Trump, Naturally
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. If things continue on the current course, I can see myself likely pulling the lever for him in 2020, especially considering the neo-socialist, pro-Molech, non-binary gender alternative the opposing party is likely to put forward.
CSarge
Yes, I agree that this is the issue before us.
“Whatchagonnado?” I didn’t vote for Trump for the same reasons you listed. He claimed to be pro-life, anti-corruption, and pro-business but I didn’t trust him stick to those principles. Just because he has stumbled into some good decisions (i.e. Gorsuch, tax reductions), he still has enough bad decisions to go around (the tweets, tariffs, huge spending bill). What could possibly lead you into thinking he will continue to stumble into more good decisions? Nothing about his character has changed. He hasn’t publicly repented for sins. So why could you consider voting for him on the next go-round?
Roger
The reason I think there should be a discussion of the relevant principles is because we would be holding those principles up against an actual record, as distinct from holding them up against wild speculation about someone who had never held any political office before.
What’s there to discuss? Imagine if NeverTrumpers had gotten their way and Hillary Clinton was president. ‘Nuff said.
Mike
Mike, there are many who feel as you do.
Ref. That Unthinkable 2020 Election If anyone is wondering how some of us might still be underwhelmed: 1. The list compiled by the fallible Heritage Foundation includes some good things, some unremarkable good things that only look remarkable against the back drop of what came immediately before, some bad things, and some things I don’t care about. There certainly are not two hundred and fourteen things to celebrate. 2. The Trump administration has not even approached solving fundamental problems and has probably exacerbated some of them. 3. Nothing Trump has done or could do in the White House will make up for what he did to get there.
John
John, nothing is a strong word. If God could deal kindly with a king as wicked as Ahab was (1 Kings 21:27), I can imagine any number of things in the White House that should make us think twice.
That fifth-last paragraph is sheer magnificence. I wish I could turn a phrase on cue like that, Doug.
Tom
Tom, thanks.
Welcome to the party, Doug. What am I gonna do in 2020? Same thing I did in 2016: vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils. Then go home, knock back a stiff drink, and marvel at God’s sovereignty.
Tim
Tim, thanks for sharing.
I expect a plumber to plumb, and a president to preside. Our current president has shown himself better at presiding over the return to righteous law than any in recent memory. Other criteria than that for a ruler is kidding ourselves about what a ruler is supposed to be. Most notably, he is not a priest. Romans tells us that he is the sword of God, punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous. As far as I can tell, that’s just what he’s doing.
Isaiah
Isaiah, I take your point, but I think we have to go a bit beyond that.
“That Unthinkable 2020 Election” As of now, because of the still unrepentant character flaws and the lack of any consistent conservative worldview arch, I don’t think I would cast my vote for Trump in 2020. But I might not join the chorus of #NeverTrumpers committed to opposing his re-election more than enacting a Conservative agenda. In fact, without actually rooting for Trump to win, I might actually root for the primary opposition campaign to lose and lose big league. I propose the Church read The Mission of God by Dr. Joseph Boot and do cultural ministry with that book (coupled with Scripture) as our Manifesto. Focus on what God is doing with His unmerited favor, grace, mercy, and, at times, judgment, rather than “this personality is bad and this personality is good.” We need to stop looking for righteous men to lead the country, and start looking for repentant sinners who understand what true godliness means. Hint: Godliness does NOT mean well-groomed, bow tie wearing, hair in pristine combed condition, and a picture perfect family man with no skeletons in his/her closet. Now, I’m not suggesting we should adopt the “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” nonsense. People who suggest settling for the “good” are typically those who have no consistent arch, worldview to begin with. They hate ideological purity and always condemns “purity tests” as pie in the sky, unachievable hopes. Christians should absolutely demand a “purity test” of sorts, a consistent conservative worldview and center. But they need to understand there is no such thing as a repentant righteous person. Everybody is a sinner, and they are either repentant or unrepentant. Godliness understands our limitations and repents of our sins, but they understand men are imperfect and God can love our nation so much that He could shower us with His unmerited favor and grace through a national leader that has no consistent worldview. We shouldn’t put our seal of approval on unrepentant sinners though.
Trey
Trey, I am currently reading The Mission of God. Good book. And Joe Boot is speaking for us this year at the Grace Agenda. Check it out, everybody.
Excellent column, and the kind of applicable “preaching” I wish would come from more pulpits today. Personally, come 2020, unless we see Trump no longer being Trump, my decision will be the same as it was in November 2016: vote third-party if at all. You see, I didn’t oppose Trump primarily because of his dubious “conservative” credentials. I opposed him because he is unfit for the office of President in his morals, character, background, and raw management skills. More importantly, he is a liability to Christians who insists on hitching their wagons to his train despite where it came from and the manner in which it is proceeding. I suppose I could be convinced by Biblical arguments to the contrary. Can we vote for Jehu? Samson? God may raise up anyone against all probabilities and without answering to us, but to what degree can we assist with the raising up of an unqualified man? Interesting times we live in.
Samuel
Samuel, you make a good point about Christians hitching their wagon to the anomaly that is Trump. Whatever God is doing with Trump, how likely is it to continue when the baton is eventually passed . . . to a bunch of Christians who compromised where they should not have. That in my mind is a real problem, and one I hope to write on soon.
Re: That Unthinkable 2020 Election You asked, “Whatchagonnado?” Probably what I did in November 2016. Make it loud and clear that I’m not voting for Trump ahead of time. Get to the polling place and agonize over the fact that not voting for Trump is an effective vote for the Dem. Realize that my state’s electoral votes are going red regardless of my personal angst. Cast a relatively painless protest vote for someone I respect and pray for the best.
JJ
JJ, yes, yes. I have done that sort of thing a number of times myself.
Jimmy Kimmel was recently quoted as saying Hollywood makes movies for the specific purpose of upsetting Vice President Pence. Fair enough. I would vote to re-elect Trump solely to give both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks of Hollywood yet another jolly good fit of apoplexy. And there is a very good chance I would dance in front of the TV on the night the election returns came in shouting, “MWUAAHAHHAHAHA!!” Discuss among yourselves, Screen Actors Guild.
Dan
Okay, Dan. But don’t have too much fun.
Pastor Doug, I think the more interesting question is this: What are you going to do? :) I voted for Trump for the same reason a man opens an umbrella and puts it over his head when he sees an asteroid the size of Jupiter hurtling towards him: “Eh, What the hell. Maybe it will help.” :)
Dave
Thanks, Dave. And did it help?
Gun Control and Abortion
Thank you for your continued faithfulness in writing. I have a question regarding consistency. I find that I align with you essentially on guns and abortion. However, how would you respond to the claim that Christians are hypocritical in their support of guns shops and their desire that abortion clinics be closed. A dark heart is the root problem in both cases. Granted. The Gospel is the answer to both cases. Granted. Then why are we all for the mitigating laws toward abortion clinics, even though that won’t cure the root problem, but we are totally against mitigating laws toward the tools used for school shootings, because it won’t cure the root problem? Are we being consistent? How would you answer? Thank you for any thoughts.
Something else I thought of that I would like to tack on. If literally thousands of high school students were dying every day as a result of shootings with AR-15s and 30rnd mags, would we Christians be clamoring for their ban? Is this, at the root, simply a numbers game? I think that is all. I greatly look forward to any response.
Jerrod
Jerrod, the difference is this. The abortion clinic exists to do evil only. The gun shop sells something that can be used in a crime, but the vast majority of their sales are to law-abiding citizens, using the weapons they buy for legitimate purposes. We shouldn’t shut down auto-dealerships because cars are used in bank robbery getaways. This difference is not a slight difference, and only appears as a technicality because of the incessant propaganda we get from the left.
Housekeeping Details
Is your search engine working?
Catherine
Catherine, I just tried it and it appears to be working. Try going back to the main page and using it from there.
On Firefox, the home page of your website is messed up. You have to scroll through an excessively large, white space in order to view the articles. It’s been that way for a while. Perhaps it is because the issue does not exist on chrome.
Seth
Seth, are you talking about mobile devices or computers? Because I use Firefox on my computers and do not have that problem at all.
Do all comments now require moderation or have I been “grey”-listed? For the record, I don’t mind being grey-listed, nor do I request an explanation for such. Just curious to the overall modus operandi.
Nathan
Nathan, no, you have not been gray listed at all.
Typology
Pastor Wilson, I’m not addressing a specific post, nor am I concerned about it being featured with a post, but I had a few questions. First, in a number of blog posts and on a number of videos and possibly a past Credenda/Agenda you have dealt with using typology today. The question, always, with this methodology is “what are the brakes on this methodology?” I was wondering how you would critique the Catholic apologist who finds typology for Mary in things like the ark of the covenant to Solomon’s mother to the woman of Revelation 12. How can we tell when typology is off the mark? The last question is quite specific and boring I’m afraid. I remember finding an article last year about Psalm 2 and its use in the New Testament. The person who wrote it was associated with you or your church (possibly the college you run). The thing of interest was how the text is used in different ways and that related to a verb that can be used in different ways, that was expanded on in the Midrash on the Psalms. I have completely unable to find the article since then, but I do have my notes on the article. Do you have any idea where I could find the article? Thanks.
Geoff
Geoff, sorry I don’t know the article you are referring to. I think I need a few more specifics. Typology, like everything else, needs to be anchored in the text, and we should submit to what the text demands of us, and not to what the text allows from us. In short, the brakes are Christ Himself.
Babylon Bee
Off topic, but I’d love to see you address the situation with Adam Ford of the Babylon Bee and Facebook. Adam is really taking the fight into enemy territory. I’m finding this particularly fun to watch as I just finished Flags Out Front a couple of days ago.
Jane
Jane, I think the Babylon Bee is great. And the idea of the High and Humorless fact-checking them is yet more evidence that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Get Your Requests in Early
As a child of the seventies and early eighties, I love the rock and roll that the Logos Dad’s Band plays each year. However, as a Texan, I’m also fond of country and western music. While I don’t expect y’all to add a steel guitar to the band, there are some good C&W songs that might fit in well with the rock motif. Here are a few you might consider for your 2019 concert: If it Will it Will (Hank Williams Jr.), I Left Something Turned on at Home (Trace Adkins), Every Little Thing (Carlene Carter), Who’s Cheatin’ Who (Charly McClain) and Highway Patrol (Junior Brown).
Bill
Bill, I am just a guitar player and play what I am told.
Book Review of Crisis of Responsibility
I enjoyed your review of this book. Taking responsibility is more in short supply than I thought. I am still wrestling with the results of this Pew Research Center survey: http://bit.ly/2F7PQuE. Could it really be possible that 54% of PCA members and 30% of Southern Baptist Convention members think abortion should be legal? This seems so basic, but our churches really seem to be unable to take basic responsibility in simply stating fundamental truths. It’s quite discouraging.
David
David, yes, I am afraid that is at least possible. But also remember that surveys and their methods are not worldview neutral.
Great Idea
Would it be possible to have a link on the site to all the previously chosen books of the month? I use these suggestions as a primary source for spending my pastoral book allowance. However, now that Pastor Wilson has been doing these for awhile and given the amount of overall material he produces, it would be helpful to have one spot where one could find them all. Just a suggestion. Please keep up the good work and may our Lord continue to bless and keep all of you!
Jon
Jon, that is a good idea. I would just need to get to it. I understand that Congress is considering giving us 26 hours days soon, and that might take care of it.
Great Book
I just started reading Politics of Guilt and Pity because you recently referenced it, as did Toby on Crosspolitic. It is my first go with Rushdoony and my response to the first chapter about guilt and atonement went something like, Wowzers. My entire Facebook newsfeed started to come into focus. Then, at a break in the action toward the end of a long day here in Memphis, I come across “Woke with the Wim Wams” and it was like I could see and understand my newsfeed in HD. All to say, keep plodding my brother. I am thankful for your work.
Chris
Chris, thanks. And the early Rushdoony really is pretty bracing.
More Info Please
I was wondering where would I find more extensive information or blogs about your post millennial views? I did find one such entry about Jesus being seated until all things are under his feat, but do you elaborate on this anywhere? Thanks, love you love the show.
Gabriel
Gabriel, my views on eschatology are set out in Heaven Misplaced. Check it out here.
Woke of a Wokeness
“In short, anybody who thinks he is ‘woke’ is actually still in his sins.” Just call this what it is: Woke-s righteousness. On a serious note, I do think this is a crucial point. I have been tempted in my ministry to see the debauchery and degeneracy of the American culture and spend my time denouncing licentiousness. The reality is that people seem to be hard-wired, whether from a religious perspective or a secular one, to seek a justification by works at least as much as they seek a cheap grace that makes Jesus their savior but not their lord.
BJ
BJ, yes. Everything is always about salvation one way or another. The choice is always between false saviors and the true Savior.
Thank you for your labors. After reading your piece on the contemporary hamartiology implied in the “Woke” movement, I came across this excellent piece on guilt in contemporary culture with which you may already be familiar. Interestingly, it predates the recent post-Weinstein frenzy but its comments on finding absolution through identifying with victims explains much of the power of the #metoo movement. Blessings in your ministry.
Stephen
Stephen, thanks.
This religious explanation of the woke is immensely helpful in explaining the complicity of too much of the professed church, who—having wrapped their broken chains around their arms for fear of falling from works-righteousness themselves—now hear the humanist prophets “each in his own tongue,” and condemn also those walking free.
Kevin
Kevin, yes. And we should never forget that for those who are slaves to sin, the prospect of liberty is terrifying.
Graham and Sproul
Comment on Billy Graham. Good morning, Pastor Wilson. It was interesting to note that you had referenced a piece on Billy Graham’s going to be with the Lord, but did not mention anything regarding R.C. Sproul (as far as I know and aside from a Tweet regarding it). I have been greatly instructed on many things by both you and R.C. and believe that God had greatly used R.C. in the revitalization of Reformed theology (one of many that God has used for this revitalization of what C.H. Spurgeon referred to as being the revealed truth of God). Although I agree in sentiment with the reference to Billy Graham’s preaching of the Gospel, I do think that many will be around the throne because of his ministry. However, I think the same or perhaps more could be said on the case of R.C. Sproul’s ministry, which (I believe) will bear more fruit generationally due to the fact that it was a ministry of the Great Commission more accurately—not just evangelism but also making disciples by teaching the whole counsel of God. Although imperfectly, I think that R.C. did more than Billy in that regard. If you had written on R.C. and I missed it, please forgive the oversight. I am not as regular a reader as I could be. If I have misrepresented the facts (thereby bearing a false witness), please forgive that, also. Thank you for your ministry. We have been greatly blessed by it. Your brother in Christ,
Mark
Mark, I agree with you about Sproul’s cultural importance. As you noted, I tweeted something about it, and believe I also said something here in the letters section. But there were a couple other factors. When RC went to be with the Lord things were pretty busy, and when Billy did, I had more of an opening. And second (on a purely autobiographical level), Billy Graham had much more of an impact on me personally, not to mention the culture I grew up in. But none of that was intended as a negative statement regarding RC Sproul. I thank God for him.
Yeah, Well . . .
Nobody memes Doug Wilson as controversial outsider harder than Doug Wilson himself. Russell Moore says what he needs to say to keep his place at the podium and Wilson says what he needs to say to keep his seat at the table. Only anon tells the whole truth.
Barnie
Barnie, that reminds me of something a friend once referred to, that being The Collected Works of Anonymous, Man of Many Moods.
Charismata
I would love to hear your thoughts on this “Gospel Power Panel” discussion here: I agree with certain things and also I am worried about how closely these fine gentlemen sound like the New Apostolic movement. I have roots in the Pentecostal church and know all too well the real dangers of these theological persuasions. As Reformed, Presbyterians, we seem to always have either incredibly hard things to say towards this topic or we are completely silent. I may be wrong but I feel we need a Godly gospel-centered position. As always thank you, Pastor, you are a blessing.
Christopher
Christopher, just a couple of things to note. I am a cessationist, meaning that I do not see any way for the sign gifts to continue down to the present without maintaining that Scriptures are open, meaning that the canon of Scripture is not closed. At the same time, many of my fellow cessationists are functional materialists, who happen to believe in God and angels (at a safe distance). I differ with that. That means that I believe that weird spiritual things still happen (because of the way the world was made), but I don’t believe that inspired things still happen. I need to write on this in more detail some time, but here is a teaser. If you are in a crowded room, and you suddenly know that someone is looking at the back of your head, and you turn around suddenly and discover that someone is in fact doing so, I think that is a species of real knowledge. I also don’t think it is the gift of prophecy. A dog that knows when his owner is coming home does not have the gift of discernment.
I’d rejoice to see the President demonstrate evidence that he has become a wise man of good report who fears God and hates a bribe. If he doesn’t, I’ll find someone who does and cheerfully vote for that man.
I hope you have an alternative plan because I fear it may be quite difficult to find a Presidential candidate who is “a wise man of good report who fears God and hates a bribe”.
Hasn’t been a problem the last few cycles.
I didn’t just want him to agree with me, I wanted to read some delicious prose about Adam’s Trevor Smithian tactics and how he’s an example of what our side needs more of! :-D
Jerrod wrote:
Yes, we should be clamoring for a ban on government schools. We must not make any more excuses for their continued existence. They are clearly unsafe places for children. #oneless
While we are jumping to conclusions, why not that one?
:) Oh my goodness! Katecho, I couldn’t agree more if I tried! Up with AR’s, down with Public Schools!
I not only got a response from Doug, but Katecho too!
You guys just made my day. It almost feels like the old days on this blog.
The question of hypocrisy makes a couple faulty assumptions. For one, it neglects the difference between something that by definition requires murder (abortion) with something that has a legitimate use that can be misused (guns). For another, it assumes that Christian conservatives agree that banning AR-15’s and high capacity magazines would be effective. We don’t. It can’t in any way be inconsistent unless I am first convinced that banning firearms will increase public safety, so you would first need to win that argument.
Spot on.
The problem is we are not arguing. We are feeling and emoting. Oh I wish it were based on arguing…..
So…seeing what we have seen from the left, the culture at large, etc., and some Christians still pretend like there was a moral equivalence between Trump and Clinton, or Trump and whatever comes in 2020?
And I thought the people voting against Trump were the “discernment” crowd.
“some Christians still pretend like there was a moral equivalence between Trump and Clinton” I can’t see any Christian worldview that could conclude that there *isn’t* a moral equivalence between the two. They’re both fallen and corrupt people. The only thing that could separate them is if one has made an observable dedication to Godly principles. Trump is fairly universally recognized as not being an ideological person, so why would you say there isn’t a moral equicalence? I also think you’re making something of a false question. It wasn’t “whole heartedly support Trump or whole heartedly support Clinton”. I can… Read more »
So would you vote for any Republican candidate since the 1992 election? All of them have been mushy moderates until Trump (who has his own faults, for sure).
That’s a very different question. Though I would certainly wonder why you would say Trump *isn’t* a mushy moderate, given that he’s endorsed universal healthcare, and gotten republicans to give a standing ovation to entitlement based socialism, I’ll answer your question under its own terms anyway. I did not vote for Trump because I do not like what I see that he does to conservatives. A large portion of the new generation of young conservatives are defining what they believe conservatism is based entirely on what it is Trump says and nothing else. It was just a couple of weeks… Read more »
Justin, I don’t log in, so I can’t upvote you but, Upvote.
“most of those other Republican candidates don’t bother me half so much, as they never really succeeded in changing the definition of conservatism. ” Well, unlike Rand Paul, Republicans like Dole, the Bushes, McCain and Romney were all moderates who helped redefined conservatism as “a little to the right of Bill Clinton.” And I didn’t call Trump “mushy” because he has a backbone, which is more than I can say of the others. Granted, I don’t agree with all his stances or late-night Tweeting, but the last thing we need is another milquetoast moderate. We’ve pretty much let the Democrats… Read more »
“who helped redefined conservatism as “a little to the right of Bill Clinton.” No. They governed that way, but got criticized by conservatives every step of the way. Trump has presented himself, and been embraced by many conservatives as, the “true” conservative answer to those politicians while only being marginally better himself, and worse on several issues. I would present you as my evidence. Those old politicians didn’t convince you that they were conservative. Trump clearly has to a certain degree. ” I didn’t call Trump “mushy” because he has a backbone,” A backbone evokes the image of someone with… Read more »
JP, don’t mistake a brash mouth for backbone. The fact is, Trump is as mercurial as they come, either based on what he thinks will sell, or on whim.
I’m basing it on what he’s done, not his mouth. Christians can long for the good ol’ days of candidates like McCain and Dole, but Trump has done things they were afraid to do:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/19/first-year-trump-pence-brings-bountiful-blessings-religious-conservatives-say/1044308001/
Whatever Trump has done as President is something they were never in a position to do. I can imagine they would have done exactly the same thing or that they would have done things far better under the same circumstances and nobody can prove me wrong. That’s the way counter-factuals work.
By the way, I’m less impressed by a usatoday.com article citing Paula White as conservative Christian leader than you might have hoped.
On the other hand, she is married to Jonathan Cain who wrote, sang, and played keyboard for Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing.” How cool is that?
Jill,
Well, I didn’t expect you to be so impressed by a musician. As to her being married to him, it is not cool. As to Paula herself, it’s better if I don’t go there.
” I can imagine they would have done exactly the same thing or that they would have done things far better under the same circumstances and nobody can prove me wrong. ”
Except the Bushes were most likely more conservative than McCain or Dole and they didn’t do those things. I understand counterfactuals but you didn’t advance your cause at all here.
So you shift to from McCain and Dole to the Bushes. Why not just talk about them in the first place? The Bushes haven’t been President in over ten years and in over thirty. When they were, they did do some of those things, some of those things weren’t issues at the time, some of those things came about for reasons other than Trump, and some of those things are silly. The one thing that stands out as something nobody else would do, and maybe says “gutsy”, is recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which is one of the… Read more »
Over twenty-five. Math was never my strongest subject.
I’m not “shifting” anywhere. You’re simply avoiding the issue of how neo-cons have lost battle after battle for 30 years. Bushes, Dole, McCain, Mormney…it makes no difference. Bringing up Paula White when there are much more important issues is telling…
JP, Trump was criticized, and in an attempt to defend him you brought up for comparison two men who, whether they were good or bad, were never President. When I pointed that out you switched instead to two men who have not been President in a long time. I.e., you are the one who is squirting squid ink. All Republicans from Lincoln to Bush II could have been mushy (though they weren’t) and it wouldn’t make Trump good, or mean that he has a backbone. Talking about what was wrong with the neo-cons is saying nothing good about Trump. Speaking… Read more »
Bottom line: you haven’t answered my original question (“So would you vote for any Republican candidate since the 1992 election?”) or explain why anyone should. You’ve projected (“squirting squid ink”) and rambled quite a bit, but given no evidence that Dole, McCain & Co. would govern any better. I’ll kindly bow out since this isn’t going anywhere.
To this, I would say that Trump wouldn’t have such sway over the youth if there would have been any preceding Republican who was worth backing.
Trump isn’t perfect. I don’t like his support for universal healthcare either. So? No candidate or politician is perfect.
Related, Justin, but did you support Roy Moore?
Of course no politician is perfect. My estimation isn’t based on looking for perfection. I voted for Romney and in many respects he’s a worse candidate on policy than Trump. The difference is that Romney was never going to be a guiding influence for the future. In my estimation, Trump is. What do you mean by “support” with regards to Roy Moore? I’m not in a district that gets to vote for him, and was never in a situation where my opinion of him was of consequence. Before the scandal, I saw him as someone with a good worldview in… Read more »
I had a reply get gobbled, I think. Anyway:
I brought Moore up because many NeverTrumpers opposed him, too. It was all a lie. The scandals were fake, and trumped up (Trump, lol) to cost him the election. That’s it.
Regarding Donald himself, we may be talking past each other a little. I would vote for the best candidate, regardless. Trump was better than Mitt, period. Trump may have more influence over future Republicans? Maybe, but if the best the Elephants can produce is Uncle Mitt, then a change of direction is needed. Badly.
“Maybe, but if the best the Elephants can produce is Uncle Mitt, then a change of direction is needed. Badly.”
That’s precisely my point. Mitt was the best the elephants could produce, and I think Trump’s influence will reduce the quality of future candidates even further. Now you don’t have to share that estimation. I can appreciate the strategic thinking in always voting for the best candidate in a first past the post voting system. I’m just trying to play a longer game.
I think Hillary was bad enough that had she won, there may not have been a longer game to play, at least for Christians.
Trump bought up time, but not much even at that.
Trump was a much better moral candidate.
What candidate isn’t fallen and corrupt? All people are fallen and corrupt.
Your second sentence is my answer to your first one. On what grounds do you suppose that Trump isn’t exactly as morally sick as Hillary? That he fights against your enemies for you is a reason I find unconvincing. Bill Maher will fight political correctness and censorship, that does not make him a righteous man. He’s fighting out enemy for his own reasons, not God’s. We can benefit from this, and cheer him while he does it, but it would be unwise to confuse the two.
Well, I guess Trump has had political opponents wacked, and reveled in the slaughter of the unborn. There’s no comparison between the two. Well, there is, and it’s this:
While I am not very original here, it’s the difference between Jehu and Ahab. Apparently, many Christians today would equivalence the two. And you can’t say “but neither did it for God’s reasons,” because Ahab was called the worst king ever. Even among the wicked, there are distinctions.
So how precisely do you weigh Trump’s versus Hillary’s? Shall I bring up his past history of abortion statements, or does only his most recent behavior count towards his character?
He said he is pro-life now. He took a lot of heat for it, from Christians even, so I think he could be sincere about it.
It’s amazing…he could have lied about abortion for political points, but could have had a change of heart as well. I have never seen so many Christians be so mistrusting of a possible change of heart than with Donald. Politics trump all apparently.
You keep saying you are a cessationist but not a real one. :)
Do you think that no Christian who claims to speak in tongues has a gift of the Holy Spirit?
If many more people turn up to an event and you pray over the food and there is plenty to go around and more left over (obviously more than was made), how would something like that fit into a cessationist perspective?
“Do you think that no Christian who claims to speak in tongues has a gift of the Holy Spirit?” I think that. If I ever met a Christian who claimed the real thing and could demonstrate it I would think differently. “If many more people turn up to an event and you pray over the food and there is plenty to go around and more left over (obviously more than was made), how would something like that fit into a cessationist perspective?” I don’t know, I’m not a cessationist, categorically. God can. I only note I’ve never observed such, never… Read more »
I’d be skeptical of tongues claims in the western world too, but it’s said that speaking in tongues (i.e. real foreign languages previously unknown to the speaker) has been observed in pagan communities where the gospel is just newly being brought. My sources were in Mongolia and Botswana respectively. A good number of missionaries, particularly to rural parts of Africa, testify to strange spiritual goings-on; unsurprising in cultures in the grip of witchcraft and shamanism. It seems that if one attempts to communicate with evil spirits, evil spirits will respond. And if a people is in the thrall of supernatural… Read more »
Bethyada, do you understand cessationism to claim that God has ceased all miraculous workings other than conversion and sanctification? Because that’s not the cessationism with which I’m familiar.
There are probably a range of cessationists from the miraculous has ended, to the miraculous only occurs where the gospel is arriving, to the miraculous occurs now but there are not “supernatural” offices such as prophet and apostle.
” I might not join the chorus of #NeverTrumpers committed to opposing his re-election more than enacting a Conservative agenda.” -Trey I continually see “Never Trumpers” characterized this way, and not once have I seen this in action. I consume more political content than is at all healthy, and far and away the people most often characterized as “Never Trumpers” (National Review writers, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck) are all more favorable on Trump now that we’ve seen policy in action than in 2016. They maintain the original character criticisms, as well as what leftist policy he employs, but… Read more »
Short of a manifest attitude of humility before God, and repentance for his public sins, it’s going to be really easy for me to not vote for Trump again. The issue is not about any demand for personal perfection from politicians, but about minimal and basic qualifications for rule (particularly in light of Psalm 2). If we are going to be solicited for a vote, we must bring these basic standards. I believe the primary reason that Christians abandon such minimal standards is fear; fear of a Hillary, or homosexual “marriage”, or national debt, or whatever. But that’s not a… Read more »
” but about minimal and basic qualifications for rule”
Hypothetically, if the office of the President were actually limited to the bounds under which it was designed to operate, do you think those qualifications would be necessary? After all, if we actually lived under the version of the United States the constitution outlines, the POTUS would have very little ability to “rule” over us. Just curious for your thoughts.
Justin Parris wrote: Hypothetically, if the office of the President were actually limited to the bounds under which it was designed to operate, do you think those qualifications would be necessary? I agree that we have strayed far from the founding limits, but even a local ruler still rules, and I don’t think the spirit of Psalm 2 is to permit any office of authority to attempt the excuse that it is small enough that it doesn’t have to render official homage to the Son. We are expressly told that all authority comes from God. All of our authority is… Read more »
Absolutely, Katecho. You nailed it beginning to end. The fact that Trump got gigantic standing ovations at CPAC when he said, “I think now we’ve proved that I’m a conservative, right?” still just blows my minds. Apparently, CPAC attendees have completely given up on conservative having anything to do with small government or lower spending. Conservatives aren’t interested in restricting executive overreach. Conservative has nothing to do with family values or personal morality. Conservative has nothing to do with respecting the rule of law. Conservative is nothing to do with limiting interference with the market. Conservative has no consistent or… Read more »
There is a danger here of the opposition to Trump falling into the error outlined by Chesterton when he wrote about the man whose heavy-handed rule resulted in the Magna Carta:
(The Mediaeval Villain)
You’re right, John, and that is a danger I worry about when I examine my own conscience. Unlike the medievals, I have no desire to boil him in oil or to heap humiliation on his head. But I react to him with a visceral loathing I have never felt for any other president, including those whose policies I found more destructive. I lived through Watergate without personally disliking Nixon. I disliked some of Reagan’s policies while finding him likable as a person. I didn’t support the war in Iraq but I really liked Bush. So this is not coming from… Read more »
Continuing with the British royal metaphors, you could think of Trump as Charles II to Obama’s Cromwell.
Charles II’s behavior with women is well known enough that it can be used in
sophisticated double entendres, while Cromwell’s personal life was free of such. Yet Charles was the more popular of the two (after all, he did make Christmas legal again).
If you would rather have lived during the Restoration than during the Protectorate, then perhaps you can imagine Trump’s appeal to some folks.
I apparently sent this as a letter instead of a comment which was my intention. I wanted to send in a comment on the 2020 election and Trump. I, like many other Christians, have been surprised that Trump is the first president according to my memory to actually attemp t to do what he promised on the campaign trail. This is enough to win my vote though I didn’t vote for him the first time. I was very disappointed with W and have been with many other so called principled conservatives. I do not believe any of this will make… Read more »
The commenting system is now closed on all posts except on the weekly “mailbag” post, so sending an e-mail was your only option.
I think Jsm may have unintentionally submitted a letter here to this post when he intended to comment. The distinction between “submit a letter” and “leave a reply” is not all that clear. I find it a little confusing even though I know what to expect.
Commenting is only open for a limited time on the weekly “mailbag” post. Commenting is also open for a limited time on the weekly “cluster muster” post.
You are correct OK. I knew comments were only open on Tuesday and Thursday. I wanted to send a reply letter on Monday to his Trump post but was too busy. Then when the mailbag post hit I wanted to comment but sent a letter instead. Now that I have bungled it I should not make that mistake again
With regards to the PCA survey, it does appear that the surveyors confused PCA and PCUSA and combined the results of both. I am a PCA member and we certainly have some pro-aborts in our ranks, but they are in the vast minority, at least in my wing of the PCA. The PCA does struggle with disciplining apostasy, so the number of pro-aborts is likely on the rise, but it ain’t nowhere near 50%.
“I am a PCA member and we certainly have some pro-aborts in our ranks, but they are in the vast minority, at least in my wing of the PCA. The PCA does struggle with disciplining apostasy, so the number of pro-aborts is likely on the rise, but it ain’t nowhere near 50%.”
Having grown up in the PCA (but no longer there), this is still shocking. I’m pretty sure the number of PCA members who identified as pro-choice was very close to 0 in the 1980s.
Many things that were hidden will come to light this year. Trump isn’t qualified to be a pastor or teacher, but he has the fundamental qualifications for being a king: He loves his subjects and loves justice. I had doubts about Trump a couple years ago. But if he was going to deceive our enemies, he had to deceive some of us too. But now — Look at what’s going on in Syria. Look at what’s going on in North Korea. Think that’d happen if anyone else was in the White House? What is Jeff Sessions really up to these… Read more »
ashv wrote:
What does Psalm 2 give as a requirement for rulers of the earth? How has Trump met that fundamental qualification?
ashv wrote:
Nothing productive that I’ve seen. I’m beginning to think that an empty office could have gotten more accomplished than Sessions.
I’d like to see the argument that says Psalm 2 is intended to furnish us with voting standards in a modern democracy. That seems pretty tendentious on the face of it.
And, if Jeff Sessions had stayed in the Senate, the whole Roy Moore mess would not have happened. I think that would have been a win-win.
“loves justice”? Maybe obstruction of justice, but no other kind.
Given the warning signs we now have, it is almost mathematically impossible for Trump to not be guilty, and if he is not the only way is for him to be extremely incapable.
When you say “not guilty” are you referring to the “obstruction of justice” claim as your sentence structure suggests?
“Maybe obstruction of justice, but no other kind.”
Nah, that’s a better description of the Obama administration, especially Loretta Lynch asking Comey to downplay Hillary’s email server scandal…and Obama making remarks to that effect DURING the investigation. It still amazes me the things Obama got away with with virtually no MSM scrutiny.
Maybe Obama did, I don’t know.
But no serious, informed person thinks that Trump is innocent.
Malik,
Presuming you consider yourself a “serious, informed person”, who do you think is a politically viable candidate for POTUS in the next election and also meets your qualifications?
First of all, most political candidates would do much better than Trump. Who would I actually support and like? I’m not sure. I’m not sure who is looking to run, once we know who is running I’ll start to figure that out. I didn’t like Clinton (but I would take her any day over Trump), and Bernie’s policies are not viable in my opinion, however I like his political philosophy, which is much better thought out than his policy in my opinion. Other than that, I’m not sure yet. But any half decent politician is better than the circus we… Read more »
“But no serious, informed person thinks that Trump is innocent.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I think you misunderstand the fallacy. The discussion would have to proceed two more steps before the NTS fallacy is invoked.
First, you have to come up with an actually serious, informed person who believes Trump is innocent of obstruction, and then Malik would have to counter your claim on that fact alone without relying on other reasonable evidence.
The statement itself is not possible to be employed without resulting in in the NTS fallacy. I understood it perfectly, you just don’t seem to be looking at the logically required next step in the conversation. The reason why I asked if he was referring to the “obstruction of justice” claim in particular (which he didn’t answer), was because my very next statement was that I’m an informed person who thinks he’s not guilty. From there, he has three and only three options. 1. Prove that I am unimformed while it being completely impossible for him to collect such data.… Read more »
Malik,
“Maybe Obama did, I don’t know.”
Why don’t you know? You have demonstrated great interest in certain Republicans, for example, Trump and Roy Moore. Why does that not extend to the Democrat equivalents? Did your interest and knowledge in politics suddenly begin with the 2016 Presidential election? Or, as it seems, is your interest in maligning the character, capabilities, and actions of politicians limited to those out of line with your perception of correctness?
I only started follow politics last fall actually. Plus I’m not interested is saying Obama was better, again because I really don’t know. I’m just making the point about Trump, I’m not comparing him
“I only started follow politics last fall actually.” If that’s the case, should you follow your own words regarding Trump? “And while talking about biblical principles someone should point out that he is incredibly prideful and cannot take admonishment. If you believe in the Bible then that makes him a fool.” Maybe you should put more stock in what older men in Christ here have to say about politics and cultural issues? Instead, you usually dismiss them, invoking fallacies and stale leftist talking points. And if you believe in the Bible, you’d understand that homosexuality is a sin, and denying… Read more »
Do the math!
????
Ashv, I am not trolling you, but I do not understand why you believe as you do on two points. What evidence does Trump give that he loves his subjects? What do you make of “I love the poorly educated!” (Nevada, 2/16/2017)? We know from statements too numerous to itemize that he sees beautiful women (including his own daughter) entirely as sex objects whose value decreases with age (Heidi Klum no longer being a ten), while seeing plain women as dogs. I don’t see myself as Trump’s subject, preferring to be a citizen, but a king who sees the women… Read more »
I think the general point is that Trump seems to be working for the good of Americans rather than our hurt. That is the simplest definition of a ruler’s job, and by US presidential standards it is a big step in the right direction.
Loving the poorly educated is, to my way of thinking, an admirable sentiment. After all, they are people too!
I think it has to be put into its context. He said it after winning Nevada. It was a far cry from, “The people of this great state have shown true wisdom in their vote tonight.” Or even, “Sometimes people who lack book-smarts have the truest wisdom of all.” This was much more like “I won Nevada; I guess there’s a sucker born every minute.”
Of course it is good to love the poorly educated. But not because you think they are dumb enough to vote for you, and that is the sole source of your appreciation.
Here’s the quote in context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0
And here’s a different take on the quote from someone who is very much not a fan.
Sure, if Trump meant “I love people who are stupid enough to fall for my lies”, that isn’t very admirable. But… come on! Do you really think that’s the most likely interpretation of his speech, made in public, probably written down in advance, on camera… The man may be rude sometimes, but he’s demonstrably neither Snidely Whiplash nor an idiot.
Ordinarily I would agree with you. It would ordinarily be political suicide to let your supporters know you’re glad that they’re not very bright. But then what do we make of “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”? In other words, Trump sees his voters as not only stupid but felony stupid.
My point isn’t that Trump is a wicked human being who is hellbent on destroying the presidency or the nation. It is rather than I haven’t seen any evidence to support ashv’s statement that Trump “loves his subjects.”
For crying out loud, that was hyperbole! He wasn’t actually making the claim that his supporters would vote for a murderous psychopath… I don’t mean to be rude, but it astounds me that otherwise an reasonable person like yourself can apparently without realizing it force the most absurd interpretations on Trump’s remarks, then complain that his supporters are crazy for supporting such an unhinged and repellent candidate. Rather than assuming the president and all his supporters are moral degenerates and loons, isn’t it more parsimonious to suppose that perhaps there is another plausible way to interpret what he said?
Today I learned a new way to use the word parsimonious. Thanks Farinata.
Well, maybe this is an epiphanic moment. I deny forcing an absurd interpretation on a flat statement that really doesn’t accommodate alternative meanings, but I admit to taking it literally–not, of course, that I think Trump wants to shoot people, but that I think he was expressing a serious view that his hold over his base would not be undermined by his killing someone. On reflection I realized that I take everything he says as if he literally means it. When, in the past, he has said predatory things about attractive women, I believe him and think he has predatory… Read more »
Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head Jill. More often than not, those trying to defend Trump’s honor end up using a different set of standards when they judge the objectionable things that he says than when judging the things that he says which they like. A passing criticism of Donald Trump was that he donated money to Hillary Clinton. The response from Trump defenders was “That’s how business works. You need to convince people you’re on their side to get them to work with you.” Ok then. If I’m not supposed to believe he was being genuine… Read more »
Trump is using rhetoric. One needs to read rhetoric as being representatively true (from the speaker’s perspective) but with flourish.
Not that I am a Shakespeare scholar but I believe there are examples in the speeches in Julius Caesar.
I don’t disagree. It doesn’t directly effect the net interpretation. When he says something that can be interpreted as good, “yay, Trump, he clearly meant this in the best possible way”, but when he says something that sounds rather sickening, suddenly we need to view what he says through a convoluted lens. I’m just saying that whether or not you choose to use the lens, you need to be consistent and do so all the time. He doesn’t say precisely what he means only at the times that coincide with what you like about the man.
Justin, I could not disagree more. The thing we must be consistent about is honestly seeking to understand what’s the most likely possible interpretation for a given utterance from a given speaker. That means taking account for a lot of complex factors; it’s not as though any speaker has only one gear, as if Mr. A is a congenital hyperboliter, whereas Mr. B only speaks in Logic. I illustrate this with an anecdote: Sometimes, I tell my children that we’re taking a drive to the land of moonshine to purchase honeybees’ wings; other times, I tell them to get in… Read more »
“Justin, I could not disagree more. The thing we must be consistent about is honestly seeking to understand what’s the most likely possible interpretation for a given utterance from a given speaker.” I’m not sure what you disagree with, but it isn’t me since I agree with the thesis you give here. The issue I’m taking is that the “discernment” being employed isn’t a logical deduction that Trump means one thing and not another, it’s the presumption based solely on what they want to be true that Trump simply must be saying the thing that confirms the view they already… Read more »
Jill, Superficially it’s pretty easy: I take as factual assertions the things that sound like a serious policy, and take as hyperbole and jokes the things that sound like hyperbole and jokes. It’s pretty much the same way I listen to everyone. A man in his right mind with no violent tendencies makes a remark in public about killing someone – I assume, absent other information, that he is probably making a rhetorical point by exaggeration, not explaining his weekend plans to the police. Likewise, when my college students are complaining about cold weather and exams and one says to… Read more »
That’s fair. But I had two thoughts (and only two) while I was thinking about your reply to Justin. Your first grader has known you forever, and knows when you are using words to weave magic webs (a very charming thing, and I hope that at least one of your children grows up to be a poet) and when you are being decisively direct. He (or she) knows that his daddy never lies, so that if something could not be literally true, he knows he is being teased. I can’t have that confidence with Trump (or with anyone else I… Read more »
“He’s not a war hero,..He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured,” I find this quote goes hand in hand with “are so loyal that rampant immorality or criminality would not deter them. ” When I criticize Trump for lies and insults, let’s take the McCain example, it is very often that the response I get in turn is “McCain is actually an awful guy for X, Y, and Z reasons” when reasons X, Y, and Z have absolutely nothing to do with McCain’s time as a POW, which was the topic in… Read more »
Jill, I believe Trump was quite insightful on the Fifth Avenue comment. I took him to be saying it with a mix of pride and incredulity. I believe there is no shortage of Trump enthusiasts who would be unfazed by him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
Here’s the context for Trump’s remarks about McCain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNugcPeCZZE
I would punctuate the quote differently. Trump was complaining that McCain had insulted his supporters. He criticized McCain for losing in 2012.
Then the interviewer and Trump start talking over each other:
Interviewer: “But, he’s a war hero … he’s a war hero … he’s a war hero”
Trump: “But … Frank … Frank … Let me get to it … He hit me … He’s not …”
Trump: “A war hero … He is a war hero. He is a war hero because he got captured.”
“I take as factual assertions the things that sound like a serious policy, and take as hyperbole and jokes the things that sound like hyperbole and jokes. ” “Trump is a far less polished communicator than is typical, so there’s a lot of noise.” Was the understatement intentional? That’s just the thing though isn’t it? Or at least one of the things. Coming from Trump *nothing* sounds like serious policy. It all sounds like hyperbole and jokes, so your criteria for discernment just does not work when it comes to listening to Trump. Shall we take him to say what… Read more »
Here’s the quote from the Iowa campaign rally with a bit of context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMmiLWDpCno
I feel much the same way – as far as I can tell there is no one other than ardent followers who escape a hateful statement tossed in their direction. It’s not even like he’s only hate-tweeting Democrats or non-White people or women – any Republican who doesn’t get in line, or even his own cabinet whenever something doesn’t work out perfectly and he needs someone to blame, will get the hate treatment.
And while talking about biblical principles someone should point out that he is incredibly prideful and cannot take admonishment. If you believe in the Bible then that makes him a fool. Something that is apparent but worth reiterating when people are defending him. He also has no control over his toung, another important biblical principle. It seems someone found the antithesis of a god fearing man and dropped him in the Whitehouse.
I assume in “loves his subjects” that you only consider a certain subset of Americans to be Trump’s actual subjects? He’s expressed hateful words towards various Americans more often than any president in my lifetime.
He treats democrats like they are not Americans. Guess what, they are 50% or America, and you can’t say they are idiots. He works for them as much as for Republicans.
Where was this rhetoric for the previous 8 years when the standing Democrat openly derided Republicans? “They can come for the ride, but they’ll have to sit in the back.”
“They can come for the ride, but they’ll have to sit in the back.”
Or “If you don’t go along with my policies, you’re impeding progress and being anti-American. As for your policies, they’re idiotic and racist, so we won’t give them the time of day. So are you ready to be team players or not?”
After 8 years of that, it’s little wonder why SJWs would rather shut down free speech than have a real debate.
While I’m no Trump groupie, do please be specific. I find a fair number of the things people blame Trump for saying hatefully against a group of Americans is objectively not a statement against the group of Americans they claim.
Wow!
It’s almost like Trump thinks some Americans are “deplorable” or something!?
That’s like totally “type basketing”!
????☀️????????
Jerrod wrote: If literally thousands of high school students were dying every day as a result of shootings with AR-15s and 30rnd mags, would we Christians be clamoring for their ban? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just ban the murder of children, regardless of the style of weapon used? Killing children is already banned in the U.S. (unless the child is still inside mommy). Why aren’t the shooters obeying that existing ban? It’s almost as if they don’t care about bans, and are lawless. So why would Jerrod’s proposal to ban AR-15s and 30-round mags change anything? It seems like… Read more »
“…why aren’t they trying to ban all knives first, or at least ban hand guns first?” Depending on who “they” are, they *are* either trying to ban handguns too, or, more consistent with their view of assault rifles, they are trying to ban higher capacity handgun magazines. Or they are trying to, not ban, but more strictly regulate both. A few no doubt want to ban guns, period but they don’t have much influence, and nobody in a position of real influence proposes to do that, whatever the NRA tells you. The distinction between an AR-15 and a knife, or… Read more »
Katecho, I do believe you have stumbled onto something with your “firearm racism” statement, whether you meant to or not. AR-15s are most often found in the color black I recall that several years ago there was a study done that found that identical hunting rifles received a much higher negative emotional response from those surveyed when they were “blacked out” versus when they had a wood grain stock. Just another case of liberals being “outed” on the racism they try so hard to conceal?
So people want to ban firearms because they are black? Democrats can be so racist.
The irrational singling out of the AR-15 has been linked to racism by many others:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ar-15+%22it's+because+I'm+black%22&tbm=isch
“Black Guns Matter”
Regarding the Pew abortion survey, I carefully read through their research, including the question asked, and I think the information would have been more valuable with better designed questions. They asked “Should abortion be (1) legal in all cases (2) legal in most cases (3) illegal in all cases (4) illegal in most cases. Although to a pro-lifer distinctions between trimesters are unimportant, other research has shown that many Americans have quite different opinions depending on gestational age. According to the Washington Post, the US is one of only seven nations (out of well over 100) which allows elective abortion… Read more »
Re. Housekeeping: It’s Google Chrome that has the yuuge whitespace on the home page.
That clears up my confusion. I use Firefox, and had the whitespace problem a year or two back, but it resolved and has not been an issue since.
Sounds like SPLC or “Russian” meddling! ????
Wide swaths of white are meant to falsely imply a supremacy statement!????
????
The most recent post (“Masculinity without Permission”) is was very good…and boy will it trigger some former commenters. I really liked this part:
“They will abdicate their essential role of actual leadership in the home, and they will call it servant leadership, leading from behind, or ‘just-what-I-was-going-to-suggest-leadership.’ But there is a vast difference between real servant leadership, the kind Christ practiced and enjoined, and the kind that requires men to stand down whenever mama ain’t happy. “
JP, it’s not a term that I have ever heard from a Catholic pulpit with reference to husbands. I have always taken servant leadership to mean that it’s the guy who has to get up when he hears someone moving around downstairs, kill the spider with giant hairy legs in the children’s bathroom, and set off with a gas can down a dark, wet highway leaving the wife safely locked in the car. Or, that it’s the guy who reads the bank balance and says No Hawaii this year and is willing to hold the line so the family doesn’t… Read more »
Servant leadership is:
Leadership when one cares predominantly about those he leads and is willing to sacrifice his own comfort for the sake of them when appropriate.
I think servant leadership in
Christianchurchian circles today is interpreted to be this:A husband will always follow the desires of his wife, because she naturally is more spiritual and in tune with the important aspects of life, and certainly not inferior to her husband in any arena.
My interpretation: Servant leadership is the “servant” doing what the “master” wants, all the while claiming to be leading.
Or, the conversation should always end with the husband saying “Yes, dear, you’re right.”
AKA:
????♀️“I want you to be more of a leader, and start doing what I tell you to do, exactly the way I tell you to do it!”
????
I see what is being said about the idea of “servant leadership” being used against men. I know I’ve been guilty in my own marriage. For which I seek repentance. However, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. I want to be a servant leader to my children. Loving and disciplining with kindness and consistency. Showing compassion for them when I see sin, knowing I need forgiveness the same as they do, and pointing them to the cross. It doesn’t mean my kids are in charge. I just am gentle with them by God’s grace. Likewise, a husband… Read more »
No, I’m with DW. “We need to be done with what we have come to call servant leadership.”
The term has been co-opted and abused too much.
Fine, just plain old leadership is fine with me. However a true leader leads by example, rather than, “Do as I say, not as I do” type leadership. If a husband wants his wife to be gentle and submissive as the Bible commands, he too should do as the Word of God commands. For him it is living with his wife in an understanding way, honoring her as the weaker vessel.
Hey Prudy! Here is a pretty goody synopsis! Galatians 6 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. 2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. 4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own… Read more »
Prudence, “If a husband wants his wife to be gentle and submissive as the Bible commands, he too should do as the Word of God commands.” You, just like many Christian women (and men), show your human nature with the “you go first” attitude in that statement. Let’s look at your statement more closely. Yes, the husband is indeed commanded to love his wife like Christ does the Church. But it’s not conditional on the wife’s behavior, is it? In the same way, the multiple scriptural commands to wives to submit to their husbands do not make the behavior conditional… Read more »
OKR, how would you define the biblical roles of a husband and wife?
Indighost,
A marriage should reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church. Specifically, the husband is the head, the leader, and the wife is the body, a “help meet for him” (that is, her primary function is to help him, using her abilities appropriately). A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church (see 1 Cor. 13 for more on love) and live with her in an understanding way. A wife is to respect and submit to her husband. Although these roles differ, the two are to be one, united together.
Amen to all that. I’ve been used to thinking of the term ‘servant leadership’ as shorthand for all that, but if as you say it’s being used to hogtie husbands into submission, by all means let’s go back to defining our terms.
Indighost,
I think the original intent of “servant leader” was to promote Christ-like leadership as opposed to domineering leadership. How “servant leadership” is a better name than “Christian leadership” is beyond me.
As you can read in Wilson’s recent post Masculinity without Permission, he considers the current usage to be out of line. As you can see from other commenters here, he and I are hardly alone.
“A husband will always follow the desires of his wife, because she naturally is more spiritual and in tune with the important aspects of life…”
Well, no, that implies there has to be a logical reason why a husband will always follow the desires of his wife.
JohnM,
I suppose a husband could do what his wife wants for some non-logical reason. But, ultimately, I suspect there is some logic, even if he doesn’t realize it.
Of course he doesn’t realize it. He’s a man. That’s why he’s not supposed to think about it but just supposed to simper and get with the gynocentric program
Why does the spider have to die?
John, I thought about that afterwards and was too lazy to fix it. Of course it would be better to gently capture the spider and release it onto the nearest lilac bush. I only kill them when I have accidentally mangled them.
because it will multiply of course.
The above mentioned lilac bush sounds like a lovely place for them to do that. For the most part they don’t greatly trouble me any place. I especially appreciate them in my garden.
Yes it is. I am uncertain about this statement
bethyada,
In context, I think it is reasonably true but I find that whole paragraph to be poorly written.
I also question that there are many women “who have been brought to think that sex is the glue that holds a man to a woman”. If true, it’s hard to reconcile with the fact that there are many marriages where women limit sexual frequency unless these women don’t want to stay married.
Haha, I think you are confusing “Harpy” with “Hooker.”
He may be saying that covenant is what holds the marriage together and sex needs to be glued to covenant.
Still, I think that sex in a marriage can help bind.
bethyada,
I’m inclined to think he means sex should be irrevocably linked to marriage, that is, sex is only acceptable in marriage. I certainly agree that sex in marriage is one way that marriage unions can become stronger.
Well, overall, which do you think is more commonly a problem, sex without the binding covenant of marriage, or marriage without sex?
I would certainly agree that sex *can* help bind, but as the culture stands today I would think the reverse problem is spectacularly more prominent.
Justin,
There is no doubt sex outside of marriage is much more common. I believe that it results in far more marriage problems than is realized by most.
You may downplay (“can help bind”) the significance of sex in strengthening a marriage, but, if you were in a marriage with little or no sex (far more common than you might think), I suspect your perspective would change.
I appreciate your assumption that my marriage is, shall we say, healthy, but I wasn’t trying to downplay anything. I’m perfectly familiar with the importance of sex in marriage. I just don’t think it has a lot do with what Doug was talking about.
Y’know, folks, Doug’s comments are only open a couple of times a week, but Toby’s are open 24-7. I think some folks oughta go over there and liven things up.
I followed your suggestion, but it appears Toby doesn’t post as often, and I was late for the last party. Maybe the next one.
He’s posted twice this week. ????
You’re right , he did. Not sure how/why I missed it, but somehow I thought I was looking at much older dates.