Name That Tune
Who sings the intro (Blind Willie Johnson’s, God Don’t Never Change) to Blog & Mablog?
Would you please forward a link of the entire song to me?
Thanks so much!
G, the singer there is Ashley Cleveland. The song is below.
Now to the Real Business at Hand
I believe I can hear the bellowing from the calves of all the sacred cows you just slaughtered all the way down here in Alabama. Steaks are on the grill.
BJ, thanks. Sacred cows do make good hamburger though.
It is apparent that others are observing the same trajectory that you elaborated upon. Andrew Branca, in reaction to the murders in Waukesha last night: “A government unwilling or unable to defend its citizenry from demonstrably insane criminals has lost the privilege of sovereignty.”
Gray, I believe that this is just right. And whether or not it passes muster with elite opinion, at some point in the proceedings the people will come to accept it as self-evident (“this is a failed state”) and act accordingly.
The problem with the Rittenhouse trial, and the Chauvin trial, and the ongoing Arbery trial, is that at this point we have become so tribalized that facts almost no longer matter. If you are a conservative, you think that all three defendants should have been acquitted; if you are more to the left, you think they should all be convicted. It’s child’s play to then use confirmation bias to muster the facts necessary to support your position, and of course all the misinformation the Internet teems with throws gasoline on the fire. I personally think the Chauvin and Rittenhouse juries both got it right, which may just mean that I don’t really feel at home in either camp at the moment.
Mike, you are right about the tribalization, which is how nations on the brink of civil war behave. But also keep in mind the destructive fact that tribalization makes it easy to accuse others of acting from tribal loyalties, when they are not doing so, simply because they differ.
Re: “This Carnival of Dunsical Folly,” your comment about the spineless leadership in Evangelical circles reminded me of the problem with the biblical injunction to “obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” For the vast majority of people in the world, they look around at the morons who hold positions of authority and say, “Wait a minute. You can’t mean these guys.” I pursued this issue in a little more depth here.
The Slave Traders of Old Charleston
“So if any of your children have ever been sold by Planned Parenthood, in lucrative pieces, then the slave traders of old Charleston will rise up and condemn you at the last day.” My breath caught as I read that line. Powerful words, Pastor. Thank you.
Not Sure What to Say
What do you say to a more or less composed guy . . .*very* rarely weeps in public . . . in his late 60’s yet he cannot read the Chronicles of Narnia—much less aloud (e.g. to his little grandson)—without sobbing almost uncontrollably when he starts reading some of the parts about Aslan (e.g. the last pages of Voyage of the Dawn Treader . . . first chapters of The Silver Chair with Jill Pole) . . . Most anytime there is serious “spiritual” interaction with or about Aslan this guy starts sobbing almost uncontrollably like an adolescent school girl (no offense to adolescent school girls).
Jonathan Edwards has said somewhere there is often much of pride in (e.g. what appear to be humble) tears.
What would you say to such a guy . . . especially if he wanted to read the stories aloud with some composure?
Robert, I have to say that this is a question I have not encountered before. But with that said, the price of reading good literature aloud is that you will sometimes get choked up. The thing you want to resist is the “uncontrollable sobbing” part. And the only thing I can suggest is prayer and practice. Pray about it specifically, and then practice in private. When your wife is off at a baby shower, read Aslan to the bedroom mirror, and in a loud voice.
Do you have a recommendation for a book on interpretation of Scripture? I have heard various principles e.g., “Interpret hard to understand scripture by those easily understood,” and the related one, “Let Scripture interpret Scripture.”, but haven’t seen a guide as such.
Russel, try starting with Milton Terry’s Biblical Hermeneutics.
Obeying Your Husband
Re: Obey Your Husbands and Other Transgressive Ideas You should license the spelling of akkchully to The Riot and the Dance people. I can see a bunch of t-shirts (the really soft kind, please) with “Akkchully”, I was CREATED by the DESIGNER with a cute pencil drawing of a platypus or a black widow spider, etc. Usually, misspellings make me itch, but this one made me smile: a big accomplishment, if you ask my kids.
I am glad that you addressed this topic of wives obeying their own husbands. Most of the time one hears teaching on this subject it amounts to read-the-passage-real-fast and get to the (much longer) disclaimer section of the sermon/teaching with a few awkward jokes that nobody thinks are funny OR always read the wife-husband admonitions together, but only concentrate on the part of the passage addressed to husbands. Rarely do you hear someone really dig into all of the times that wives are told to obey their husbands. It is a command and Jesus tells us that His commandments are not burdensome. Blessing always follows obedience. The obedience in cheerfully cooking dinner, training the children and washing the clothes of the husband that went back to grad school even though she disagreed on the move. The blessing of living in the house (her husband bought for too much money) that was 5 minutes away from church, Costco, the library and 4 parks when there were 4 kiddos 5-and-under. Years after the fact, the Holy Spirit convicted my husband that he was acting out of fear in these and many other situations. He’s asked forgiveness now for what he believes were sinful responses to our circumstances. But, during the years of life before he came to see this, it was Tough! I didn’t need the encouragement to keep looking at his sin, to do whatever it took to “take care of me” and to get out of the situation. What I needed was blinders. Blinders of Scripture to keep me on the path. The psalmist says that the Shepherd’s “rod and staff” comforted him. What are rods and staffs used for? To rescue the sheep when they wander off, to fend off predators, to bonk the sheep in the side if they start veering too far off the path. So, “wives obey your husband as to the Lord” was one of the “staffs” that kept me on the road. It wasn’t my job to lead my family. It was my job to create a home even when I disagreed with the direction my husband had led us in. I didn’t need a glass of wine and an hour of Netflix. I needed Jesus and His commandments. All of them.
Keep teaching, Pastor Wilson.
Wendy, this is wonderful. Thank you.
May I humbly ask you for your brief interpretation of Revelation 17:10-11? “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.”
When it says, “and the other is not yet come” (v.10), wouldn’t that be an argument for the futurist position on the book of Revelation?
Tom, thanks for a great question. This is my understanding. The five are the emperors prior to Nero, starting with Julius—Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. Nero was the sixth. Then there was the tumultuous time, where Galba, Otho and Vitellius all reigned for periods best reckoned in weeks. That’s the short space. And then “the eighth” should better be rendered an eighth, and is referring to the somewhat indistinct Flavian house—Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.
I think I might be turning postmill. However, I still have a lot of studying to do on it, and in my meditation I have found a problem.
If the postmill position is true, and we begin to see the fruits of the gospel reaching the world and the world is being won to Christ, how do we reconcile that with the narrow way of Mathew 7? In those days, won’t it be the way to life that everyone else seems to be on? “. . . the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matthew 7:13). Shouldn’t it then be, “broad is the way to life, and many find it”?
I would appreciate a correction if I am mistaken.
Gary, thanks for a good question, and it is probably at the top of the FAQs for postmillennialists. My understanding is that the narrow way is referring to how many first century Jews were going to be saved. For more, go here and look at the section tagged Narrow the Way?
I am a somewhat recent convert to the Postmil position. I am not sure if I am a Postmillennialist “in my bones” yet, but I see the arguments as persuasive. I am certainly no expert on the position, but a thought occurred to me and I thought I would share it, see if it sticks when proposed to other PMs.
I am not a geopolitical expert, nor the son of a geopolitical expert, but I have come to provisional assessment of the situation with China. I don’t want to underestimate the amount of damage that China is doing, and can still do, but I think the Chinese dictatorial regime is not long for this world. I am basing this on two main observations. First, the principalities and powers behind the scenes have been largely denuded. The strong man’s house has been broken into and cleaned out. So whatever power lies behind the brutal Chinese government is much more fragile than it looks, or would have been in say BC 50. Second, as many of us know, Christianity is exploding in China.
The situation is not entirely dissimilar to that of the Roman empire fifteen minutes before the ink dried on the Edict of Milan. Given those two realities, I believe it is quite possible that the Chinese dictatorship may actually be just as close to its death rattle as it is to its apparent ascendancy. Sometimes I think something like, “What if China becomes the next gigantic super power and is then surprised to wake up shortly thereafter and find itself the seedbed of Christendom 2.0?” The Serpent appeared to learn nothing after the episode between Haman and Mordecai. The Cross does not seem to have taught him much of value, either. Will he be hoisted on his own petard yet again?
Andrew, you are right about this much of it. The advance of the kingdom of God is not to be equated with American interests. Ultimately the growth of the kingdom will be in everyone’s interests, including Americans and including the Chinese. But there is no need for America to be the top dog at every stage of this process.
Women and Political Office
Thank you for writing back last time about women magistrates and Knox. My followup question is: given Isaiah 3:12 and the deeper implications (creation-tied) of 1 Timothy 2, should not Knox have kept on with the new protestant Queen? Deborah happened, but ideally should not have. In the same way, Knox and we should strive for leadership to be masculine in our civil sphere, and call it a shame when we see it.
Tyler, it is a question that concerns when precisely a line of compromise has been crossed. When a church has a woman pastor, for whatever reason, they are already fatally compromised. When a nation has a woman leader in the political realm (like Deborah, or Elizabeth I), they may or may not be compromised. But I do agree with you that when female leadership in the civic sphere is routine, then something is seriously off. That is what I take to be the import of the Isaiah passage.
Faith or Presumption?
I greatly appreciate your advice and wisdom as it has greatly improved my understanding of God and the bible. I would love to hear your thoughts about a topic I deal a lot with as a critical care health provider for newborns. From time to time I have the most unfortunate situation of a brain-dead baby with a grim prognosis. There is very little hope for less than total care of a vegetative child. I frequently encounter in this situation that the family rejects factual knowledge about the prognosis and instead expresses that if they pray hard enough their child will be perfectly fine. That God will heal the baby and perform a miracle. I have had them claim that throughout history God has raised many people from the dead and he’s going to do the same for their child. It makes my job very difficult to give factual information for decision-making because they believe that only positive word should be spoken to bring about healing. It causes burnout amongst the medical team as well. How do I be both loving and a faithful Christian and yet be truthful? How does a Christian respond with biblical truth about healing, suffering, and death in this situation. I hope I am explaining myself well. I know this is a narrow subject but maybe could be extrapolated to when people in the community believe similar things. Thank you for your time!
Lindsey, thanks. This is a tough one. I would try to divide these families into two groups. The first would be ordinary Christians who have just received very bad news, and are going through a very ordinary time of denial. One means of engaging this denial is by wondering if earnest prayer might resolve it. I would be patient here, and walk with them through that period. The other situation would be where the people come from a dogmatic tradition that says that all illness is from the devil, and all that is needed is sufficient faith to “raise the dead.” This would be much more difficult, because they are losing a child, and if they listen to you they might lose their entire community. In this kind of situation, I would try to bring in another pastor or chaplain who is really well-versed in Scripture.
Humorous, Not Glib
I appreciate you and have benefitted from reading your blog for around five years. I enjoy your insight into the culture and am edified by your exhortations, and find guilty pleasure in your wit.
I occasionally find out that a friend doesn’t appreciate your wit so much, because your glibness and sarcasm do not seem like a Christ-like attitude to them. They may compare you to other Christian teachers with a gentler or more serious mien. I tell them that different men are doing different things, and that your cultural commentary is meant to fight against the wolves. Then I found this article by James Lindsay and wonder if it is what you are consciously (or just unconsciously) doing. Is this what you call Chestertonian?
MPF, thanks. What Lindsey is talking about here is very much what I am seeking to do. And yes, we are seeking to cultivate a Chestertonian Calvinism. When we get it figured out, I think it will be potent.
Ride, Sally as Amateur Prophecy
I don’t know how many years you expected it to take until “Ride, Sally, Ride” became non-fiction, but I saw this article of “Serious Scientific Research” (TM) that indicates we are close.
The opening sentence reads: “If you have sex with an android doll and then knock it around the room, are you being abusive?”
You will be both shocked and stunned to hear that this research comes from a bioethicist from the University of Washington AND that it blames “Abrahamic religions that have taught humans that they are superior to the rest of creation.” Apparently this bioethicist does not understand biology or ethics, but I digress.
While not quite openly condoning sex and marriage with robots, if does finish with, “If Western thought stays locked into seeing social robots as nothing more than tools or slaves, we do ourselves a disservice, closing off the adventure and possibility of forming highly valued social relationships with them.”
Yes, just think of the adventures and possibilities that await. . . . You might as well have the Canon Press move your book over to the Non-Fiction section today.
Dale, I can only quote the great Chryostom here . . . crikey.
The Inescapable Bell Curve
This quote reminded me of a truism I heard years ago: “Somewhere out there is the objectively worst doctor in America, and someone has an appointment with him at 9am tomorrow.”
I greatly enjoy your weekly email. Thanks for all you do.
Lewis, thanks for the encouraging word . . .
Good News from Old Virginny
Much has been made, and you have commented upon, the recent election here in the Commonwealth, the mother of presidents. While I am cautiously optimistic, with a big foreboding of Dreherism mixed in, I should add, at least for a few years we are no longer naked and cutting ourselves, but certainly not “clothed, and in his right mind.” I think we’re more like “wearing yoga pants and a necktie, and a blue surgical mask, moderately confused.” As you have pointed out, the problem is not primarily a ballot box problem, but rather “sitting at the feet of Jesus.”
The rumor is, and what is making the progressives as mad as hornets, is the that there isn’t just one yearbook picture, but a stack of photos and videos of the conservative lieutenant governor elect brazenly in blackface. Sincerely,
Preston, the cynicism is fine, just so long as it is sunny cynicism. And as for your lieutenant governor elect, that sounds like it promises to be the scandal of scandals.
Belated Note on the White Babies Thing
Re: the incoherent white baby antichrists article, I know I’m late to the conversation, but count me among among the critics of your “white babies” comment. I usually track with everything you write, and your blogging has taught me so much, so first of all thanks for all you do. But I think you took the serrated edge in the wrong direction here.
The humor comes from reading it and going, “Ha! This’ll trigger some libs,” which is loads of fun, but you’re triggering them with . . . milquetoast white supremacy? But that’s not why I’m writing. Mainly, it’s not funny because it’s not true, at least if my experience generalizes. I’m a white man and conservative Christian, and so I’m automatically sexist and racist according to screen people I don’t care about. I can’t count the hours of sleep I’ve lost over it, because how do you count to zero when counting starts at one? But when my wife, who is black, once told her grandma she liked George W. Bush (George W. Bush!), her beloved grandma replied by telling my wife she was stupid and that no black person should ever vote Republican. So I’m all on board with believing in Jesus, finding a cute girl, marrying her and having babies. I did that. But insofar as race affects the edginess of it all—and does it really, once you’ve pulled your kids out of government school?—having brown babies is the edgier move, measured by how much you get attacked and by whom, often family. And I do think my wife’s experience generalizes, based on recent media coverage of black Christian conservatives (and whites who’ve adopted black children).
A functioning military *will* be far more ruthless to traitors than to the enemy. And your joke says, “yeah, but married Christians having *white* babies are the really edgy ones.” Generally speaking, you’re wrong.
Eric, first, being wrong is not the same thing as being incoherent. I would want to defend myself on that point. And of course I grant that different contexts will make different behaviors edgy. There have been (and still are) many places where a white father with brown or black children really is edgy. Fully granted. But we live in a time when we are at the tail end of a full generation of unrelenting propaganda celebrating diversity in all things, and we are now entering a time when whiteness itself is being tagged as inherently sinful. So my joke was not dependent on the fact of white babies being an example of white supremacy, but rather on the notion that white babies are . . . okay.
Moving Seamlessly On to Nathan Bedford Forrest . . .
Regarding Nathan Bedford Forrest, I came across this article that indicated that not only was he not the “founder” of the KKK, but only a member, he also repented of that association and became a person who was concerned with racial reconciliation later in his life.
I’m not an expert on him, but I’m fairly confident we mostly get our impression of who he was from the beginning of Forrest Gump . . .
The “fact” that appears to underlie the claims of “systemic racism” is that the median person in the black community has had more disadvantages or negative experiences growing up than the median white person. Some of the disadvantages or negative experiences might plausibly have been motivate by dislike of the “race”.
But we all have bad things happen to us, many of which are unfair and there’s millions of white people who have a bad situation growing up and are treated badly, both for racial and other reasons.
It seems like we could commiserate over shared experience of unfairness and evil done to us by sinful man and sympathize with the hurtful comments or nasty behavior that someone has had to endure. But when “racist” behavior and comments are raised to some level of special evil that outshines evil done for other reasons appears to be unbiblical. A vague plea to “historic injustice” is all that seems to justify this elevation of the seriousness of the offense. But I see no biblical warrant that “crimes that remind someone of past crimes are worse than the same crime if no one is reminded of anything in particular”.
Really it seems like we’re catering to a special kind of psychological pre-occupation with past events. People use the evils of the past to amplify the evils of the present in seriousness. But isn’t this just a “root of bitterness”? If each current hurt has to be understood through the lens of all past harms, isn’t that just the opposite of forgiveness?
Jason, thanks. I had read something similar with regard to Forrest also.
The Cult of Nice described the situation in my church over the course of the last 18 months. When my wife and I pushed back against the Authorities(CDC, Local County, A Doctor in our congregation) being cited by the Session to justify masking wearing, social-distancing, cancellation of certain church activities(including Communion), etc.—we were threatened with church discipline for rebellion against the Session’s authority. Thank you for writing on this subject and reassuring some of us that we are not crazy!
May God have mercy on His Church.
Ben, thanks. Stay strong.
Maybe, Maybe Not
Good Afternoon Sir, When do you plan to write “Doug Wilson: The Autobiography (or, How I Done Wrote it)”?
Andrew, I have written “autobiograhical fragments” from time to time, a tag on this blog, but whether an autobiography is ever warranted, we shall have to wait and see. I think I should try to accomplish something first.
Lindsey, I too am a critical care physician. I’ve had good success with families in the “waiting on a miracle” situation by 1) embracing vocally in front of the family the truth that God is able to heal their loved one, and 2) sharing (with all appropriate timing and relationship building qualifications) the healing of the leper passage from Luke 5 (While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”), emphasizing the… Read more »
Lindsey, I really appreciate your question and Pastor Wilson’s answer. I have recently coauthored a book for Christians addressing some end of life issues from a Biblical perspective. Here is a link for the video: https://youtu.be/P_cyA2P7mBc
Brief response to the postmill letter: The biggest hurdle for postmil-ism is that the NT describes a general decline summed up by Paul, “evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse.” That’s pretty much the opposite of what postmillennialism teaches.
There are others besides this and the one you mentioned, but these are enough to make postmil-ism fail the sniff test.
It’s no wonder that by your perspective postmil fails the sniff test. When your hermeneutics appear to be on par with the martians in sesame street the first time they encounter a book ,”eat book, no no no no smell book no no no no…” you wouldn’t understand the plain meaning of a text if it bit you on the posterior.
A single verse out of context isn’t enough to make postmil theology “fail the sniff test.”
Not saying you can’t make a good argument against post-mil, but that sure isn’t it.
The postmill topic is one of a handful of Doug positions where, he claims that he believes in them because they are the objective Biblical conclusions. Then you try and find where he’s given this objective Biblical reference, and what you get is very broad, vague, and filled with conjecture and interpretation. I find in this category of issue, the more I listen to Doug, the *less* convinced I am of his conclusions. Shoot, I considered myself a Calvinist before listening to Doug on Calvinism. That’s not to say I consider Doug bad at expressing his points. Just the opposite.… Read more »
You remind me of this article among many others:
The “biblical case” promised in the title is so clearly missing in the text that I entertained the notion he might be mocking the idea of making a biblical case altogether, though in 800+ comments below none of his supporters went with that line of defense.
That’s odd, because you must be so blind you didn’t see it. He clearly made the biblical case against minimum wage, and quoted scripture before I even needed to scroll down.
Just because you are a lunatic who believes the government should decide how much people get paid doesn’t make Doug wrong. It makes you a lunatic. Go to the loony farm Jonathan, your leftism isn’t appreciated much here. Or don’t. I don’t make the rules here. ;)
Justin’s words fit the post. Wilson quoted a single vague verse with no connection and then rested his case. Why not respond to Justin’s critique?
Also, please watch your statements and attitude.
Have you ever heard a sermon Jonathan? The preacher EXPOUNDS upon the Word of God. He doesn’t simply quote Bible verses for 30 minutes (not that that would be bad)
It was a short post anyway, and he clearly made his case. There was very definitely connection, in fact it was very well-said. You, a troll, are intentionally ignorant.
Also, you are the one causing trouble here, not me. Your words are foolish indeed.
As I merely responded to points made by Bro. Steve and Justin Parris with agreement and a concrete example, I’m not sure how you decided that I’m “the one causing trouble”.
I do suggest you dial it down a notch, ask someone you trust for Godly advice to read your comments and advise whether your words are well-chosen and of the Spirit.
Problem is it isn’t a concrete example, and I clearly refuted it.
You know you only are here to cause trouble, and everyone else knows it too. Else you wouldn’t hang out here.
And apparently you think that pointing out your errors is dialing it up too much? Why can’t I correct you?
If by trouble, you mean cogent arguments which you are unable to clearly refute, then, by all means I agree with you. See, we are making progress!
Even better, everyone else knows it, too.
He didn’t make the case at all it seems to me.
Jesus said ‘a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions’, and I can’t lose any sleep if a reasonable minimum wage law allows a poor man who otherwise wouldn’t have any possessions to have at least something, whilst the rich man might have to have just a tad less and wouldn’t really notice it.
Interesting. I thought the verse quoted could be used for arguing for a minimum wage, rather than against it. The arguments Wilson used are standard fare ‘free market’. One of Mrs Thatcher’s (sic) ministers Michael Portillo, later in the cabinet, used to make the same arguments. After the wage was introduced by Labour and the threatened disadvantages didn’t materialise, he was man enough to admit he got it wrong, and even Conservatives gave up on abolishing it. Regulation of wages goes back to the 14th century in England. I am all in favour of the state using its power to… Read more »
Exactly. The plain text appears to support higher wages for poor rather than lower. And besides dropping the verse there, the rest of his post was entirely secular, it wasn’t “Biblical” at all.
Imagine a “Biblical argument for the conviction of Kyle Rittenhouse” that consisted of quoting Leviticus 19:15, “Do not pervert justice” and then proceeding with an entirely secular argument from there. There is absolutely zero chance that “The Conservative One” would agree that I had made a Biblical argument, but he does for Wilson because he argues based on the person rather than the case.
For Jonathan: “You claimed that me asking a question of Pastor Wilson was forbidden by Scripture. You still haven’t stated how in the least, nor did you convincingly explain why either of those statements doesn’t fit the situation (I’m not sure you understood why I cited the 2nd one at all).” Jonathan from last week Jonathan, I did not claim that asking a question was forbidden. I said “Neither of these scriptures allow guests to demand anything at all from the host. I hope that this point is perfectly clear to you now.” Obviously, that point is not clear. There… Read more »
Hey, Dave old buddy, Jonathan’s not here. He’s back on that other comment thread. You know, the one from last Tuesday. Keep looking, I’m sure you’ll find him.
Spamming comments on week-old threads almost no one will read…that’s what the Bible would call NOT redeeming your time and what economists call a high time preference (enjoying the present moment in activities with no/low payoffs). It’s also like a modern Zen koan: if Jonathan types a comment and no one reads it, does it really occupy cyberspace?
Hey sport, if you want to see some real spamming, go visit last Tuesday’s 22 posts by Dave. Is Dave your dad? You two seem to have a lot in common.
In the last 24 hours Dave, Ken, and Will all made comments on that thread, but not me. Since Dave’s last comment on that thread was more recent than my last comment, and since he is continuing the conversation right here, I’m fairly certain he has indeed read my statements.
I do agree that many of my comments do not have a high payoff and are likely a poor redeeming of time. I try to always speak truthfully and with Biblical support, but those who respect both often already agree and those who don’t respect neither.
Dave, you flipped the burden of proof. You claimed that Scripture does not allow commenters to question the host. I challenged you to support that from Scripture. My examples were imperfect (blogs not being a thing then), but were better than anything you’ve provided. I’m still waiting for you to support your claim from Scripture.
In Matthew 20 Jesus told his followers that Christian leaders are not to consider themselves higher than others, but rather servants. And servants can be asked questions. To claim we should not ask questions of the host is a feudal mindset, not a Christian mindset.
Jonathan, I never said that we should not ask questions. The point is that guests may not demand answers from the host.
You asked for a better explanation of Luke 7 and I answered that. Why is that flipping scripture?
What was your Matthew 20 point?
Re: Mike “ It’s child’s play to then use confirmation bias to muster the facts necessary to support your position, “ You’re right in principle, but this is really really really not true in every case. To say that the evidence for or against is roughly equal in all three cases is just not accurate. In the Chauvin case, the question more or less came down to whether or not the drugs in his system combined with knowledge of use of force tactics constituted “reasonable” doubt as to the cause of death. By contrast, every component, literally every component of the Rittenhouse… Read more »
Justin, you’re ignoring that part of human nature that makes us completely oblivious to when we’re engaged in confirmation bias. There’s a whole trainload of psychological and social science data showing that for most people, facts have very little to do with what they believe, and it’s not confined to just one side. When confronted with contrary data, people either discount it or ignore it or find some other way to shoehorn it into what they already believe. Which is why it’s fun to argue with people you don’t agree with (if you enjoy that sort of thing) but almost… Read more »
“Someone who disagrees with you on the Rittenhouse verdict could pick apart every word you’ve said” No, they couldn’t. Objective truth does in fact exist. They could *attack* the objective truth. That’s not the same as picking it apart. If you deny the existence of objective truth, sure, anyone can pick apart anything that anyone says. If you confirm the existence of objective truth, you must by definition also take the position that there are some claims that can be made that cannot be accurately contradicted. Which is it that you’re doing? “Ask yourself what kind of evidence it would… Read more »
At least in the case of the Rittenhouse trial, the defense is saying the sky is blue and the left is screaming that the sky is absolutely not so.
There are times when the objective truth is obvious, and this is one of them.
So you’re suggesting that the prosecution’s claim that if you’re carrying a gun, you lose the right to self defense and are obligated to allow yourself to be attacked wasn’t a valid legal argument?
The arguments in favor of convicting Rittenhouse are that if you yourself create the situation, you can’t then claim self defense if things go badly for you. He went looking for trouble and trouble is what he found. Also that he aggressed first. Now, on the facts, I’m not sure that any of that is what happened, but it is a plausible interpretation that’s not completely off the wall. And because it’s not entirely clear who did aggress first, there’s probably enough reasonable doubt to acquit him regardless. As I said earlier, I think the jury got it right. But… Read more »
“The arguments in favor of convicting Rittenhouse are that if you yourself create the situation, you can’t then claim self defense if things go badly for you.” Right, the legal provision for this is called provocation. The problem is that provocation has an objective legal definition, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you’re “looking for trouble”. The legal standard for provocation is if he, Kyle, physically started the violence, *then* he cannot claim self defense. The problem with this idea as well as your claim that “it’s not entirely clear who did agress first” is that… Read more »
Sorry for the double post, but I thought I could more succinctly make my point.
You say a reasonable jury could have sided either way. By definition, that is impossible. The standard the state is under is they have to prove guilt *beyond all reasonable doubt*. In order for a guilty verdict to be reasonable, a not guilty verdict must, by definition, be unreasonable. You yourself said you think the jury reached the correct conclusion. That means you think that at a minimum there is reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, a guilty verdict cannot be reasonable, by design.
Well said Justin.
But it’s not beyond “all” reasonable doubt; it’s beyond “a” reasonable doubt. Doubt carries a certain amount of subjectivity; that which causes me to doubt may not be what causes someone else to doubt. So long as juries are made up of humans, there will always be a certain amount of subjectivity to the process.
Justin, I’m not sure the legal situation is clear.
So do you have to “physically start the violence”, or is pointing a gun enough? Those would be different standards, and where the line is drawn is not clear.
For example, have these people committed provocation and thus lost their right to self-defense?
When a crazed mob goes into a private neighborhood (twice), some of them armed, walk on to your property, it’s a wee bit different than Antifa goons chasing you down on dark streets at night. There was a good podcast interview with the head of the McCloskey’s security team on Youtube, but of course it was taken down. There was a lot the MSM didn’t report, including the mob’s “kill the man, rape the bitch!” chant on their second visit.
None of that answers my question regarding what the legal standard for provocation is.
I have not seen any evidence that any members of the crowd threatened violence before they got guns pointed at them, all indications are that the McCloskey’s instigated. Also, while the crowd walked onto a private street, I haven’t seen any evidence they were on the McCloskey’s property. Unclear what the 2nd visit has to do with anything.
Which of the people Rittenhouse killed were an Antifa member?
As far as I know, the McCloskey’s didn’t shoot anyone either. They were wielding arms, on their own property, ready to defend if need be. What’s your point?
And regardless of whether they were members, the three were clearly among the mob.
None of the people Rittenhouse shot had shot him either.
The question is – did the McCloskeys’s actions fit the criteria for provocation? If you’re walking down the street and someone shoots you while happening to stand on their property, you’re not any less dead. So when an angry person points a gun at you, how do you know whether you’re allowed to defend yourself or not? Justin claimed the criteria was objective, so what is it?
This is not, nor is it intended to be legal advice. There are five elements of self-defense law: Innocence: The defender is the non-aggressor in the confrontation. (a defender can both lose and regain innocence based upon subsequent actions.) Imminence: Is the threat either actually in progress or immediately about to occur. Proportionality: Is the defender facing a threat readily capable of causing him or those he had a duty to protect death or serious bodily injury? Avoidance: Did the defender violate any legal duty to retreat, if retreat was safely possible for both himself and those he had a… Read more »
“He went looking for trouble and trouble is what he found. Also that he aggressed first.” No, various criminals went looking for trouble and found it before Kyle arrived. They burned, looted, destroyed and did horrifying stuff like this: Sick moment Kenosha looters attack elderly store worker protecting business amid riots over Jacob Blake shooting (the-sun.com) The three who tried to get the best of Kyle happened to be a child anal rapist, domestic abuser and burglar–what a wonderful crowd of “mostly peaceful protesters”! Many of them traveled and were bused in from places hundreds of miles away (Kyle lived… Read more »
While all of this is true Cherrera, I really want to drive home here that Kyle’s relative moral superiority to the people he shot isn’t why those who supported a guilty verdict were so inarguably despicably evil. Its because there is no, absolutely no, zero, zilch, nada, negative arguments that even semi-plausibly justify the result they sought, and yet they sought it anyway. Not only was there not enough evidence to convict, there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him in the first place. Not only was there not enough evidence to charge him in the first place, but the trial… Read more »
Justin, I agree completely. I just added that because people have been trying to paint a picture of Kyle being some ruffian looking for trouble. He and the others wouldn’t have been there if law enforcement (or a large enough contingent of Kenosha men) had driven out the rioters already. Of if the all the “protesters” really were peaceful types who simply carried signs and sang songs.
Is “relative moral superiority” a Christian category?
By the standards implied in this conversation, who has “relative moral superiority” – a prostitute, a thief, a publican, a Pharisee, or a high priest?
Impressive and true claim. ;)
And yes, relative moral superiority is a perfectly fine Christian category in the legal sense. Before God there is none righteous, so those five are equally bad. But being a prostitute or a thief is immoral by nature, being the High Priest is not.
And don’t twist my words, The High Priest and the Prostitute are equally in need of Christ, but you can easily see the legal difference. Don’t be foolish.
What legal difference?
“Relative moral superiority” is not a legal category. And having done something “immoral by nature” does not objectively cause someone to be inferior to someone else who may have done any number of other offenses.
I would think Jesus is quite clear that “moral superiority” is not within human capacity to judge – see the Pharisee and the Publican, the Pharisee and the Sinful Woman, the teachers of the law and the adulterous woman, numerous reactions to the associates of Jesus, James 4, Romans 2, or simply “Judge not less you be judged.”
Congratulations on entirely missing my point! Obviously I’m a prophet for predicting that you would twist my words entirely. Did you even read my post? I literally said that they are equally sinners in need of Christ, and you just pretended I said the opposite.
And no, I didn’t mean it’s actually in our judicial documents. I meant it is clear logically that one is in a legal office and the other is not.
At this point you should probably go do something productive instead of trolling the comment section and grasping at straws.
“Legal or illegal” is not the same as “moral or immoral”. If you wish to say legal then say legal, don’t conflate that with moral.
So far as legal goes, it was not in fact an “illegal office” under Jewish law any more than the king’s concubines were, though it was considered shameful and certain persons (such as the priest’s daughter) were forbidden from it.
Are you kidding me? Fornication and prostitution were absolutely forbidden under Mosaic law! I don’t know what Bible you are reading. I will not read the link because it is idiotic to argue otherwise, and I’m not going to waste my time reading from a Jewish site (jews aren’t Christians)
Seriously. If you actually think you can argue prostitution was legal, I am shaking my head in disbelief.
Very true that Jews aren’t Christians. But we are discussing Jews, not Christians. Here’s another example, one of many: https://forward.com/schmooze/419811/robert-kraft-prostitutes-judaism/ It was forbidden for the priest’s daughter to prostitute. It was forbidden for men to prostitute their own daughters. A woman who had had sex couldn’t pass as a virgin to her husband. Prostitution is considered dirty and immoral, but Mosaic law doesn’t make prostitution strictly illegal. There are real-life prostitutes described in the Hebrew scriptures, some of whom go to court to have legal matters decided, and their prostitution is never included as a court matter. One of the… Read more »
If you prefer a Christian source, this is one. If you’ve found some other verse he failed to include, please share. https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/prostitution.html The Old Testament. Common Prostitution. While the law forbids parents from forcing daughters into prostitution, there is no penalty attached ( Lev 19:29 ). In one case there is a penalty: If a woman has been betrothed to a man and he discovers that she is not a virgin, she may be stoned to death for prostituting herself ( Deut 22:13-21 ). These two passages lead some scholars to conclude that when two adults, neither of which was betrothed or married, consented… Read more »
If you prefer a Christian source, this is one by a Biblical scholar of Old Testament. If you’ve found some other verse he failed to include, please share. https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/prostitution.html The Old Testament. Common Prostitution. While the law forbids parents from forcing daughters into prostitution, there is no penalty attached ( Lev 19:29 ). In one case there is a penalty: If a woman has been betrothed to a man and he discovers that she is not a virgin, she may be stoned to death for prostituting herself ( Deut 22:13-21 ). These two passages lead some scholars to conclude that when two adults, neither… Read more »
Justin, I think the jury made the right decision in the Rittenhouse case, and I’m glad he was found not guilty, but I think you are being unreasonable saying he shouldn’t have been charged. Rittenhouse shot and killed an unarmed man. There is conflicting case law here, but many times it has been found that punches and kicks are not a “threat of death or grievous bodily harm” that can justify response with deadly force. Grabbing for a gun is likewise questionable, and how well supported is it that Rosenbaum was grabbing for the gun?He was clearly at very close… Read more »
Do you also think the jury made the right decisions in the Ahmaud Arbery trial?
I think so. I haven’t followed tbe case incredibly closely so I would defer to the jury without further study, but it seems to me that they committed a felony in detaining Arbery. They had not witnessed him commit a felony and thus had no right to conduct a “citizens arrest.” They may or may not have been threatened with death or grievous body harm when he was shot, but it was felony murder. The charge and conviction for malice murder i have more trouble with.
Only one of the defendants was convicted of malice murder. He was the one who who pulled the trigger and killed Mr. Arbery.
I know. But malice murder is roughly equivalent to first degree murder, or murder with malice aforethought. I’m far from an expert in Georgia law, and I don’t know what the jury instructions were. But I think it is a huge stretch to say that the man who pulled the trigger came into the situation intending to kill Arbery.
Pastor Wilson, Thanks a lot for answering my question about “uncontrollable sobbing” reading (e.g.) Chronicles of Narnia (especially aloud)! And thanks a lot for the great practical advice!
Robert, greetings from a fellow Narnian. I was going to make a comment about your letter and noticed your reply, so here goes. While I’m not as old as you, I can understand your plight. I was in my thirties when I first read the Chronicles of Narnia and it proved to be a reality-altering experience that I’ve never gotten over (I’ve re-read many times since). I was even saddened to discover that I loved Aslan more than the Christ of the Bible (far more). Lewis addresses this in his Letters to Children and says it’s one in the same,… Read more »
Wendy, thank you so much. I am not in a situation where my husband is making poor decisions with large consequences, but I think every one of us can benefit from frequent reminders that we don’t need to agree with our husband on a particular matter, or find a way to agree with him, or get him to agree with us, or find some way to reconcile the situation, in order to just keep obeying in faith. Not that discussing things and encouraging him to think things through wisely, or looking at ourselves and being willing to wisely re-evaluate our… Read more »
Mrs. Wendy, your letter was one of the most refreshing things I’ve seen in a long time. Blessings!
“….but whether an autobiography is ever warranted, we shall have to wait and see. I think I should try to accomplish something first.”….
Working title: “Ode of Goads” (?) ; – )
Pastor Wilson, that linked article never states that Forrest was “only a member” or “repented of the association”. There are multiple 1st-person accounts of contemporary Klan members identifying Forrest as their first leader.
And at the dedication of his now infamous Nathan Bedford Forrest statue, League of the South co-founder Jack Kershaw stated, “Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?”, which appears to contradict the article’s claim, “Nobody is defending slavery today.”
Speaking of the League of the South, since you posted a long letter defending Nathan Bedford Forrest from accusations of racism, are you willing to address the letter I sent you asking about your support of the League of the South and your claims they have no racism in them?
Rather than repenting of their KKK associations, they have now doubled down, officially joining forces with the Pacific Coast Knights of the KKK, Aryan Strikeforce, White Nationalist Front, SS Action Group, Scottish National Socialist Party, and many other openly racist groups advocating for violence.
If anyone really had any doubt, here’s a recent article on the League of the South website:
“We envision a free South as White Man’s Land restored, an ethnostate for our people.”
What they envision for everybody else in the south is not yet clear to me, but I wouldn’t count on benevolence toward their “adversaries”.
A jury has just found the Unite the Right co-conspirators liable for $26 million in damages . During the trial, League of the South co-founder and president Michael Hill admitted that he was the one who connected former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke with White Supremacist and neo-Nazi Jason Kessler, who organized the rally.
Recall that the League of the South’s public invitation to the rally stated, “If you want to defend the South and Western civilization from the Jew and his dark-skinned allies, be at Charlottesville on 12 August.”
Are Hill and Wilson friends or is Hill just someone Wilson admires?
Wilson and Hill were together the featured speakers at a conference hosted by League of the South co-founder Steve Wilkins, but other than that I don’t have evidence they are friends. However, Pastor Wilson repeatedly defended the LOS while Hill was in charge, stated he supported them, and claimed they were not racist.
Wilson and League of the South co-founder and former director Steve Wilkins are certainly friends, and wrote a book together defending confederate slaveowners as well as speaking out together numerous times on Southern history throughout at least the first 10 years of Wilkins’ time in LOS leadership.
If you want a full history of the demonstrable racism of the League of the South and Pastor Wilson’s associations with and defenses of them, I posted the following last week. I have posted many of these for years now, and neither Pastor Wilson nor any of his supporters have addressed any of it. 1994: The League of the South is founded by Michael Hill, Steve Wilkins, Jack Kershaw, and others. The stated purpose of the LOS is to “advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well being and independence of the southern people by all honorable means.” As some… Read more »
Pastor Wilson has made his stances on Judaism clear (that he is against this sort of thing) and on racism in general clear.
So the most you can claim against him is mild ignorance of their recent actions? What is the primary issue here? He should “address” this? He’s said nothing racist, and clearly is not racist.
If you believe this is a recent issue you didn’t read the list. In their early years several leading figures in the League of the South publicly quit due to the open racism that Michael Hill and other leaders were not being shy about. Even if you claim (unlikely) that he ignored the well-cited SDL post declaring a hate group in 2000, Wilson was given lists of their racist actions from 2003 on. He can’t plead ignorance.
Yet he defended them in 2003, 2004, 2005, AFTER he was made aware of those actions via posts which he indicated knowledge of.
And if someone founds a pro-Confederate group with notorious Segregationists among its leaders while calling for secession and a return to the “natural societal order of superiors and subordinates”, then you can’t plead ignorance to the fact that the group just might be racist.
Pastor Wilson said he was aware from the beginning that there was a potentially racist pall hanging over the group. If he publicly defends them from charges of racism at the same time people were posting numerous racist statements the leaders were making, whose responsibility can he shift blame to?
A few leaders of the League publicly distanced themselves from Hill after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. This is because Hill responded to that massacre by posting a video of someone burning an Israeli flag and a Talmud (presumably not all 73 volumes) and writing “What a good ad for us.” He praised the Tarrant shooting in New Zealand and said something like “more dead Muslims on their way to hell.” Hill has been antisemitic for years (he blames “neurotic and nihilistic Jews” for the school shootings, and he rails about the “Jew-owned media” and the “Jew-owned banks.” So his antisemitism… Read more »
Lindsey, I very much appreciate your letter. My father-in-law recently died of terminal cancer, and my mother-in-law and her siblings were very much in the position you describe. After many months of denial there was a specific conversation she had with the chaplain at hospice care that got through to her and helped her deal with the final weeks in a healthier way. I was able to witness a transformation in her acceptance that I believe also benefitted my father-in-law in his last days. I don’t have the expertise to give specific advice other than to say that if you… Read more »
Thanks for answering my critical letter. I said it was responding to your “incoherent white baby antichrists article,” and while I meant that only as a riff on the title of your post I was responding to, The Incoherence of our Antichrists, the plain reading is that I accused your article of being incoherent. Turns out I was the one making an incoherent joke. I’ll schedule an eye exam to see if the log in there is removable. Thanks again for the response.