. But that doesn’t happen in the US now. The Bible allowed for those who would not obey God’s laws to be removed from Israel. In the same manner, the Supreme Court decided in 1913 that “It is thoroughly established that Congress has power to order… Read more »
> “Since you set up an unworkable situation, please tell us why it is OK to steal from citizens to give to those in good health, able to work but won’t work.”
What is the connection between the premise and the consequence in this sentence?
Your questions 1 and 2 are the basis for an unworkable situation. You are ignoring other portions of scripture. Doesn’t the whole of scripture apply? If all of scripture applies, there is no contradiction. If all of scripture does not apply than your unworkable situation would be OK. The consequence of not following the entirety of scripture on social issues is shown in Minneapolis. So, the Bible says that the foreigner and the native must obey the same laws. Every day, we see that the foreigner is above the law. The Bible allows for punishment for foreigners if they don’t… Read more »
Cognitive dissonance.
I would say that the question has to revolve around a few issues. whether the modern law fails to be kind to the sojourner and foreigner Whether the OT law has to do with entry qualifications Whether there is a right to immigration (as in other comment) or if there is simply a right to be treated well once you have immigrated if you cite specific verses then we could have the discussion but simply claiming that biblical law is against it doesn’t allow for any conversation. specificly regarding the claim that it forbids anything that states deportation is the… Read more »
“ It seems that you often declare both of these:” Straw man is a man made of straw. Neither 1 nor 2 is stated accurately, both are done in the least charitable light possible, and neither are quoting anyone in particular. “It forbids, as a matter of obedience to God, a system of immigration law in which the manner of someone’s entry, illegal or not, is a final and sufficient grounds for considering their case.” Historically, when creating an argument, it is traditional to provide evidence or logic to support your thesis. You’ve provided nothing. You’ve just stated a totally unsupported… Read more »
You’ve wasted everyone’s time with your senseless rhetoric. Your argument is that the argument was bad or not an argument at all? Why even respond, then?
Bad arguments are picked apart so that others with less time, attention, or skill at understanding are not misled. Why have you ever commented on this blog, if not for that exact purpose?
And it’s more than a little odd to refer to logical, proportionate criticism of an argument’s basic soundness and fairness as “senseless rhetoric”. Actually, that borders on the perverse, to reverse the truth so thoroughly and so insultingly.
Thanks for pointing that out to me
Justin, you don’t make a lot of sense there. Who am I straw-manning? I’ve invited those who *do* hold the position to explain it. If you don’t hold it, then it doesn’t apply to you, and you have nothing to explain. But for what it’s worth: “Theonomy thus teaches that we should presume that Old Testament laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation” – https://www.bahnseninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Bahnsen-Institute-What-Is-Theonomy-.pdf . “The author insists that the whole Old Testament civil law, including the penalty structure (execution for adultery and so on) is binding… Read more »
Having read all the comments to the bottom, I’d like to point out that Jeff vindicates me by stating straight-forwardly and bluntly my point 1), in his own words. So, no, I’m not inventing straw-men, I was pointing to real-world people who hang around in these parts, as I was saying.
David, I’ve often appreciated your perspectives and thoughtful arguments, and I believe you are often closer to right than pretty much anyone else here, but this is an unfortunate exception that is not up to your usual standards. It is not especially charitable or particularly well-supported, but also it misses the mark by failing to precisely attack a much more likely problem. I doubt that substantially any CREC or Christian Nationalist figure actually does believe everything Trump’s administration is doing about immigration is correct or even defensible. That’s a red herring. The real problem is that it is too rare… Read more »
> “I doubt that substantially any CREC or Christian Nationalist figure actually does believe everything Trump’s administration is doing about immigration is correct or even defensible. That’s a red herring.” Nathan, I’m somewhat confused by you critiquing my argument as a red herring via the method of replacing my actual statements with this red herring. Where did I say that any CREC or Christian Nationalist figure actually does believe everything Trump’s administration is doing about immigration is correct or even defensible? I’ve asked a question of those who both believe that Bahnsen’s view of the applicability of OT civil law… Read more »
I’m definitely with you on the non-need of Christians to have opinions or reactions, on everything, and the unhelpfulness of pastors deciding to give us their hot-takes. My question is really aimed at those who have given their strongly-stated views. It’s not my view that it’s necessary for anyone to even hold a personal view on what immigration policy should be: when people are just busy doing the things God actually gave them to do, and are fine with saying “I don’t know, do I need to know?” when asked a question they haven’t had a particular interest in working… Read more »
Every nation has a right to set its own immigration laws; there can be no pity for any illegals, who cannot complain if they’re simply rounded up and deported, and thus, we are very much in favour of the current US administration’s policies. If that’s not a claim that the people you are writing against are uncritical supporters of Trump’s entire policy suite on the subject, I don’t know what it is. If you have a different phrasing you would prefer, I would be happy to use it, but my argument doesn’t depend strongly on the exact wording there, just… Read more »
Nathan, can you please point us to these critiques of the Trump admin’s immigration policies made by CN/CREC people? You speak with confidence that they exist, in numbers sufficient to easily dispel the general understanding of what Christian Nationalism means, so they must. Where are they? Here, I’ll show you how to do it. A few weeks ago Doug slandered George Floyd, claiming he died of an overdose rather than being strangled for 9 consecutive minutes. He makes exaggerated (and unproven) allegations against immigrant populations committing billions in fraud, denigrating an entire community for crimes committed by a small subset… Read more »
Uh, “f*cking b*tch” is “the sort of language…commonly found in Doug’s mouth”? Really?? Maybe once in awhile, but…
He did call the shooting of lady Good ‘that awful episode’ or some such sort of language..I read it in the link a couple minutes ago.
I invited him to, ah, be more precise about Mr Floyd’s causes of death. Up to him whether to answer.
Nathan, can you please point us to these critiques of the Trump admin’s immigration policies made by CN/CREC people? I very specifically made no claim that any such detailed critiques existed in sufficient quantities. In fact, I tried to be as clear as possible that, if David Anderson or anyone else wants to argue in good faith that there should be more and better criticism of specific Trump policies by CN/CREC types, I am happy to cheer them on. I can understand afresh why CN/CREC types are reluctant to do just that, of course, since they will be faced with… Read more »
Nathan, it is an absurd hypocrisy to demand “fairness” towards Doug, in fact extreme generosity, when he shows none of it. I am being fair to him. More than fair. He has led thousands if not millions astray. He has repented of nothing, he has admitted no error. The reckoning has not yet begun with him, but it will come. You reinforced my point: No CN/CREC critiques of Trump exist. Not one. In fact, evangelicals were the first group to support Trump, and they are the last group to support him. Trump is a creation of non-denominational evangelicalism, MAGA is… Read more »
I lament evangelical support of Trump, deeply. However, for what it’s worth now, evangelicals were not the first to support him and give his campaign momentum way back in the 2016 primaries. They did jump aboard the bandwagon with alacrity true (and sad) enough.
A view from the other side of the Pond. When I first saw the footage of what happened to Good my initial reaction was this was ‘police’ brutality, but when extra footage of her driving forward at the ICE agent was shown, was more prepared to give the agent the benefit of the doubt. Her action under the circumstances was foolish. The position of the bullet hole in the windscreen did, however, look as though the intention was to kill and not disable. She will almost certainly stand before her Creator unprepared, the greater tragedy. The other incident did seem… Read more »
Ken, the bullet that killed Good was shot from the side, through an open window, when she posed no threat. In fact she never posed a threat, that was a post hoc rationalization concocted by proven liars. Good was given contradictory orders by law enforcement — one to move out of the way, one to get out of the vehicle — and we are now told that summary execution was the appropriate punishment for violating either. That is not a coherent position. She was executed because these men were told to act aggressively, because they had been granted absolute immunity.… Read more »
The irony of actually clicking the link and reading Doug say he mostly agreed with the reformed evangelical minister in question, making jokes about the fact that the guy is famous for doing the opposite of what he now advocates, and saying that Renee Good being shot was regrettable but that such a thing has no more bearing on whether immigration laws are just then a woman being shot in a traffic violation scenario has over traffic laws.
Unless those laws provide for a woman being shot when she poses no threat. But yes, it is more of an issue that calls for police reform than for immigration law reform or traffic law reform per se.
A “sojourner” is NOT a citizen.
How many does it take to make an invading army?
Would the Cherokees think there’s some such number?
Stephen, this is an excellent analysis of the argument that moves from circumcision to baptism, with particular focus on Calvin’s argument: https://www.reformedontheweb.com/baptism/from-circumcision-to-baptism-greg-welty.pdf .
Hi Brandan, I can’t answer your questions about homeschooling 2-3 days a week if the mother is working since I have no experience with that. I also should qualify my comments by saying that I’m located in Canada. You situation may be different… My wife was homeschooled and she really enjoyed it. Her dad also runs a bookstore that specializes in homeschool curriculum. I grew up around a number of homeschooled families. Sometimes it was done very well. But not always. The abilities of you and your wife should be considered in comparison to your other schooling options (though the… Read more »
Caleb, that’s one reason I would warn parents to look carefully at the rules before signing their kids up for virtual academies. Some of them require the student to be online for as many hours a day as they would be if they were at school. You can’t just sign in and wander away. This seems to me to have all the dreariness of traditional school attendance without the compensations–getting to fool around with your friends.
Hi Hannah, Thanks for asking the divorce/remarriage question and pushing back. This is a difficult and highly emotional subject. While the truth is vital to this discussion, I think it’s also important to remember that there are a lot of people who interpret that biblical data in different ways. Many of them are sincerely trying to follow Christ faithfully. So, though this is a highly emotional/sensitive topic, we should do our best to be gentle and understanding. I personally believe remarriage is permissible after divorce. I think Lev.21:13-15 is quite clear. God forbids the high priest from marrying certain women.… Read more »
Most of our discussions on miscegenation are regarding Black and White. One miscegenation law was focused on the Chinese. If an American citizen married a Chinese immigrant, the American lost their Citizenship until such time as that marriage was dissolved.
Didn’t understand JP’s letter at all. He sounds a lot like overly excited recent Cathodox catuchumens you run into online
Hannah – the late David Pawson, who had a significant ministry in the UK and across many parts of the world, described the current state of marriage in Britain as ‘consecutive polygamy’.
He held very much to the indissoluble nature of marriage, and that all remarriage after divorce was adultery.
I have been in many different types of churches in my time, and I have yet to hear a sermon on divorce, let alone divorce and remarriage. This omission means there are countless believers who have no idea there is anything wrong with marrying again after a divorce.
And, it could be added, in the parts of the world with polygamy, the actual practice is often just de facto divorce (the getting-frumpier earlier wife is dispatched back to the village, or just treated as free labour, whilst attention is lavished upon the newer model).
> “I have been in many different types of churches in my time, and I have yet to hear a sermon on divorce, let alone divorce and remarriage.”
Because too many hearers would be mortally offended, I’d guess??
Pawson was preaching in a church I believe in the States and the pastor came up to him afterwards in great wrath and said ‘are you accusing me of being an adulterer’? Pawson had at some point quoted Luke 16 : 18 and it must have triggered the pastor’s conscience. He was on his second marriage some church members were on their third. This is a very difficult subject in modern Western society, but the failure to address it means large numbers of believers who have no idea that when Jesus effectively defined marriage as between one man and one… Read more »
Cat – well written post that was thought-provoking. I had just one issue with the stance you related of the locals near the Twin Cities – and that is their use of ”non-criminal illegals.” There is no such thing. A crime is violating a law, a criminal is one who commits a crime. An illegal is, therefore, a criminal. A ‘non-criminal illegal’ is on the same level as a ‘square circle’ – completely non-sensical. We can – and should – discuss whether the law is good or just or necessary. But that is a different discussion. Perhaps they meant ‘violent… Read more »
A charitable replacement for the term in question might be “non-felonious illicit immigrants”. Admittedly, few conservatives and even fewer progressives have any precise understanding or fluency with the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, but it’s true that the first crime committed by someone entering illegally is meaningfully less severe than other things we think of as ordinary crimes.
“but it’s true that the first crime committed by someone entering illegally is meaningfully less severe than other things we think of as ordinary crimes.”
And that is meaningful. If a crime is violating the law, everyone who exceeds the posted speed limit – and that is virtually every driver in America sometimes and most of them routinely – is a criminal.
Technically speeding would be a traffic infraction unless there were other aggravating factors. Crime would be misdemeanors and felonies
The statement was: “A crime is violating a law”. Even an infraction does that. As you note, aggravating factors can make speeding a criminal offense, one such factor simply being how much the offender was speeding, in Missouri as little 6mph over the limit.
I apologize, my post was unclear and misleading.
I agree with some of what you have said and some of what he has said. I think that you are right to point out his definition as faulty, but that he is right to point out that it does indeed make them a criminal. I was supplying an alternative definition for crime that would solve the traffic regulations problem.
True, that does make them criminals. Just like getting a ticket when the parking meter expires. However, did you notice that we don’t have widespread uprisings when those individuals are caught and have to pay the consequences for their actions. Two questions – not specifically to you but generically. First, why the uproar over this particular law? Second, a basic tenet of our laws is that it applies to every citizen equally, because consistent application of the law is a necessity for a society to flourish. Why are illegals, who aren’t even citizens, seen as above the law?
In the first place the objection has to do with labeling immigrants as criminals solely on the basis of their unauthorized entry apart from any other offense. Even very egregious traffic law violators, of which there are very many, do not generally regard themselves as criminals, nor are regarded by most other people as criminals. I could put the question”Why the uproar over this particular law?” right back at you, not you in particular (I appreciate that reasonableness) but generically. The thing is, when anti-illegal immigration zealots declare they’re really just determined that the law be upheld and the rules… Read more »
I don’t disagree that entering illegally is meaningfully less severe than other crimes like murder, rape, etc. It is still a crime. Despite this fact, I never see any ‘anti-ICE’ enthusiast even acknowledge the first crime. Any discussion has to start with the facts. The first crime is the root cause, leading to all the other issues.
Where and what are your facts? Seems like ICE is calling anyone they want an “illegal immigrant” even if the didn’t illegally immigrate…
If they are here legally, but ICE calls them illegal immigrants, then (obviously) ICE is wrong. But back to your assertion – where are your facts? Does it only seem like that is what ICE is doing, or is it what they are actually doing?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours:)
Most illegals are committing a felony. Identity theft. Whose social security number are they using? A small percentage came legally and lost their status. some of them were issued Social Security numbers, but most illegals are guilty of using someone else’s ssn.
Where’s your proof (besides Fox News)? Most illegals? Quite the BROAD generalization, especially if you have no data or facts to support your claim.
How are they getting a paycheck, E? You think everything is under the table? You are just one of these people that will deny anything you don’t agree with. Period forever.
Ah.. but here is some government documentation for you to refute. ICE worksite enforcement operation uncovers widespread identity theft affecting more than 100 victims across the nation | ICE
Haha, they’re doing jobs that no Americans want to do:) and wow, 100 identity thefts? How many Americans are responsible for identity theft? I’m not denying that there are “bad actors” in the immigrant population; unlike you, I’m denying that all immigrants are “bad actors”. It’s like saying all white people are racist because some are…
This is true, and a serious problem of theft in most cases. (That is, malum in se, not just a technical violation of regulations.) I believe I was careful to phrase my post in a way to allow for this, since this is and should be a felony, although I suppose I could have explicitly called it out.
I’d just like to point out to Justin, who said that I was inventing uncharitable straw men who didn’t reflect anything real, that Jeff here in his own name offers us precisely what I was talking about for point 1). (Of course, I don’t know Jeff’s views on 2).