Feckless Ministry
“A man might be foolish for not seeing the tell tale signs of the trap . . . Other ministers foolishly failed in their calling by not recognizing the wolves in sheep’s clothing . . .” I am willing to be corrected, but I have always understood fools and foolishness as a moral failure as opposed to an intellectual deficit. Since the rod is for the back of fools, does this not, at very least, disqualify them for leadership?
Gray
Gray, yes and no. Yes, it could, and no, not necessarily. Folly is the sort of thing that admits of degrees. There are many ministers who have gone along with a bunch of this nonsense who are still in a position to recover their balance, and recover their ministry. We should pray that they do.
I really don’t like the idea of split services based on vaxx status. We ought to think much harder before we divide the body that way. Hopefully we’re all aware of the significance and outright spiritual danger of inappropriate divisions among the church. The gospel itself is at stake when we divide. And what exactly is the basis of this particular division? What is the basis of calling unclean those whom we insist Christ has cleansed? It certainly isn’t science. The (recently) vaccinated are at no significant threat of infection. It’s one thing to make different decisions about the prudence of vaccination, but it’s entirely irrational to conclude that those who made different decisions shouldn’t fellowship together.
How would we treat someone who was sincerely, but irrationally afraid of gathering with black people? We would all see that the fear was a threat to the church’s witness. Hopefully we would be very, very, very, very careful before we made any accommodations to that fear.
Refusing to gather with the unvaccinated is not less spiritually dangerous.
Nathan
Nathan, right, and I agree. But consider what I was comparing it to. I was talking about a minister who believed that there actually was a deadly pandemic going, and that he was considering “excommunicating” those who didn’t agree, as has happened in numerous places. If you kept the church together during this time by means of two services, the church might make it through intact. Not if everybody scatters.
More Content
How can someone who cannot move to Moscow help you provide more content?
Jim
Jim, we are working on that problem now. Nothing is seaworthy yet, but we will beat the drum on various opportunities as they come up.
Regarding: A Torrent of Truth Doug, thank you for faithfully proclaiming truths so desperately needed in the Church and in our nation. There are many pastors who need guidance in shepherding and many sheep with no shepherd at all. The current need is huge and your words are, by God’s goodness and grace, resonating.
You want to produce more content and there are many of us who would like to do our part in seeing that those desired “heavy rolls” become unstoppable tsunamis of God’s truth. However, there’s just one problem. Whereas other Christian ministries have websites that scream “Gimme, Gimme! Donate Now! Money, Money!”, the websites associated with Christ Church and Blog & Mablog have no such flashing neon. Indeed, it’s darn hard to figure out how to contribute. Please provide guidance in supporting the work. Cheerful givers would be grateful.
K
K, thank you. We really do want to stay clean away from high pressure appeals, but you are right. Our avenues for giving could be plainer. There is something in the workshop.
Only One Way?
In our small group, we’re reading Ferguson’s Lesson From the Upper Room. In it he asserts that Jesus had to go thru the cross for our salvation because there was ‘no other way.’ He even posits God (imaginaringly) saying, “Do you not think that if there had been another way, I certainly would have found it?” So, what’s the answer to the following:
When Jesus says “I’m the way, the truth, the life,” does he mean that not only did God choose Him to be the only way to the Father, but even that this was the only choice available to God? Or, was Jesus’s death on the cross just one of many ways God could’ve reconciled man to Himself?
Stephan
Stephan, great question. Before God created the world, it was not the only way. He could have created a world in which there was no Fall, for example. But in the eternal and good counsel of God, given this world, there was no other way. Jesus prayed that there might be, and because He then went to the cross, that means there was no way to accomplish our redemption and at the same time to have that cup pass from Him.
Exactly So
What We Believe
To complete your confession, I suggest the addition of Theonomic Libertarian to the list. You covered the other governments in our lives, so, it’s important to include civil government.
David
David, yes, you are right. I should have included that.
Rites of Passage
Our eldest daughter is approaching 14. Do you recommend a rite of passage, e.g. a Christian equivalent of a bat mitzvah? Or do you see coming of age as an ongoing process, rather than drawing a line in the sand? If you support a rite of passage, when and how? Thanks
Pierre
Pierre, I see rites of passage as being generally a healthy thing, where they have come to exist. But where they are missing, it is hard to “invent” them without them being hokey.
Eschatology Some More
I have recently become convinced of a more preteristic post-millennial position.
I have two questions I was hoping for some guidance in.
1) Matthew 24 seems to be about the end of the age coming in that generation (AD 70). My question is where do we put the breaks on that interpretive framework. Matthew 24:45 through chapter 25 seems to be interpreted by most partial preterists as the final judgment at the end of all time. I’m working through how to determine when we would apply a preterist interpretation and when we wouldn’t. Any advice in that regard would be appreciated.
Question 2
As a blossoming post-millennialist I am greatly encouraged by the idea of Gods faithfulness for thousands of generations and the slow persistent progression of the Kingdom throughout history. What role does an incremental approach have in a post-millennial framework? Does an anti-abortion movement or social movement that seeks to produce an advancement of the kingdom through a slow progression have a place? Looking at the history of the world it appears clear that there is no great reason to expect a great social spasm that will change a nation to mass repentance. What place does fighting for truth and righteousness look like with a long term perspective?
Any advice you could provide in either regard would be helpful.
Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan, I am not entirely confident where in Matt. 24/25 I would place the break, but my rule of thumb is that by the time you are talking about a general resurrection of the dead, you have crossed that line. My placement would be at Matt. 25:31. And with regard to your second question, yes. I believe that postmill thinking and incrementalism go together like ham and eggs.
I first wanted to say thank you for speaking truth in these dark times and expositing the word faithfully. I am trying to fully understand Revelation 11 and I had a questions from your book, “When the Man Comes Around.” I understand and believe the 2 witnesses to be the law and the prophets. My questions was that If Revelation 11:3 is a picture of the final prophetic culmination in Luke 16:31 (as your book says it is) then why does it say they’ll prophecy for 1,260 days? I would feel as though that would allude to the Rome and Jewish war, being that it’s the same amount of time. I don’t understand how 1,260 days correlates at all with the final prophetic culmination. I am probably wrong though and would like to better understand how you came to that conclusion. Thank you so much for your time and influence on me and my family!
Nate
Nate, I am not quite sure I am understanding your question properly, but try this on. Jesus said that the blood of all the prophets, from that of Abel down to that of Zechariah, was going to land on “this generation” (Matt. 23:36). This is what I think happened in the destruction of Jerusalem. The bill came due.
Reading, But Not Books
You seem to consume not just a ton of books but also a ton of articles and news. Practically, how do you aggregate the content you consume?
Thanks!
Andrew
Andrew, when it comes to reading online, I grab things that interest me as they go by. Occasionally, something really strikes me, and I save it to Evernote’s WebClipper. But to be honest, that is about the only thing I use Evernote for anymore. In addition, I subscribe to various magazines that accumulate at home, and then every other Saturday or so, I flip through them, browsing.
Arizona
There have already been audits of the Arizona election results that you refused to accept. Why are you speaking with certainty that the Cyber Ninjas audit will be acceptable, when they are openly partisan, have no experience with audits, have openly botched the process at multiple stages, have been criticized as incompetent even by some Republicans who initially supported their audit, and have been much more secretive with their data processes and oversight than any of the original vote-counting was?
Jonathan
Jonathan, this is interesting. You apparently wrote this before the report dropped. Are you saying that we should not accept the results? Because of partisan incompetence?
I was just wondering, now that the Maricopa County election audit showed that Biden really did win, if you have any plans to walk back the claims you’ve been making that it was a shady election.
Mike
Mike, I do have plans to write about Arizona soon. But to echo my response to Jonathan above, are you saying now that this audit was honest and above board?
The Central Lie of Porn
Your video “The Central Lie of Porn” was very wise, and my wife and I had a good discussion about it as we try to raise our two daughters. I do think your wisdom can be extended to modern courtship as well. Women are advertising themselves as microwaves during courtship, and more often than not behaving as microwaves prior to marriage as well. In such cases, this sets up a false—yet completely understandable—expectation within marriage.
Please let us know if you disagree. To end, we’d simply like to thank you for the wisdom in the microwave/crockpot analogy which we both believe will be vary useful in steering our daughters into adulthood.
Jay
Jay, yes, I agree. And because porn catechizes young women as well as young men, they will often behave (early on) as they think they “ought to,” and this is misleading for everyone concerned as well. And then when it wears off, nobody knows what to do.
Fun Logic
I was recently gifted with Dr. Ransom’s Bestiary, etc. As a retired math teacher and (very) amateur logician, I find the book delightful.
My question (and I may not have identified it in your book): is there a logical fallacy describing the action of Person B who seeks to de-legitimize person A’s argument by “sneering” (casting doubt) on their sources though the thrust of the argument by Person A does not hinge on those sources? That is a garbled query! Sorry.
Don
Don, that would seem to me to be a combination of ad hominem (attacking the persons behind the sources) and a fallacy of distraction (changing the subject from the structure of the argument to the side subject of one or more of the sources).
A Tale From the Front
Thank you for the article on empathy and sympathy. A few months ago my employer disciplined me for unsubstantiated claims by unnamed fellow employees. When the HR rep initially presented me with the claims, I denied them because they were not true. I did not behave in the way that the claims stated.
Nevertheless my employer (after an “investigation” which essentially amounted to making sure that the claimant’s claims were accurate—but not necessarily true) proceeded with a disciplinary action which by the way required a slight revamping of the policy so they could create something new—i.e. a dumbing down of the policy. They told me everything was OK but I was just being given a small slap on the wrist. A discipline but not a discipline. This should have been proof enough that the claims were unsubstantiated. In the end my punishment was to review a video about effective communication. Ironic. And if I didn’t watch the video, I could be fired—a big stick for a small slap on the wrist.
So I agree with you. The principal of empathy as described is pervasive and destructive.
Tom
Tom, I am with you. But good luck getting anyone to empathize.
KJVery
You gave The KJV a grade of A, A, A, and C. What grade would you give the 1599 Geneva Bible and the Modernized Geneva Bible?
There have been opinions regarding the KJV vs. the Geneva in that the KJV was commissioned because the Geneva commentary was too political and not King James friendly. (so the internet says) Can you shed some light on this also? And . . . while I’m here . . . can you make the MGB audio available in mp3? There are some of us who don’t think smart phones are all that smart. I am un-app’d. Thanks for your time.
Kevin
Kevin, I have not yet read the 1599. I would give the Modernized Geneva good grades across the board. The KJV was something that King James wanted instead of the Geneva, that is true, but the Puritans were included in the project, and they still relied heavily on Tyndale, and so I am good with it.
Hi Doug, or Pastor Wilson, I should say—ou have earned the title,
First—You and your writings and sermons and so forth have had a revolutionary, or perhaps more accurately, cataclysmically reformative, effect on my relationship with God. Thank you and keep it up. I support your ministry in prayer and financially from afar.
Second and the reason I write you—Why would Nehushtan Memorial be a bad thing? I had to look it up, and I usually get all of your quick tangential references, at least the ones I catch, but this is the first one where I have to ask what is wrong with Moses’s healing snake/prophecy of Christ being lifted up? Perhaps if enough of us ask, you will enlighten the class.
Words cannot accurately depict how God working through you has revolutionized my walk. Thank you and thank you. If you ever have to visit Sodom or Mordor as I like to call it (Southern California) you are welcome to stay with us—we have lots of room, and Grandchildren to play with, which is awesome.
As you are apparently still reading this, I will further state that my wife and I were in Moscow a few weeks ago Redoubt shopping (I was a Vandal in the 70’s)(we decided against—who moves INTO the snow at 63?) and in addition to Lodgepole being one of the best restaurants we have ever enjoyed, I was heartened by the stream of strong, clear-eyed, college age Christian youth attending a Thursday Night meeting at Saint Andrews. Thank you and your flock for this ray of hope.
God Bless you and keep you,
Scott
Scott, the bronze serpent was God’s provision at the time, and it was greatly used. But later on, Hezekiah had to destroy it because it had been turned into a functional idol. Thus the reference to Nehustan Memorial—a church where there had once been a great work of God, but which was now preserved by various ecclesiastical curators like a saint’s relic. And thanks for the kind words about Moscow, snow excluded.
Envy as the Driving Sin
Thomas Sowell wrote in The Quest for Cosmic Justice, “Envy was once considered to be one of the seven deadly sins before it became one of the most admired virtues under its new name, ‘social justice’.”
In one of your recent pieces, you wrote about envy. I was wondering how much you think social justice is really just a social justification of envy. Is that all it is? Do you agree with the Sowell quote, or would you have any caveats.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, no caveats at all. I agree with Sowell completely on this.
Greetings from Austria
I am a Leader and Elder in our little Baptist Church over here in Austria and I have been blessed tremendously by your writing (and the reading of your writing) in every aspect of my life (manhood, fatherhood, faith, etc.).
I’m stoked that there will be much more soon. Yay.
Here is to my request though:
Recently the leaders of our world have decided to turn this whole thing into “Kasperltheater” (our version of clown world) and most churches (at least in our area) just have seamlessly gone along with it. Long story short we have seen a steady stream of Christians coming to and seeking to join our church—praise the Lord. A number of them hold to a Presbyterian view of baptism which has caused us to try and find a way to handle the situation faithfully and godly.
In your blog post “A Torrent of Truth, or, What We Actually Believe” you mentioned that your church has recently experienced a similar thing. Along with that development you wrote that your church has worked out a baptismal cooperation arrangement. And that is exactly what we were thinking of doing for our situation over here and have already researched how different churches deal with this issue.
In collecting resources to handle our situation well, it would be great if you could point me to a link where I can download that arrangement document (if it is available online), or send it to my e-mail.
God bless
Stephan
Stephan, thank the Lord for how He is blessing you all. Here is the text of the cooperation agreement, which can be found in the “Protocols” section of our web site.
“The elders of the church recognize, through admitting the head of the household (HOH) into such membership, that he is responsible before God for the spiritual condition of that household. The HOH therefore makes recommendations to the elders concerning his family on such matters as baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Under the headship of Christ, the administration of church sacraments remains with the elders. However, in such administration, the elders are to respect the spiritual responsibility of the HOH.
Members of households who have been baptized in water, and have come to the Lord’s Table are considered by the elders of the church to be individual members of the church.Those family members who have not professed faith in the Lord through water baptism, and have not come to the Lord’s Table, are recognized by the elders of the church to be non-communicant members of member households, but not individual members of the church.
When a child in a baptistic home comes to a personal profession of faith in the Lord, the parents should notify the elders, and confirm to them their child’s profession of faith. The elders will arrange for the baptism of the child, and he will then come to the Lord’s Table.”
On Minding Psychics
Before my mom passed, she saw a psychic that was doing a tour through town, as she was dying and wanted the “comfort” of what life would be like for the family after she passed. As a teenager, I did not know this happened but a few years ago my sister told me about the information my mom was told and I’m really bothered by it. One piece is that I would have a kid but they would not be my own. My wife and I have a child through adoption and cannot have biological children. What bothers me most is the psychic said I would die at an early age from digestion issues. My mom also had colon cancer and died in her late 40’s. I can look at this and dismiss it as fraud or maybe someone skilled in deduction after getting a bunch of information from my mom. I can also look at it and acknowledge God forbids forms of divination but demons are real and this psychic could be playing with demons. The thought always seems to loom over me now that I will die in my middle adulthood. Any advice on dealing with this and hopefully putting these thoughts behind me?
Brandon
Brandon, yes. The only people who might not die in middle adulthood are those who are older than that already. Our days are numbered by the Lord. If this psychic was a fraud, then you don’t want to worry about a bunch of nothing. Worrying will not add a day or subtract one. And if there were real demons involved, with real knowledge, they could only have knowledge of what the Lord’s good pleasure was. And never forget that the devil is a liar. I think you should give this worry the back of your hand in the name of Jesus.
Anarcho-Dreaming
Concerning your interview entitled “Submission to tyranny is rebellion against God,” you state the Constitution is the ultimate secular authority, and we are bound to it. You are a voracious reader, so I would like to direct your attention to the counter argument to that position. Lysander Spooner in his “No Treason. The Constitution of no Authority” makes the objective point that the Constitution either authorized such a government as we have , or has been powerless to stop it. In either case it is unfit to exist.
Further, we were never given an option to accept or reject it as a contract. We were born into it. We did not sign an agreement , we were never given an option to opt out of it. Therefore, it is not a legitimate contract under any legal system. This initially seems silly, until you overcome your lifelong indoctrination by reading him and considering his very legitimate point..
Government is an antiquated and barbaric concept we no longer need. Markets can perform every function needed by man, in a peaceful, voluntary, non-violent manner. Also better, faster and cheaper than government. Look at our history. Lincoln destroyed States Rights and needlessly murdered 650,000 Americans. Starting the growth of an all powerful central government.
Wilson officially ended the United States by secretly authorizing a central bank, establishing its’ own armed collection agency (the IRS) and established the income tax. He also passed the 17th Amendment destroying our checks and balances and giving us life-long politicians. He also assisted in establishing the United Nations and entered us into WW1.
FDR established what was essentially a communist control grid with direction of sectors of our economy coming from the top. He also established “Social Security.”
LBJ and his “Great Society” destroyed the black family and set them back 50 years.
So, might I recommend a reading of Lysander Spooner.
You can listen to the book for free at the Mises Institute.
A thoughtful evaluation of history, economics and the nature of government will reveal the need to throw off the chains of government tyranny. An understanding of Capitalism is required. Unfortunately few posses that understanding. And that is by design.
Anarcho-Capitalism is IMO the way out of this ungodly mess.
John
John, you say many true things in this letter, but unfortunately it is all mixed in with a fatal error. Government is inescapable. This is how God made the world. The family is prior to individualistic democracy. It is true that I didn’t choose to be born into the American system, but that is irrelevant. I didn’t choose to be a Wilson either, but that does not erase my solemn obligations to my family. When it comes to holding a society together, individual choice is lame sauce. I say all this while agreeing with your critiques of how swollen our civil government has become. But the solution is not libertarian.
Okay, Big Question. Reformed Integralism?
Frequently talked about in Reformed circles is the idea that Jesus must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The secular authority of Christ is obvious in the abstract, but hard to apply as a Protestant, having broken with the Catholic church whose project it was to apply that spiritual authority to secular matters. There is another side of this, which is less popular: the idea that the State has authority over the Church. The original version of the WCF (in contrast to the 1788 revision) affirms this function of the state. This is part of the doctrinal statement of Christ Church, so I assume you affirm this as well.
So it seems to me that you endorse something like Reformed integralism, the idea that the Catholic (or in our case, Protestant) faith should form the basis of public law and policy. I am interested in your take on 1. how a Reformed integralism might work, and 2. how we might get from point A to point B.
In order to wrap my head around this idea, and discover criticism of it, I read Charles Haywood’s review of “Before Church and State” by Andrew Willard Jones. His verdict is that ‘[Integralism] has no depth. It is a parlor game, a thought experiment. Not only is there no plan on how to get from here to there, there is no analysis of what “there” will be, except for “the Pope will be in charge.”’ I confess I have had the same feeling when listening to Cross Politic, and reading your blog.
His most interesting objection is that “all the integralists totally reject pluralism, especially of the religious variety”. He claims (and I tend to agree) that bringing a Christian Theocracy about by brute force is neither practical nor practicable:
“It does no good to have an Augustan state encouraging, and sometimes dictating, virtue if the people themselves lack all virtue, as, for the most part, they do today, ruined by the Enlightenment and, perhaps, by wealth. All that does is lead to disrespect for the state and an especially corrosive form of hypocrisy.”
What is your response to this? As far as I can see, it can only be to continue to pray for revival.
As for how to get there, assuming the virtue of the Demos will hold up, Haywood says that integralism needs “a new Napoleon, the Man of Destiny.” However,
“The new Napoleon will not be the new St. Louis; he will be lucky to get to Heaven at all, much less be canonized, given the things he will have to do to bring the West, and perhaps humanity as a whole, through the time of troubles. Perhaps, after all, we are not waiting for a new, and doubtless very different, Saint Benedict, but a new, and not so different, Augustus, or Justinian.”
If this is the case, what should be our goals politically? How, as Christians, can we support a leader who will not operate according to sound Biblical principles? What do we pray for?
Jonathan
Jonathan, the Erastianism of the original Westminster Confession is one of the terms we take an exception to. The thing you are wondering about is not an impossibility because it has been done before. The informal establishment of the Christian faith is something that worked here for a good two centuries. It is not a utopian pipe dream. But I do agree that it cannot be done apart from a great reformation in the people. And I also agree that it cannot be imposed by earthly rulers from above. Christ is our only Savior, and if He does not save us, we cannot be saved.
Doug wrote: “Mike, I do have plans to write about Arizona soon. But to echo my response to Jonathan above, are you saying now that this audit was honest and above board?” I think that there have now been multiple audits and multiple lawsuits all over the country, and all of them have reached the same conclusion: There is no evidence of election fraud (except for Trump calling the Georgia secretary of state and asking him to change the result to be election fraud). At some this has to end. How many more audits will it take before you believe… Read more »
Nope. But if you want to believe fact-checking sites and ignore stuff like this (and much more, like chain of custody issues in other states), you can continue checking your brain out and regurgitating MSM talking points. It works for COVID, right?
The Maricopa election should not have been certified, and the reported results are not reliable – Deep Capture
Most court decisions were hastily reached without even scratching the surface. If you think our modern judiciary is anything resembling Biblical “fair weights and measures” or a blindfolded Lady Justice, you’re more than a little naive.
So just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to believe the results and accept that Biden won?
You are asking the wrong question. Here is an anology: Person A and Person B are competing in a 100 Meter dash. Someone dumps a barrel of fecal matter on Person B. Person B exclaims that this is ridiculous but the starting pistol fires and the race begins. Person B loses by two seconds. Person B is outraged and inconsolable. Person B hires Person C to investigate. Months after the trophy ceremony, Person C is able to determine that Person A dumped the fecal matter on Person B and then makes one of three other conclusions: 1-Person A would have… Read more »
Thomas, “us Dems” didn’t have to crap on Trump; he did that all by himself. The American people just got sick of a tantrum-throwing, bullying, lying, narcissistic man-child with the attention span of a five year old in bad need of a time out. And whose conduct since the election has simply confirmed how right the American people were in giving him his walking papers. And, who like any other spoiled brat, is finding lots of ways to blame everybody except himself for his troubles. And that’s the thing I find most amazing about all of this: The parallels between… Read more »
People are claiming that the results of the California recall election are fraudulent. Even Elder says that the recall failed because only 24% of registered voters are Republican. Forty-six percent are Democrats and 23% are Independents–and the latter have historically trended Dem in California. Even if Elder had got half of the Independent vote, he couldn’t have prevailed in the recall. The only way he could have won would be if a huge number of Dems had either defected or simply didn’t bother to vote. When the GOP’s traditional base–white voters–make up only 36% of the population (and roughly half… Read more »
For clarity Jill, what percentage of recall voters are Republican doesn’t particularly matter in this instance. Elder had a significant chance at winning with 13% of the vote. The way the ballot is structured is a two-part question. Should the Governor be recalled? And if so, which one of these people should replace him? Question 2 is only relevant if question 1 is a “yes”. Elder was overwhelmingly the front runner in question 2, as the crowd was otherwise a very split vote of nobody of interest. So the only part that Elder at to “win”, was Newsom getting recalled,… Read more »
I understand what you’re saying but the two questions can’t really be separated. Had Newsom been recalled, Elder could have won with 13% of the vote. But Elder was the front runner replacement candidate, and his election depended on first persuading the majority of Californians to vote yes on the recall. A few months before the election, we all knew that a vote to recall Newsom would inevitably result in the election of Elder as his replacement. There were indeed many Dems who are not crazy about Newsom’s performance but not to the extent that they were willing to have… Read more »
As Republican senator Ben Sasse (as respectable a man as exists in D.C.) has pointed out numerous times, there is no “barrel of fecal matter”. Even if you accepted EVERY serious claim of election issues as fact, none of them show evidence of an orchestrated conspiracy and all combined would not affect enough votes to get Trump even close to halfway there in a single state. And that’s assuming that EVERY potentially improper vote was against Trump, when in reality they’re more likely to be split.
https://www.facebook.com/SenatorSasse/posts/3517705981660655
Another point upon which we agree Jonathan. Where I differ is that the way in which the authorities and the left responded to questions of fraud were both corrupt and idiotic. Most of the behaviors by the courts and the left couldn’t have encouraged conspiracy theories more if they were intentionally designed to trigger that response.
MSNBC and state level judges did more to fuel belief in a conspiracy than Trump ever did.
Those judges could only respond to the terrible arguments put out by Trump’s own legal team. Arguments that even Trump’s team didn’t believe themselves. They condemned the ridiculousness offered to them because it was worthy of condemnation.
Why do you think lifelong conservative Republicans like Matthew Braun and Trump appointees like Stephanos Bibas and Steven Grimberg would write such scathing opinions unless that is exactly what was appropriate?
Jonathan, this is why I almost always have to put in an asterisk when I say I agree with you. You skip over reams, just reams of relevant details to assert a vague summarized point as fact. I didn’t specify to what judge decisions I was referring or what my objections were. In spite of not knowing what I was even talking about, you have concluded that the judges were correct, and kept on running so quickly that you’re asking me to agree with arbitrarily chosen specific commentators, that you neither quote nor link. So vague and unquantified is your… Read more »
Justin, you were unspecific (as you admit) and I named names. I did not choose those judges “arbitrarily”, they are aligned with Trump ideologically and yet wrote the most scathing opinions. Do you wish me to quote their exact arguments? I can if that’s what you’re looking for, but they’re also easy to look up.
If you have a more specific argument to make, one that can actually be responded to, then make it. I’m a bit peeved that you call my comment “vague and unquantified” when it was much more specific than your own.
For example, I find these statements by Trump-allied justices decrying the attempts to overturn the election to be extraordinarily strong, yet over and over I’ve seen Trump supporters claim that these legal defeats are just more proof that the process is rigged against Trump. Judge Bibas (a Trump appointee) in his specific opinion on the fraud claims in the case before him: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf Or Judge… Read more »
And remember – in 2000, didn’t Republicans put forth massive legal efforts to stop ANY recount of the votes in Florida? Even though the margins in Florida 2000 were 20x closer than in any 2020 state? Did they not pursue obstruction all the way up to getting a Republican-majority Supreme Court to block it?
Nothing the dems have done in 2020 even comes close to approaching that level of obstruction. In 2020 there were numerous recounts and no judicial decision relied on partisan control.
At the end of the day, its a question of what source you find trustworthy enough. After all, none of us get to examine the ballots personally. No matter who states the results, or what they state, you have to at some level take it on faith that they’re telling the truth. If you don’t trust the authorities in question, like say for example if they’ve been doing nothing but defaming and insulting you for decades, its very difficult to lend them that kind of trust. I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t believe the audit results by the way. I’ve… Read more »
There’s a strong kernel of truth in your comment, which is why many of those who are trying to steer pro-Trump sentiment on this issue haven’t even tried to present actual facts and confirmed evidence to support their argument, but just throw as much crap as they can against the wall to sow as much doubt as possible. Steve Bannon openly called that strategy, “Flood the zone with s—.”
They know if they sow sufficient doubt, they can mobilize the “we don’t trust anything that goes against what we prefer to have happened” crowd.
Justin, I think back to the cliffhanger results of the 2020 election. Compare Trump (and his team’s) behavior with Bush II’s. Bush kept quiet and left it in the hands of an elite, well-respected legal team who did not give press conferences in which they promised to “release the Kraken.” They did not file misspelled appeals with SCOTUS that were long on accusations and short on actual evidence. They did not invite the press to a landscaping outlet which had been unaccountably mixed up with a major hotel. Nor did they trot out one of their lawyers to talk to… Read more »
We spent 20 years hearing that Gore won in 2000, 4 years hearing Hillary won and Russian collusion, 2 years hearing Stacy Abrams clam she won, challenges to the electoral college certifications in 2001, 2005 and 2017 (basically every time this century a republican was set to be certified). Pot, meet kettle.
Neither Hillary nor Gore nor Stacey Abrams whipped their supporters up into a lather by claiming the election was fraudulent to the point where they invaded the Capitol and attempted to stop the certification by force. They all accepted the results and went home. Hillary conceded the election within 24 hours; I know this because I was in the room when she did. That all by itself makes Trump uniquely awful. Plus, who exactly has been claiming that Gore and Hillary Clinton won? It’s been pointed out, correctly, that they won the popular vote, but even those who hate the… Read more »
Did you not turn on a television in 2020? Even on CNN — ignore the reporting saying fiery but peaceful — and you’ll see destruction that dwarfs the heinous events at the Capitol. Pence didn’t bail any of the heinous January 6 rioters out of jail like Kamala did. The Capitol resembled the Senate during the Kavanaugh hearing when “peaceful” protesters descended. January 6 was heinous — and don’t even say I said it was anything but heinous — but I, unlike your side, criticize violence regardless of the source. January 6 wasn’t the greatest insurrection attempt in even the… Read more »
When did I say that nothing like January 6 comes from the left? But we were talking specifically about Hillary, Gore and Stacey Abrams. What have they done that is comparable to Trump whipping his supporters up into a fury?
Again, Hillary Clinton conceded within 24 hours.
The very first sentence of that article is ridiculous. It claims that 57,000 ballots had “serious issues” when in reality those “issues” were nothing more than two voters sharing the same name and birth year or a voter moving residences after he voted. Not only are those not “issues”, they are things the Cyber Ninjas could have checked in any real audit. Why didn’t they investigate those voters with the same names to see if they were different people or not?
Because they realized their attempt to prove fraud had failed, and now only want to cast doubt.
So an audit of a single county in the state showed more invalid ballots than the margin of victory for the state. Um, no, the audit did not show Biden won. It shows that Arizona needs to throw out all the invalid ballots and recount or or re-hold their election. And this will be the findings in all of the swing states that they audit. Cheaters gonna cheat.
Yes Pastor Wilson, procedurally the Arizona audits were incompetent both in terms of security and methodology. Thankfully, at least in vote-counting they appear to only be incompetent, not biased, so the errors canceled out enough to get fairly close to the true total.
Now which of us is being hypocritical? You insisted you would accept the results of the Cyber Ninjas audit, I don’t think the audit was meaningful and accept the initial election as certified by Arizona’s Republican government. So should we not be on the same page now?
Last week we had a nice discussion about clothing here in the comments, maybe today we can have one about appliances! :) I will say, though, that I don’t think anyone is falsely advertising oneself as a microwave. One truly may feel microwave-y when one has not cooked anything but has wanted to. When one is free to cook all the time, those feelings may change, but it doesn’t mean the earlier feelings weren’t real.
How will an electric tea kettle fit in this discussion? My husband and I were just talking about how it’s probably one of the most useful things we’ve purchased in the last 6 years.
Winter is coming. I ought to buy one. We can’t live without our tea.
When I arrived in the US over thirty years ago, I was shocked at the absence of electric kettles. Times must have changed since then.
I love mine. My absolutely tea-addicted daughter first introduced us to it, and then when she moved out, I decided I needed one of my own. I’m not much of a tea drinker myself, but my husband is, and I like my pour over coffee, so it gets regular use.
I don’t know anyone else who has one, so I don’t know if the times have changed. My son would as soon heat up his water on the stove and thinks it’s silly that the rest of us use the kettle.
I have to say, I’m not up to speed on women as microwave/crock-pot discourse. I mean, I think I get the analogy from way over here, but does someone want to explain further?
In terms of intimacy, men heat up/cool down like microwaves while women do so like Crock-Pots.
Obviously I can see the truth in the analogy, but I think it probably obscures more than it informs. I think we have a real problem with not having good older-younger single sex groups and relationships for both men and women where this stuff can be discussed fairly frankly. There is also a lot of personal variation that these sorts of analogies pave over, and given the taboo nature of the subject that can easily leave people feeling somehow dysfunctional. Of course the big elephant in the room is the porn culture and the way that everything is being pornified… Read more »
I have an oven that is turned on no more than once every couple of weeks. I learned only recently that some ovens these days are equipped with Sabbath timers so that Orthodox Jews don’t have to turn them on and off. But they still must contend with the light bulb in the refrigerator issue. My only other contribution to this discussion is that I was recently permitted to touch–though not operate–a $10,000 sewing machine. Because I haven’t yet mastered the computerized embroidery features of my machine that cost $9,500 less, I don’t think I’ll be running out to buy… Read more »
Jill, how do you manage to only turn on your oven once a week?
My mom has a super fancy sewing machine. I’m muddling through using my much less fancy one, but I’ve decided it’s dumb that I’m not good at sewing, so I keep working at it and hoping I’ll learn how to sew a straight seam.
I live alone when my adult daughter’s not home. I’m vegetarian (through habit, not conviction) and I live on a fairly steady diet of Cheerios and almond milk! Sometimes I have avocado toast for a nice change. If I turn on the oven, it’s to heat a loaf of French bread. You can get by quite nicely with a microwave and a stove top. I got an air fryer during the lockdown but I have no idea what I would actually fry in it so it’s still in the box. Youtube has excellent videos on basic sewing. Any time I’m… Read more »
Aha! I have some time before I’ll be there, although I’m hoping some day my husband can get some kind off schedule that lets him do the cooking, lol.
Thanks for the tip! I’ll look into that magnet.
The Sabbath function locks you out from using it,actually. You could use the regular old timed bake function which I remember on my mother’s oven 50 years ago, if avoiding turning it on and off was all you needed.
I think even an automatic oven would fail the sabbath test by analogy with lighting a fire. Moving beyond orthodox jews, reading old new England sources I’m often impressed by how sabbatarian congregationalists were. Boston baked beans, for instance, were largely popular because they could make a tasty meal that you didn’t have to tough at all on Sunday. You get a good fire going the evening before, but the pot in the Dutch oven. And if things go well you just take it out and eat it for Sunday dinner, and it’s still warm and tasty. Seems bizarre even… Read more »
This civil discussion thing is nice. We should do it more often!
Don, you didn’t happen to see that exact scenario you describe play out numerous times in the last couple comment sections, have you?
For those keeping track, reason #39,735 for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
Do you expect readers to be so lazy they don’t even check your articles?
Both articles refer to the 2016 election and are in complete agreement. The second headline is about the Russian groups that stole emails from the DNC and got personal information from voter rolls. It says explicitly that the actual election results weren’t hacked. The first article clarifies that those email hacks happened, but the Russians didn’t hack actual election results.
Your false claims in this mode were already debunked by numerous people last week. Do you not ever tire of trying to deceive people?
To put it more succinctly, one headline refers to “election hacks” as in “election-related hacks” that don’t directly affect votes, while the other headline refers to hacking actual election results. Two completely different things are being referenced in those headlines.
Yes, Jonathan; two contradictory headlines from the same news outlet — the very same writer — indicate complete agreement.
And spending $3.5 trillion costs nothing.
Because you’re slow on the uptake, I’ll let you in on a secret: I’m posting these headlines without comment. I don’t know what it is you think you’re debunking, but it’s not anything I said.
Meanwhile, because you’re absolutely obsessed with running interference for your pathetic media and you’re willing to jump through any hoop to do it, here’s reason #39,736 for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
They weren’t contradictory FP, that’s what I was debunking. One referred to hacks during the election, the other referred to the hacking of actual election results.
On to your latest diversion, this late in the game do you really think readers are too stupid to even look at the articles? They are on different dates and reflect what Google said on those different days. The 2nd article even notes that Google was giving a different statement than they had on the previous day.
Only a delusional moron would claim that those headlines aren’t contradictory. Different dates? They were only one day apart. How irony-deficient do you have to be to completely ignore the subhead that claimed Trump was the one sending mixed messages? What color is the sky in your universe? The depths of ridiculousness to which you stoop to defend your incompetent media, of which Google is a part, knows no bottom. Yes, that’s it! By merely showing media headlines together, I’m the one trying to deceive people! Will I never tire? Won’t someone please think of the children?? You’re a hoot.… Read more »
Yes FP, they were one day apart. And Google had made a new statement on the next day. Was CNN supposed to avoid covering Google’s new announcement just because it contradicted Google’s statement from the previous day?
How about Google not lie in the first place? How about the mainstream media call Google out on their idiocy, instead of trying to blame Trump for Google’s incompetence? How about the 24-hour rule? How about a mea-culpa? There’s a thousand different ways CNN could have handled the situation without screwing up royally. And then there’s you. Spending way too much time trolling this site, defending the indefensible. So far, 23 out of 63 comments (37%) on this post are yours. Get a job. While you’re waiting by the mailbox hoping the welfare check will arrive, here’s reason #39,738 for… Read more »
Trump lied when he claimed the Obama wiretapped his phones in the Trump Tower.
2nd article has nothing to do with Trump Tower. It’s about the FBI wiretapping Paul Manafort during a period of time when he wasn’t even working on the Trump campaign. That’s what “former” means.
You are aggressively bad at this.
From the second article:
Unclear, huh? In other words, you don’t know. Therefore, you have no basis on which to accuse Trump of lying about this particular issue other than your own partisan bias.
Live by the technicality, die by the technicality.
You’re embarrassing yourself. Trump specifically accused Obama of wiretapping HIS phones, not some other guy who didn’t even work on the campaign anymore.
Who do you think you’re helping with all of this?
It’s amazing that you’re claiming these are reasons “not to trust the mainstream media”, when all you’re actually proving is that no one should trust you.
Why would you suppose that Jonathan is on welfare? Given his academic attainments and his career history, I find that most implausible. Even I am not on welfare although my age and solitary position in the world make me a much more likely candidate. I am curious which media sources you find reliable. Do you include sources such as the Wall Street Journal (news as opposed to opinion section) and the Christian Science Monitor in your distrust of mainstream media? I read widely across the political spectrum and I find those two outlets perhaps the least likely to allow bias… Read more »
Knowing FP, I assume he’ll deflect to claiming that he was talking about the government stimulus check or something.
At no point in my life have I ever applied for welfare, food stamps, or even unemployment. Due to some inborn advantages and an aptitude for hard work I have always been able to pick from a wide range of employment opportunities as well as create my own.
In other words, you’re getting paid to comment here. You wouldn’t have the time otherwise.
How many times will you bear false witness against me FP? You’ve been called out by numerous people for your false accusations against me the last two weeks, that doesn’t appear to slow you down at all.
No, I have never, ever been paid to post here (or anywhere else).
Jilly, as of this writing, Jonathan has posted 82 out of the 209 comments on this post. You really think Jonathan would have the time to make all these comments if he had a job?
It’s either welfare or a trust fund. He’s not old enough to be retired.
As you should have discerned by now and as I have repeatedly pointed out in the past, my job is far more intensive than most and thus also has longer breaks. Which is why I often go months or years without posting here, and at other times can post easily. At the moment, our family is taking a break from our primary job as I have already pointed out before, but I am still putting in 30-40 hours a week in a secondary work while I am away. The couple hours it takes to write 82 comments doesn’t interfere with… Read more »
Also, since Jill is well aware of my occupation as well as why I have more time than usual right now, your attempt to speak condescendingly to her with your falsehoods about my life make you look simply ignorant.
There is no evidence that Google lied, and no one in the Trump Administration ever accused Google of lying. Trump initially oversold a local website that a Google subsidiary was building in San Francisco, the day after he did that Google and the White House worked together to try to save face by rushing out a new announcement for a larger partnership, but even the rushed make-up website never did the things Trump said it would (directing people to the proper local testing site).
Google: We’re not publishing a national-scale coronavirus site anytime soon. Orange Man Bad!
Google, literally the next day: Hey, guess what! We’re going to develop a national-scale coronavirus website! In partnership with the US Government [psst: That would be under the Trump administration]! Aren’t we great?
Jonathan (wild-eyed, screaming): THERE’S NO EVIDENCE GOOGLE LIED!!!!!!!!!! HEADLINES AREN’T EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON’T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES!!!!!!!!! YOU’RE THE ONE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps it’s time you got fitted for your straitjacket.
It’s time you spoke to a pastor.
Pastor Wilson, how can you agree that social justice is “Just a social justification of envy” when there are so many Christians who are practicing “social justice” exactly how they read it in the Prophets and the Gospels? Along with a long historical line of Christians who have given up their own wealth and privileges for the sake of Gospel obedience and pursuing Biblical justice. Thomas Sowell doesn’t base his moral arguments on the Bible or Christianity so he can perhaps have a pass on this omission, but what excuse do you have? Millions of Christians from all walks of… Read more »
So should I go post all the Bible passages where wealth is a blessing?
Sam, are you going to ignore what I just posted? Do you think Jesus Christ contradicts himself?
There are zero passages anywhere in the new testament that state that holding onto wealth is a blessing. They always involve giving up that wealth in one way or another. Even in the old testament, positive statements on wealth typically referred to producing well with your own land, while stockpiling land and goods at the expense of others was seen as evil.
Pearls before swine, Sam. Jonathan is pretty firmly in the lefthand ditch on this topic.
If ‘social justice’ meant that I personally chose to obey God by selling my possessions and giving to the poor, that would line up with scripture. Having the government take wealth by coercion and force to redistribute it to whomever it chooses is not scriptural. Social justice is not biblical justice because of the administration of it, amd it confuses the civil authority with the church.
Sarah, didn’t Jubilee involve the Israeli government redistributing land every 50 years in order to ensure that every family had some? And did Nehemiah not force the wealthy to give to the poor without interest when they were taking advantage of their poverty?
Not that social justice has to involve force. But you are creating lines that aren’t in Scripture. And virtually every bit of land owned in America was originally acquired and distributed by force, and I am unaware of conservatives who refuse to accept the land due to its unBiblical origins.
Leviticus 25:13 says “‘In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.” Verse 23 says “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.” The land is God’s, and he makes the rules. If there was a dispute, you could take it to a judge. To say that “the Israeli government” made anyone observe Jubilee is a stretch… the government consisted of the elders at the gate and the judges. Furthermore, this wasn’t a mere “wealth redistribution”–you weren’t taking from the “haves” and… Read more »
That’s quite clearly false. Every Israeli family that did not have land was given their appropriation of land back. Every Israeli family that had accumulated more land was asked to give up their excess. How is that not the “haves” giving to the “have nots”?
The same goes for debts and for slaves.
Because each of those families received back their own ancestral land that they had leased out to other people.
They weren’t getting someone else’s property.
Jonathan, please return your home & property to the tribe that owned it 250 years ago.
I find it amusing that arwen’s response is “but it’s ancestral land!” while you’re mocking the idea of returning ancestral land. ;)
And no, I don’t own land that can be returned to native persons, but I am glad you admit that all the land we own was indeed taken from others and thus you accept that practice.
Plus, the way we do “social justice” in America comes from the idea that any disparity in income is inherently wrong. Can anyone prove from scripture that it’s sinful for some people to have wealth when some people don’t?
Sarah, the claim that their should be no disparities whatsoever in income is not “the way we do social justice in America”, that extreme is only believed by a miniscule fringe. However, we are MUCH more likely to see such a claim in the early church. This is from John Chrysostom, the legendary 4th-century bishop, making the exact claim that you’ve tried to ascribe to modern Americans: “Commerce itself is not bad; indeed it is an intrinsic part of God’s order. What matters is how we conduct our commerce. The reason why commerce is necessary is that God created human… Read more »
I don’t know John or Basil, but I disagree with large chunks of both of those quotes. Let’s get back to defining social justice, since no good debate can be conducted without agreeing on terms. I give you this link: https://www.sdfoundation.org/news-events/sdf-news/what-is-social-justice/ Here I find this: “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth.” United Nations “Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of access and opportunity for everyone, particularly those in greatest need.” National… Read more »
Yes, working at McD’s as a 15-year old is worth the same as an engineer designing a bridge to hold thousands of tons of vehicles. One skill ain’t superior to the other, nor worth more.
Right… and I’m just going to say that the raise in minimum wage does not immediately enable me to raise my prices on the work I do, for which I went to school and earned a degree.
I don’t think you understood Basil correctly.
I’m not sure what you see lacking in my previous Biblical statements, except I don’t see the need to attach “sinful” as the label. Too often modern Christians seem to think that their lives are satisfied by avoiding sin and no better. I am arguing what Jesus Christ and the apostles stated was the best way for a Christian to live. And they clearly state, over and over, that those with wealth should give it up for the benefit of those without until either no wealth is left hoarded or the needs of all have been satisfied. Is that not… Read more »
There is an enormous difference in the method. What are you arguing for? Do you think we should all be happily giving up our tax money so the government can decide who gets our “excess”? And btw, not all of us are being taxed from excess. I keep telling God that I wouldn’t mind learning how to be holy from a position of prosperity, but he keeps teaching me poverty. So I can’t speak from the experience of having a lot to share. But I do know that my job is to be content with what I have–that’s the positive… Read more »
First off, I was arguing that Pastor Wilson’s claim “social justice is just about envy!” is false. It’s both an Appeal to Motive fallacy and completely unjustified by any evidence. Second, I’m arguing that we should follow Scripture. Which clearly states that we should strive to ensure that all have enough and that it is dangerous to hold onto wealth. If I argue something as simple as that here, I would be accused of preaching social justice. In terms of government, we currently have a system that is biased towards the wealthy on almost every level, so that pretty consistently… Read more »
I’m going to repeat my bit about defining terms. :)
Have you, in the past, been accused of being a social justice warrior based on your argument that well-to-do Christians should use their wealth to help others? Or is that assignment of motive?
Yes, I have been accused of being a social justice warrior solely for saying that wealthy Christians should use that wealth to help others rather than continuing to hoard it.
I have also been called a social justice warrior for saying that wealthy Christians should use their wealth to pay their low-wage workers more rather than simply growing their own bank accounts.
This is tricky. I think there can be no dispute that scripture tells the rich to use their wealth to help the poor. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49. It also tells the rest of us to do likewise as far as we are able. I don’t personally go around telling people to give to the poor (unless I’m canvassing donations for a good cause) because I don’t do enough myself. (And people don’t tend… Read more »
I agree that we should do all we can do, but that isn’t “social justice” the way the world defines it. One of the problems in social discourse right now is a redefining of terms. Since I don’t see any need for Christians to clarify what they do as “social” justice, it makes sense that we allow the world its definition of that term and then use it accordingly. The term “justice” means something about God’s character and we should fight to hang onto it. What the world *wants* us to do for the poor and disadvantaged is not necessarily… Read more »
You’re so right, and the problem is compounded by the unpleasant human tendency to define the other side’s terms in the most uncharitable way! A common definition is crucial or we’re really just talking past one another.
Sarah, if I type “social justice” into Google I get 10 different answers from the first 10 links. I don’t see the world defining it in solely the manner you claim.
Again, what I see as most important is how social justice is used here. And here it is virtually never defined, rather it is used as a slur and an insult, and it is used towards virtually anyone who argues for equality as a goal rather than extreme disparity of wealth and opporunity.
I have been called a social justice warrior because I say that as Christians we should strive for equality rather than stockpiling wealth, and pay higher wages rather than accumulating the profits to ourselves.
No, I have nowhere argued for giving all of “our money” to the government (though Basil himself points out that calling it “our money” is already a fallacy).
What I see Scripture and the Church Fathers calling for us to work for equality for all as much as we are able. Yes, circumstances may put us in a different place, but our goal should not be to stay above others but instead to spread those blessings to others who have not received them.
The means is a secondary question once the goal has been agreed upon.
good replies.
I do wish to note that none of the responses so far have supported Pastor Wilson’s agreement with the claim that “social justice is just envy”. I’ve provided numerous quotes from Jesus Christ, his apostles, and the early Church fathers that make clear that something which looks an awful lot like social justice was preached strongly in the early Church.
At the very least, can you not acknowledge that many of those trying to act in social justice today are faithfully following what they read in Scripture exactly as I have just quoted?
Jonathan, you point out sins/temptations that might seem to especially apply to the “wealthy” (e.g. hoarding, oppression of the poor), but the N.T. assumes some Christians will be wealthy and doesn’t condemn being wealthy. Wealth is a blessing from God that can be used for Him or for oneself. Some people are lazy, foolish, imprudent, lack self-control etc. and will tend to lose much of whatever money they get… they are poor stewards of their wealth. Some people are good business people, intelligent, observant, self-controlled and tend to increase in wealth… e.g. the midas touch without sinning or oppressing anyone….… Read more »
The New Testament doesn’t condemn the wealthy? By the plain sense of Scripture that’s clearly false. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.”“Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the… Read more »
Johnathan, Instead of saying “the N.T. assumes some Christians will be wealthy and doesn’t condemn being wealthy.”, I should have said “the N.T. doesn’t condemn being wealthy merely for being wealthy”. I understand the Biblical warning to be “what is your attitude toward your wealth (e.g. is it your god)”. The Bible doesn’t say Zacchaeus gave away all his wealth. Philemon was a friend and Christian brother of Paul and Paul doesn’t condemn him (even for owning slaves). There are wealthy women mentioned in the book of Acts and other letters (as I understand) and Paul addresses slave owners as… Read more »
Jonathan, Did you see Pastor Wilson’s thought experiment about having a button you could push that would magically increase the wealth of the very rich by 10 times, and would also increase the wealth of everybody else by (only) 2 times……………. that’s not exactly it…but it was something like that.
The point is: if anybody hesitated to press the button they show that their motivation isn’t to do good for the poor by increasing their wealth…, but rather envy against the rich because they hate the disparity.
It’s a nonsensical thought experiment because there’s no reality in which that could work. Increasing the wealth disparity has numerous downstream consequences that aren’t reflected in magical thinking. For example: * In your scenario, would the poor then be more able to get treated fairly in the courtroom, or would they be even worse off because the rich would use their increased wealth to monopolize an even greater % of the available legal help? * In your scenario, would the poor be more likely to own their own land, or would the rich use their excess wealth to dominate their… Read more »
Jonathan, I think the experiment was much more simply meant than that. Of course it would have far reaching economic impacts.
But I think you sort of proved his point about the *disparity* is the thing the social justice people have the problem with, which is the motivation of envy.
One of the biggest problems of Pastor Wilson’s push button thought experiment is a fundamental misunderstanding of what inflation at that level would do to the poor. This is ironic because we on the conservative side are always decrying what damage government printing money does to inflation.
JSM,
Indeed. The situation, as presented, is nonsense. Maybe a better scenario would be that a billionaire decided to pick a church to bless. They they were idiosyncratic so they chose a church at random and decided they would determine the net worth of each member and they would give 10x that amount to the top 10% of families and 2x that amount to the bottom 90%. I think most of us would happily accept that deal.
I can see several reasons why you may refuse, but I doubt many people would refuse due to “envy.”
I don’t think you’re understanding the thought experiment correctly. He did not postulate magically increasing the number of Notional Currency Units everyone held, which would indeed be inflation if not backed by a larger store of real value. He postulated increasing wealth. Real assets.
It’s true that this is still unrealistic, since you can’t magically double wealth in a moment like you can double printed/digital currency, but complaining that a cheap humanly-achievable knock-off of this effect would be a bad idea is entirely beside the point.
Here is the a actual quote, “ Every person of ordinary means, middle class and below, will have their wealth doubled overnight, in real terms. Salaries will double, savings will double, value of houses will double, same with the cars, and so on. What’s the catch? you wonder. Bless them all. Bless all those people. Push the button. Here’s the catch. Every rich person in town will have the same thing happen, only it will be by a factor of ten times better off.” If middle class person had a house and car together worth $250,000 and a wealthy person… Read more »
As someone who aspires to purchase some more land some day, this would be a tragic circumstance. I’m voting no in a heartbeat. No envy involved. Depending on where he puts the line I may even be in the 10x category; still a terrible idea. If the question was instead that every regular person’s productive capacity and skill would go up by 2x and every rich persons productive capacity and skill would go up by 10x (in other words, there is a real – not paper – gain) then it would be a harder question. I would say yes; but… Read more »
You remember Pastor Wilson’s thought experiment far more charitably than it was in reality, I’m glad JSM came in with the quote quickly.
Does it not bother you that this is the level at which the discussion is being held? Pastor Wilson is falsely accusing an enormous swath of people of envy, and his only evidence is their assumed answers to a thought experiment that non-envious conservatives and liberals alike should immediately reject.
ha, I thought is was meant to be “simplistic”, but at the same time incisively expose the hidden envy.
It may have been intended to expose hidden envy. Instead it exposed hidden ignorance. I have a great deal of respect for Pastor Wilson. This hypothetical scenario of his wasn’t a shinning example of great wit or reasoned thought.
Robert, you’re killing yourself there. You just inadvertently pointed out that your argument for “hoarding wealth is okay” is just as valid as the argument for “owning slaves is okay”.
This is merely proof that the “if someone wasn’t condemned at every available opportunity it must mean it’s okay for us to do” is an invalid means of evaluating Scripture.
Maybe owning slaves is okay. The problem with slavery in the US was largely that it was rooted in kidnapping, which is an offense punishable by stoning.
What do you think it should be rooted in instead? Race? Gender? Nationality? Extreme wealth disparities?
There were innumerable problems with slavery far beyond kidnapping alone, and American slavery even more so. I’m somewhat flabbergasted that you reduced it just to kidnapping. I’m not sure if that’s better or worse than Pastor Wilson’s approach, where he dismisses the kidnapping aspect altogether so long as the slaveowner didn’t personally kidnap the slave in question (perfectly fine to buy the child of a kidnapped slave, right?).
Maybe I should have done a winkie face. I was being a little tongue in cheek, because we all have such a visceral reaction to the idea of slavery. The Bible makes it clear that you can sell yourself into slavery to cover debt. You can also sell your daughter. And there are rules about how your master is supposed to deal with you. We can say that, like polygamy, it isn’t God’s best for any of us to be or own slaves, but we can’t say that it is always immoral. The kidnapping was wrong. Treating people inhumanely is… Read more »
Once again, that does not follow from the text. Even Pastor Wilson feels that Paul was telling Philemon to give up his slave, he was just going about it in a nice way.
I think slavery is quite clearly against God’s will for how we should act towards each other in Jesus Christ. It is lording power over another, it is a failure to help the needy, it is a failure to forgive debts. I have never, ever seen where a slave-owning society was doing it in a “Christ-like” manner.
There is not a perfectly defined line between all instances of slavery and all instances of “voluntary” employment …. master/slave vs. employer/employee …. a technical “slave” could be in a much more humane and desirable situation than some “employees” … down through history
And I’ll depart from Wilson if that’s what he says. The Bible says that being in possession of a kidnapped person is also wrong.
I think a second problem was that it was race-based and rooted in a belief in black inferiority. Biblical slave holding was due to debt or being captured as a result of war.There was no presumption that slaves were inferior human beings. The Romans adored their Greek slaves for their intelligence, and used them to teach their children and compose their correspondence.
Sure, I’m with you on that. My initial comment was a little tongue in cheek. Although I don’t think our history books give the slaveholders fair treatment…. not all of then were treating their slaves like animals, but it’s a hot topic that is difficult to get clear answers on.
I do believe owning slaves was “ok” in the N.T. times based on the way the Bible talks about it.
I guess we would have to define what “hoarding” wealth means, but as I understand it the Biblical warnings of having “wealth” is your heart attitude toward it… although there do seem to be more warnings to the wealthy than to the poor….. but the wealth are not condemned just for being wealthy.
I agree that scripture doesn’t condemn the possession of wealth–although it certainly issues a lot of warnings about potential spiritual risks in the pursuit of it. But is there anything in scripture that speaks well of a rich man who decides to use the blessing of wealth solely for himself? I can think of a lot of verses that seem to go the other way.
No ma’am, not that I know of. Doesn’t the Bible basically boil it down the the heart attitude, just like most other things? …. If I am rich and I use my riches solely for myself then I am my own god, right? …. and like the rich fool who God said this night your soul shall be required of you, right?
Robert, I mostly agree with you, but we need to be careful not to take the punch out of those statements of Jesus that are very strident about the rich, and which don’t always have enough nuance to suit our modern, affluent, tastes. As Jonathan quoted, Jesus said quite simply “Woe to you who are rich” without all of the caveats that you might like to see! The father’s are likewise often bracing. Chrysostom is very useful for us as fat moderns – not just on wealth, but on modesty, etc. as well. Actually, I’m curious what Jonathan would make… Read more »
I’m pretty strong on modesty (though of course it can get a disproportionate judgmental response like anything perceived to be connected to sex), so I doubt Chrysostom would bother me with anything there.
Can you cite the “government redistributing” screed you refer to? It’s possible I may agree or disagree depending on context.
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse… Read more »
Jonathan,
I’m still curious about your thoughts on the Chrystostom quote I provided, below. I’m broadly sympathetic, though I may provide more commentary if you go first!
Thanks Demo, somehow I didn’t see the quote the first time! It would be nice to have a fuller conversation with John Chrysostom from a shared context, but in general I agree with the comment. Government will not achieve true justice, only spreading a universal orientation towards true justice will. Faith in God and desire to see the world which He wishes to see is the only way to reach that end. I have no desire for an equality imposed by force. I find the place of justice in society to be similar to the place of any other moral… Read more »
Good point, demosthenesld. May I take it well and not ever try to take the punch out of the bare words/sayings of the Bible.
The Bible doesn’t boil it down to “heart attitude”. That’s the extraBiblical gloss that is placed onto the Bible by commentators who wish to ignore the commands. I strongly advise reading Richard B. Hays (The Moral Vision of the New Testament) on this subject.
Do we ever reduce obedience on sexual issues to “heart attitude”? Do we ever reduce obedience on thievery to “heart attitude”? Then why rationalize against the clear statements on money and wealth with this excuse?
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, acts of adultery, other immoral sexual acts, thefts, false testimonies, and slanderous statements” — Matthew 15:19 “What use is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? In the same way, faith also, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” — James 2:14-17… Read more »
That’s nonsensical – in that very book he states explicitly that homosexual sex is sinful and demands the Bible be authoritative. I’ve seen his material used often by Reformed theologians including by proponents of Federal Vision quite closely aligned to Pastor Wilson. He’s held in high regard by a wide range of theologians.
I challenge you to read that book and find ONE word in there where he fails to take the words of Scripture seriously. Not just dismiss it because some random person on Amazon claimed he was a liberal once he saw a conclusion he didn’t like.
Why do you you call it social justice? Why did you initially put it in quotes? How do you connect the selected scripture you cite to contemporary secular political demands?
I call it social justice because it is what Pastor Wilson refers to as social justice. Anyone who argues for the sort of things I have been arguing, or who makes quotes like the ones John Chrysostom or Basil the Great made, will be labeled a Social Justice Warrior here. I’m not sure why “contemporary secular political demands” are being brought up. I’m explicitly referring to what Christians like myself work for out of our obedience to Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Perhaps secular people are doing their thing too, but Pastor Wilson paints a broad brush that includes all… Read more »
Here is your problem of definitions. My sister told me once that she was a feminist, without believing most of what modern day feminists believe in, and the problem is that you have to use terms the way most people use and understand them in order to be clear with what you’re saying. I address this further up, but the comment is in moderation, presumably because I added a link. It’s not “social justice” when Christians are living according to biblical principles. It’s just justice. “Social justice”, the way I understand Pastor Wilson to be using it, and the way… Read more »
Once again, I’ve seen Pastor Wilson and many readers here use an extremely broad brush when decrying “social justice”, and they do not hesitate to lump Christians operating on these principles into that conversation. I’m thinking back to a conversation where Pastor Wilson explicitly said that it’s wrong to pay the poor higher wages because then you can’t employ as many. He didn’t just say that the government requiring higher wages was wrong, his argument was that higher wages for the poor were wrong full stop. I argued that at least Christian employers should work to pay their employees a… Read more »
I mean, personally, I don’t think agreeing with John Chrysostom or Basil the great on those quotes makes you a social justice warrior, because again, it’s about the method of redistribution. I reserve the right to exercise my charity in the way my conscience (informed by the Bible and guided by the Holy Spirit) dictates. I feel like I have to qualify that because giving foolishly doesn’t honor the Lord, although it may honor him more than not giving at all. C.S. Lewis said that your charity ought to pinch a little, and I believe that’s true, but what pinches… Read more »
“Inequalities in what people receive for their labor undermine the divine order.”“If everyone acted according to the teachings of Christ, there would be no rich and poor; all would be equal. This is because the rich would giving away their wealth until everyone had the same. Since only a minority have truly embraced the teachings of Christ, this is not going to happen.”“The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor, they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person… Read more »
Well, you can take it up with them, then. The bit there that catches my eye is that he qualifies his statement with “if everyone acted according to the teachings of Christ…” and clearly, we are in a situation where not everyone does. “We live in a society”, as the kids say, and it’s some weird meme, but it’s also true. And do any of us live in a totally Christian society to test this all out? That reminds me of the Puritan experiment where everyone was supposed to work for the good of the community and they almost starved… Read more »
I did take it up with them, Sarah, and you objected for some reason. Rather than objecting to Pastor Wilson’s still unsupported statement. Why are you assuming we have to live in a “totally Christian society” to test out Basil the Great and John Chrysostom’s words? They’re telling their wealthy congregants that they should operate in such a manner themselves then and there despite the rest of society not doing so. And there are millions of Christians who are so wealthy that they don’t need to work to eat. They survive off of interest on their wealth or by hoarding… Read more »
If I spoke like Basil to readers here, I would get labeled an SJW:
“Who are the greedy? Those who are not satisfied with what suffices for their own needs. Who are the robbers? Those who take for themselves what rightfully belongs to everyone…You are thus guilty of injustice toward as many as you might have aided, and did not.”
“For if we all took only what was necessary to satisfy our own needs, giving the rest to those who lack, no one would be rich, no one would be poor, and no one would be in need.”
It’s not about what is wise or prudent. It’s about what the government forces. Sure, pay your employees more and take my blessing for it. But force other people to pay their employees more? You’ve left your sphere of authority.
I disagree with any Scriptural basis for the “spheres of authority” theology, having read the Stone Lectures from beginning to end I don’t see where its invention was justified (even aside from Kuyper’s own problematic and self-contradictory history on the manner). But setting aside questions like the government-imposed minimum wage (I’ve lived in societies without such and the situation is usually very ugly, just like labor was in the USA before its institution), I’m merely asking on the personal level. Do you think it is okay for Christian leaders to teach their congregation to pay good wages at the expense… Read more »
lol you don’t think spheres of authority exist. XD so what would we do if God’s authority disagreed with the state?
If you believe God’s word trumps it, then you do believe in those spheres.
God has authority over everything, there is no “sphere” where his authority is greater or lesser. We are to be obedient to God in all circumstances.
If you believe otherwise, then make the case for “Spheres of Authority” from scripture. Because like I said I read the Stone Lectures and don’t think he managed to do it there.
I agree that the sphere of God’s authority is always over all. My point is some things are outside the government’s sphere. The feds can’t tell you, for instance, how to teach your kids. Or what you should pray for. Or what you can say. Spheres of authority. This is so blatantly obvious it doesn’t need an argument, you clearly choose to stubbornly misunderstand it.
You first tried to defend your “spheres of authority” by asking what happens when God’s authority disagrees with the state. Are you saying the government has a sphere of authority within which it’s okay to disobey God’s authority or not? And if not, then what’s the point of claiming any sort of Biblical “sphere” to government authority? It is subsidiary to God’s authority in every situation, not just outside a certain sphere. As to your claim that Government can’t tell you what to pray for. The Bible certainly doesn’t establish that. In fact…. When Jonah’s warning reached the king of… Read more »
Contemporary secular political demands are brought up because that is what most people are talking about when they talk about what they call social justice. If it were something obedience to Jesus required of His disciples it would be called charity or mercy, rather than justice, and it wouldn’t be primarily a socio-political policy administered by secular government. And I’m less opposed to social welfare spending than Pastor Wilson seems to be.
“Christians have the right to hoard as much wealth as they wish.” “There’s nothing wrong with Christians paying their workers whatever the legal minimum wage is.” “Wealth equality is not something that Christians should work towards.” “The racial wealth gap is not a Christian concern.” “It’s not the church’s business whether or not poor people can afford to own their own land.” “The great power gap between the wealthy and the poor in terms of results in the justice system, political power, access to health care, and access to education is not something that Christians have any responsibility to try… Read more »
Jonathan, that really is not a response to my comments, nor answers why it is called social *justice*.
What do you call someone who does agree with any of those statements?
I’d call them “Out of step with God’s will for us as Christians.”
A while back I noted the similarity between theonomy and the social gospel, to the annoyance those who are, or are sympathetic to, theonomists. I stand by the comparison. Aside from whether or not you are correct on all points, are you really only talking about what you would teach and exhort Christians to do voluntarily?
I am pointing out that even when government regulation is not part of the question and we’re only talking about how we tell our own congregants to act, it is still called “social justice” and derided here. But I don’t think any of us are talking “only” about voluntary. Even Kuyper, the developer of “spheres of authority”, was a supporter of legislation to improve labor conditions. And the call for rich and poor to have equal representation in court, or equal access to schooling or health care, involves government. Would you support a system where the only options for health… Read more »
Court proceedings involve justice (not social, just justice) and inherently and necessarily involve the government; schooling and health care do not. Mind you my view of what government *may*do is broader than some others, and there are things it can be good for government to do that are not absolutely incumbent upon government, but it remains that there are things that are inherently governmental, and things that are not. I’m not sure we do have the best court system in the world. Equal representation in court is problematic, because you could pay a lot of money for representation and still… Read more »
Schooling and health care certainly involve justice, John. At the most obvious level, when Black folk were systematically excluded from White schools, that is a justice issue. When doctors were allowed to prey on poor Black men for the sake of an experiment, that is a justice issue. I already quoted to you a long list of Bible verses that discuss justice, and they make very clear that justice is not just about court cases, it’s about people getting a fair shake across society. What do you mean “everyone should have the poorest representation”? Who argued for that? If a… Read more »
Providing schooling and health care is not inherently governmental. Acting to deny access to publicly funded schooling on no other basis than race, and experimentation on anyone without informed consent is injustice, but that those things were done (“when Black folk were..”) does not make providing schooling and health care inherently governmental functions or a question of justice per se. I’m not categorically against government provided education or health care, I just note that justice does not demand it in the first place. If those benefits are provided, once person should receive them *on the same terms* that another person… Read more »
Why does something have to be “inherently governmental” in order for it to involve injustice? That’s not what the word means.
And I used a race-based example because that IS the real example of what happened. Black people were segregated away from the services White people enjoyed and Christian charity didn’t even begin to make up the gap. That was unjust, full stop.
Racial issues are our reality. They happened. Do you get this upset at Pastor Wilson when he brings up race directly? Come on now.
Why? Because justice is inherently an issue that the government is in charge of. The reason it exists, actually: read Romans 13. (and set aside the “submission” issue for a moment, that’s not what I’m addressing)
I can’t even begin to parse your logic. JohnM suggests that only “inherently governmental” issues can be issues of justice. How does that follow from Romans 13? Romans 13 doesn’t even mention justice at all. Romans 13 doesn’t claim justice is the sole purview of government Romans 13 actually speaks of “those who do right” and “those who do wrong”….so are right and wrong the exclusive purview of government now? If it’s not inherently governmental, does that mean it doesn’t involve right and wrong? I know that sounds ridiculous, but that seems to be how you’re trying to use Romans… Read more »
You are missing the point about when it is an inherently a governmental responsibility to step in vs when it is not. How upset am I? I would get as annoyed as when, say white ethno-nationalists (not Doug Wilson) start in on race, except I pay less attention to them than I do to either Pastor Wilson or you. Not saying you’re as bad as they are, but it’s not good to bring race into it all the time. It is not all about race everywhere, always, and something is wrong when anyone, from any angle, wants to make it… Read more »
But Pastor Wilson does explicitly bring race into discussions, he talks about it openly and in many cases says “Black people do this” or “Black people need to do this” in far more sweeping terms than I ever use race. So I’m quite surprised that a Doug Wilson reader finds it so offensive to bring up race.
If any subject justifies “bringing race into it”, you would think that justice issues in America would be one of them.
Sorry I missed the “why it is called justice” part. I’d say because people lacking their basic needs is seen by “Social Justice Warriors” as being a justice issue. For the radical capitalist society we’ve devolved into, this is a surprising statement. But for the Israelites whose law decreed that every family retain everlasting land rights, I don’t think it would be so strange. Imagine if the ONLY thing I said was, “Our justice system should be redesigned so that the rich have no advantage over the poor at trial.” That is 100% Scriptural, it is ridiculous to think that… Read more »
I want to acknowledge that you gave an answer to my question, and I give you credit for that.
Justice is receiving your due, what is owed you, what you deserve. Need is not entitlement, and entitlement is not charity. People lacking their basic needs is an issue, but not a justice issue, unless they lack because they were denied or deprived of what they deserve. Of course, justice works it two directions, and not receiving what you merit can be a desirable thing. If you have to choose for yourself, do you prefer justice, or mercy?
Where did you come up with that definition of justice? I don’t think it’s Biblical and it certainly doesn’t match the Biblical record.
Mercy and justice don’t oppose each other, because that would imply that a merciful God is unjust, or that a just God is without mercy. The Bible contrasts mercy with judgment, not with justice.
I didn’t come up with it; that’s what justice is. Executing justice for the needy means to ensure they receive their due, what is rightfully theirs; e.g. wages owed, a ruling recognizing the validity of their claim, etc. Mercy and justice don’t oppose each other, but they are not the same thing either. When you say the Bible contrasts mercy with judgment you are saying the Bible contrasts mercy with justice. At no point have I undervalued justice, I just note that it is not the same thing as mercy. Maybe this will help: When your employer pays you what… Read more »
Your first and last examples reduce justice to something tiny, to basically just ensuring contracts are honored no matter how ugly those contracts are. If someone’s social position (say an untouchable in India or a Black person in Jim Crow era America) means that they get 1/5th of the wages that another person would get, is that not unjust? By your reasoning, so long as they got the meager wages they were forced to agree to then no injustice has occurred, and it would be “mercy” to argue that they deserved to be paid better. Or as I asked before,… Read more »
Judgement is an aspect of justice and to render true judgement is to render justice. God is both just and merciful and nothing I’ve said suggests otherwise. Justice can be accompanied by and rendered with compassion and sympathy, but it is based on truth, not feelings. Justice is concerned with rights and entitlements; dues and merits. Mercy doesn’t ask about those things. Some people can’t abide the idea that any good they receive could be other than justice, they don’t want it to be mercy. Yet we know that we are utterly dependent upon the mercy of a just God… Read more »
You asked if I wanted justice or mercy. That implies they are indeed a dichotomy, that it’s an either-or.
We seem to be going in circles because you are still avoiding the points I made earlier, so I agree it’s time to stop.
Your argument doesn’t entirely make sense. You’re suggesting that justice can’t be the term used for something Jesus requires of his disciples? I think we are quite clearly called by God to fight for justice and to fight against oppression, I laid that out in a response to you already with many Scriptural citations.
Just to highlight one point, when the prophets or James rail against the wealthy for how they are treating their workers, are they calling for charity or are they calling for justice?
I’m stating justice shouldn’t be the term we use when what we are talking about is charity or mercy. It also shouldn’t be the term we use when what we advocate is unjust. When the prophets rail against the wealthy for how they are treating their *workers*, e.g. denying the workman the wages he earned, they are calling for justice. When any of the prophets or apostles admonish us to care for the widow and the orphan they are calling for charity.
The Bible shoves justice and what you call “charity” together all the time. They are seen as part of the same calling, not as opposing poles in conflict. When Nehemiah lambasted the rich Israelites for charging interest to the poor on their loans, that’s a justice issue. When the disciples corrected the problem of the Hellenist widows being overlooked in the distribution, that’s a justice issue. Here, again, are a long list of mentions of justice from Scripture. It’s about far more than court cases, it is about ensuring that oppression is corrected and everyone gets a fair shake. It… Read more »
The Scriptures you quote mostly support my point. Read them again.
Nope, still don’t.
(I’d like to make a more complete argument but you’re not giving me anything to work with.)
By “social Justice” Doug means what the left calls it.
There is only Justice. No prefix necessary from a Biblical perspective.
There is also charity. Yes, a good thing, but not what the left advocates.
In the interest of time that I don’t have right now, I’ll go with your succinct answer to Jonathan.
Look at what Basil the Great and John Chrysostom said in my earlier quotes. Are they talking about “social justice” or not? Because they’re clearly not just talking about charity when they speak of wages and the rights of all to public goods.
“The right” operates as if justice is something that only happens in a courtroom. Look at our Justice Department and how poorly their “sphere of authority” actually covers the things that are called justice in the Bible. I find the modern use of the word to be wholly inadequate to what God calls us to.
Jonathan, seeing as you disagree with every reasonable objection, conflate definitions, misuse scripture, and rail against “the right” I think I am quite comfortable calling you an SJW, albeit perhaps a mild one. What you advocate for ends in a totalitarian state exactly as the left wants- and I don’t see a purpose in discussing any further. Once again, I don’t know why you still hang out here. For hating Doug’s words as much as you do, you sure are obsessed with him and the others here. You have tons of comments on this post alone. I’m sorry, but you’ve… Read more »
Who is served by making those baseless accusations against me? If you take issue with something I say then address the specific thing I said. If you’re just here to insult me that serves neither God nor man.
“a rod is for the fool’s back…”
All of your points have been addressed. You stubbornly cling to nonsense and MSM talking points. You are so blatantly wrong that there’s no reason to continue responding. In fact, I really should stop doing so.
If you have logical or Godly arguments to make, then I would be happy for you to continue responding. If you are only here to insult, then I agree that reason and Scripture both agree you should stop as soon as possible.
pretty good analysis :)
Stephan, one thing to consider regarding credobaptism of children: do the parents believe sprinkling is biblical or if they believe full immersion is what is required. You should address that among your elders. That is a big issue amongst Baptists.
“If you kept the church together during this time by means of two services, the church might make it through intact. Not if everybody scatters.” You’re here supposing two things that I think are doubtful, 1. that this is temporary, 2. that the errant minister is rational. If a minister or church body are going to break fellowship with their brethren over vaccination status, that’s an attitude of heart that requires repentance. I mean, sure, it could be a temporary madness, although we’re getting a bit late in the game for that. But a church that can’t keep straight who’s… Read more »
Could wearing a mask in church, even though you believe it is ineffective and unnecessary, be seen as an example of deferring to the conscience of your weaker brother?
The concern for the conscience of the weaker brother is shown by voluntarily laying aside a freedom which the weaker brother might be inclined to imitate without truly believing it is acceptable in God’s sight. It isn’t about simply conforming your actions to someone else’s conscience. The key is for every man to act only in ways he is fully convinced are allowed by God. Could mask wearing (or not) risk enticing someone to act contrary to their own conscience? It could, conceivably. And in either direction. Conceivably. So we might have 3 opinions on masks, all could easily be… Read more »
I think you number 1. should be divided, as they are very different circumstances. We are commanded over and over again in scripture to honor and obey authorities. Obeying those God has placed over us is a very different issue from taking some action which may or may not protect the health of our neighbor (full disclosure, I think masks are of very limited utility). Obviously, there are limits to when we should obey authorities, but if our first response to a new demand is to try to litigate its justification and try to see how we can avoid compliance,… Read more »
It crossed my mind, Demo. The main thing is the three categories of required, prohibited and permitted. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see any differences in how group 1a and group 1b would relate to people in the other two groups.
It depends on what is means by “required.” I initially read that as a conviction that you must mask to protect your neighbor, but I may have misunderstood. What does “required, for the health of your neighbor,” mean in this context? Also, you stated that you were in the third camp. Which again led me to believe that required was a personal conviction. I want to make a distinction between three things: 1. Those wearing masks because a magistrate has ordered it, 2. Those wearing a mask because their elders have ordered it, or 3. Those wearing a mask because… Read more »
All actions are either:
We are at risk of violating our conscience when we judge an action is in category 1 or 2 and we find it tempting to ignore that judgment.
We could discuss the precise boundaries of any particular prohibition or requirement, and that discussion would have its place. But that’s not what I was attempting to do. I’m just trying to point out how people with different judgments about the same action must interact in order to avoid violating their own conscience or enticing someone else to violate his.
I think your schematic is correct and helpful. And I think we should be really careful about putting things firmly in bin 1 or 2 unless scripture is quite clear. I can believe an action belongs in bin 3 but would be very unwise (or wise) in my current circumstance without being bound or being tempted to bind others, but once I put it in category 1 or 2 I must obey James 4:17. So my earlier point is somewhat tangential, but I still want to make sure we have a proper view of item 1. There is a big… Read more »
mmm.
I’ll point out a footnote to your footnote, which is that “an authority” always has a limited sphere. So, if your manager at McDonald’s tells you to clean your room you should tell him to mind his own business.
This sort of reintroduces the individual judgment which you are downplaying. In this case, the judgment is whether whether the person commanding is acting within his authority.
And, I will hasten to add, not all such judgments are difficult.
“that “an authority” always has a limited sphere. So, if your manager at McDonald’s tells you to clean your room you should tell him to mind his own business.” Of course. But do I just get to make private judements about when that sphere boundary has been exceeded? Doesn’t that lead to each man doing what is right in their own eyes a la Judges? Indeed, in the McDonald’s case I can easily appeal to a higher authority to say they have overstepped what they can ask of me (we have laws about this), but if the city council votes… Read more »
I share your concern for the evils of anarchy and recognize that it is easy enough to invent arguments to flippantly disregard authority. There is no escaping the moral obligation to recognize what authorities God has placed over each one of us. The question of boundaries is intrinsic to the very concept of recognizing authority. It is not a separate question, it is the same question. It is self-evident that God will hold us responsible for who and what and how we obey. To pretend that we can lay aside that responsibility – and it would be pretending, regardless of… Read more »
I’m not sure I agree with you. Or at least I would have to qualify it considerably. We both agree, I assume, that God places authorities over us according to his good will. This is fathers (and mother), elders (or other sorts of overseers), and magistrates – to cover each sphere, which I DO believe are biblical categories, even of they aren’t tidy. We should not obey any of these authorities if they tell us to sin. I shouldn’t obey my parents if they want me to lie to the hospital so they can collect a disability check. I shouldn’t… Read more »
Actually, I think we disagree at an entirely different point. As I said, the question of the boundaries of each authority is not distinct from the question of authority itself. We all live our lives in multiple spheres. It’s much like having several part time jobs. It’s no good to say “a boss” told me do such and such without stopping to consider which job you are currently engaged in.
Nathan, I would like to explore where that point of disagreement is. Do you agree with my vegetarian and mask scenarios above? If not, why not? I don’t know if you will change my mind (you may! I change my mind all of the time – it’s a good habit to get into), but I would like to understand your position better, and I believe it may help me better understand the position of many of those around me who aren’t as articulate as you are. After all, contrary our host, I believe empathy is salutary.
I agree with your assessment of the vegetarian family. That is fairly obvious. It is not obvious whether a civil government can mandate masks and under what conditions. You seem stuck on the idea that it is “safe” to obey when someone, anyone gives an order. I have previously been of that opinion, but it just won’t hold up. Do you acknowledge any God-given limits on civil government? Can they mandate masks in the marital bedroom? Can they order you to fill out a form before you hug your children? Can they forbid you to teach your children to read?… Read more »
Nathan, I don’t believe I ever said “safe. Nor do I believe it, tyrants are a great danger to our bodies, and they can become great dangers to our souls as well (though not directly for they can kill the body, but not the soul). However, I maintain that it is no sin to live under tyrants, and all those who are in political authority are serving there at God’s good pleasure. Remember, Jesus said pilares authority of the sword over the Son of God himself was given by God and the wicked Caesars’ (completely constitutionally/legally illegitimate) power was from… Read more »
You are equivocating badly on the meaning of “authority.”
Explain. I don’t understand your objection.
In one place you use authority to mean binding, in another place it means not binding. If you take the time to carefully lay out your terms, you will find that all human authority is limited to a certain sphere.
I don’t think I am equivocation on that point. Or if I am it is simply sloppy writing due to pecking out comments on a phone. I want to say about authorities what scripture says. Scripture is really quite strong on this – obey earthly authorities for they are appointed by God Rom 13:1-2, 1 Pet 2:13, etc. Remember we are talking Pilate and Nero and Herod and Domition here. Really really terrible (and illegitimate) people. Likewise (but somewhat less strongly) Hebrews tells us to obey and submit to spiritual rulers, and children are told to honor and obey their… Read more »
Didn’t that in fact happen to the person from Pastor Wilson’s church? I read that the judge ordered he could only see his child with a chaperone.
Indeed, there are times when the state can require you to have a chaperone with your children or spouse, or even not be able to see your child or spouse all. These things can be just or unjust, but I don’t see how they can be outside of the governments sphere of authority. I’m not a big fan of some of our rules around CPS, but I think the state has a legitimate role in protecting children – even from their wicked parents.
While your scheme is true from a strict logical standpoint, it bears little relation to how we live out our faith. In fact it is almost Pharisaical in its focus on maintaining the right side of lines rather than working towards ever-greater depth of obedience.
Jesus doesn’t just lay down a set of rules and tell us which side of the line we need to be on. There are cases where Jesus asks his disciples (and us) to go further than fulfilling the mere letter of the law, or where he points out that something was “permissible”, but still wrong.
This is just obfuscation and is not worthy of a follower of Christ.
That’s so strange for you to say. The idea that Christian obedience is about continuously striving to grow closer to God, rather than simply declaring oneself on the correct side of a line, is foundational to many Christian churches and organizations.
Your schema attempted to just turn everything into lines and suggest that you were fine so long as you were on the right side of the line. That’s not how obedience to Christ is depicted in Scripture.
For any given action, when all is considered, it will fall into one of the three moral categories outlined.
There’s no such thing as “permitted, but wrong.”
Jill, wearing a mask in church in deference to the weaker brother would not be correct. We are to worship in the fullness of our bodies. If you have a health reason for wearing a mask. Fine. Otherwise leave it off during worship.
Wearing a mask while visiting that brother’s house is a different matter.
Fullness of our bodies except for head coverings, right? And modest clothing. And some Christians would say shoes are okay while others would disagree.
What about gloves though, where do those fit in? Glasses? Contacts? Makeup?
“And we all, with unveiled faces…”
That’s wildly out of context. Here is the actual quote, which is obviously regarding a metaphorical veil and doesn’t even address the act of worship, unless you believe that Paul is claiming the Jews cover their face during worship. Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this… Read more »
It was a joke, actually.
But if you seriously think wearing a mask is just like any other article of clothing…
you are out of touch with both reality and God.
Jonathan(TCO),
I think a mask is much like any other article of clothing (it is not nothing to be commanded to wear something you would rather not). Where you you point me to convince me otherwise?
I won’t and don’t need to. Only a fool would believe a mask is just like any other article of clothing. Such a statement needs no defense.
You claimed that believing a mask is like any other article of clothing makes you “out of touch with…God.” You should really base this on something other than your feelz. We aren’t postmodernists here, are we?
I see we’re back to somebody-nearly-got-kilt gifs… ;-)
Pastor Wilson, at what point is it wise to simply ignore irrational opponents rather than attempt to engage with them?
Please do not respond to Jonathan (not the conservative one). I believe in this case, answering the fool not according to his folly is the proper response. You can see by the way he cherry picks his scripture that he has an agenda he wants to push, and is not interested in a biblical worldview that takes all of scripture into account. He has shown that he is not worthy of your time to respond, as he twists and turns every response.
Sam, if you take “all of Scripture into account”, does that not mean taking into account the Scriptures I am discussing? As opposed to simply dismissing the words of Christ as meaningless in order to prioritize a few cherry-picked verses from the Old Testament?
Jonathan, in the past you cherry picked heroes of the faith that Hebrews 11 mentioned to bolster your argument and ignored the heroes that destroyed your argument. In the past, you argued for social justice using only certain passages from the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Yes. We must include the entire Bible and that rules out social justice as currently expressed in society not as you want to redefine the term. Remember Daniel. If you want to make America better, stop typing. Take off your mask. Go to worship with your fellow Christians in person, singing Psalms,… Read more »
Logic doesn’t work that way Dave. I pointed out that making a Biblical case from vague circumstantial reasoning is a faulty way of interpreting Scripture, and pointed out an example that proved it comes short. You don’t need to prove something fails every time to prove that it doesn’t work – one example where it clearly gives you the wrong answer is enough to prove it is the wrong method. If you claim “Hebrews 11 proves we must emulate Barak’s violence!” then you can’t turn around and claim that we shouldn’t emulate Samson’s violence.
Jonathan, read Sam’s answer from Deuteronomy 28. That gives quite a bit of insight into your questions on social justice. In today’s society, the vernacular definition of a word is the one used in the press and unfortunately in most discussions. You found ten different definitions of Social Justice; yet, there are lots more. The majority are from agencies that are wholeheartedly against the Bible and Christianity. You want to use the term social justice to describe Holy Justice as described in the Bible and the term doesn’t fit. Today, those who hate God will say that Jesus was for… Read more »
Dave, I already responded to Deuteronomy 28 in detail below. To quote: In reference to Deuteronomy 28, I hope we’re all blessed in all our work. But you didn’t even quote the commands of God, so how can you claim that should be the absolute guide to our behavior? Using circumstantial reasoning from the Old Testament in order to invalidate the commands of the New Testament is always a poor idea. [Jesus’s directives to his followers should guide the behavior of his followers – you can’t invalidate Jesus’ commands just by making assumptions from circumstances of the Israelites.]If you ever… Read more »
“But you didn’t even quote the commands of God, so how can you claim that should be the absolute guide to our behavior?” Jonathan, I’m sorry that you can’t read below the fold. “Samuel said, “Does the Lord have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than a sacrifice, And to pay attention is better than the fat of rams.”” 1 Samuel 15:22 “He has told you, mortal one, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love… Read more »
Those are wonderful verses Dave, I think of both often.
I guess I will just cherry pick Deuteronomy 28, although maybe I missed the part about God not wanted to bless his people who keep his law word. The verses you referenced tended to deal with heart issues where idols are being made of prosperity and riches. I wonder why my bible doesn’t say “and then give it all away because it is bad”…God created all things and said it was good. Our sinful hearts can make idols out of those good things, but that doesn’t make them bad. We should also love to give to others, out of love… Read more »
Let God be true and every man a liar…
Amen.
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. – Luke 6:24
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” – Matthew 19:21-24
Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. – Luke 12:33-34
Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? – James 2:6-7
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. – Acts 2:44-47
No one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. – Acts 4:33-35
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the… Read more »
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. – 1 Timothy 6:9-10
For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. – 2 Corinthians 8:13-15
Sam, you claim my verses were based on “heart issues”. But you did not get that from Scripture. If Jesus or the apostles wanted to contrast the wealthy with “heart issues” to the wealthy with “no heart issues”, they would have done so. Instead, they told the wealthy, full stop, to give up their wealth.
Can you imagine someone using your reasoning to justify sexual sin? “It’s okay so long as our hearts are in the right place.”
We allow excuses for hoarding wealth that we would never allow for straying sexually.
To put it more succinctly, Jesus doesn’t say “how hard it is for that particular rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”. He doesn’t claim that that rich man is as unlikely to go into heaven as a camel is to go through the eye of a needle.
He makes the statement about all rich men. Not qualifying it with “heart issues”, but rather implying that all who chose their wealth over helping others are suffering from heart issues.
In reference to Deuteronomy 28, I hope we’re all blessed in all our work. But you didn’t even quote the commands of God, so how can you claim that should be the absolute guide to our behavior? Using circumstantial reasoning from the Old Testament in order to invalidate the commands of the New Testament is always a poor idea. If you ever take the Perspectives missions course, they are very heavily focused on the message that we as followers of God are “Blessed to be a blessing”, taking that directly from God’s word to Abraham. Yes God will bless us.… Read more »
I can’t cut and paste the entire bible for you. If you don’t know that Deuteronomy 28 references the biblical law and that biblical law is our guide for pleasing and glorifying God, you need to read the OT. You must believe that God is neutral in how he hands out his blessings and cursings. Or you believe that blessings are actually cursings. But he is not mocked, as a man sows, so shall he reap. See a man diligent in his work, he will stand before kings. A man who doesn’t provide for his family is worse than an… Read more »
To break down just a few things: The rich are not condemned for being rich, but for-laying up treasure on earth and not heaven First off, you ignored that the Bible condemns even wanting to be rich or trying to get rich. And there are few people who get wealthy on accident. Second, there are places where the rich are condemned for being rich, without your qualifications (Luke 6, James 1). Third, the Bible specifically says that you can’t both lay up treasure on earth and on heaven – Matthew 6:19-24 says explicitly not to lay up treasure on Earth… Read more »
Jonathan, it is a shame that you believe there is a conflict between the OT and NT. God has not changed, nor can he change. You are creating straw men, whether by accusing me of saying that hoarding is good, or that we need to sacrifice animals, or that I believe OT law means we have to hoard wealth. First off, you ignored that the Bible condemns even wanting to be rich or trying to get rich. Wanting to be rich for the sake of being rich (for your personal kingdom), is sinful. Wanting to be rich so that you… Read more »
you believe there is a conflict between the OT and NT. God has not changed, nor can he change. You can’t ignore the plain words of the New Testament, then accuse me of ignoring the Old Testament. Especially when you pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament you yourself wish to ignore. The New Testament is the guide for Christian obedience. Anything we read in the Old Testament has to be evaluated through the revelation of Jesus. We are part of the New Covenant, not the Old. You still haven’t explained why in the case of sacrifice, cleanliness,… Read more »
I would like for you to answer the questions you keep skipping: What does it mean to be rich. Define rich for me please. Why were these men/women not condemned for being wealthy: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Lydia, Joseph of Arimethea, Roman Centurion, etc. Why are there so many blessings proclaimed for obedience to the law in the Bible, if those blessings are sinful? How can you build a multi million dollar hospital (that treats both rich and poor) with no capital. If you do need capital, how can you obtain that capital unless you get it from ‘sinners’… Read more »
What a fool I am. I forgot to include Job in the list. Immense wealth, and yet God said:
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
The book of Job is essentially an argument over whether or not Job lost his wealth and health because he was unrighteous…
Hint: He got it all back.
Jesus and his apostles speak out repeatedly against being rich, but they don’t define it (nor is it defined elsewhere in Scripture). That’s not unusual – there is no Biblical definition for how far is too far in premarital physical relations, gossip, racism, or violence – but that doesn’t mean those aren’t things to be avoided. The church is called to work out the meaning of obedience together, not just ignore it because they can’t agree on a definition. My definition for all of those things would be stricter than most, but there’s also the wisdom given by many a… Read more »
I completely agree. He’s proved himself a troll. He believes that since the rich are more easily tempted by their wealth, the wealth itself is evil.
In reality, Wilson’s right: Ol’ Jonathan is just envious because ain’t Bezos ;) but, as AOC’s multi-thousand dollar dress said, “Tax the Rich!”
That is false witness against me, and we have a Lord who does condemn such things.
No, it’s not false witness. It is declaring the obvious truth about your twisted worldview. You have made it obvious. Stop trying to pretend you aren’t an ardent left-winger.
That’s not even the same accusation.
And for the record I agree with the American right on some issues, and the American left on some issues, but more often disagree with both, which is why I’m an independent and haven’t supported either party in over a decade.
Jonathan, hope your glass house is double-paned, ’cause you’re throwing an awful lot of rocks.
The other drawback to living in a glass house is that we can see exactly what shade of green you’re sporting.
I agree that sometimes envy is at work with regard to the rich. But not always: Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. When the rich have obtained their wealth by sinful means, it is… Read more »
After reading through many of Jonathan’s posts/responses I think that may a really accurate analysis and good advice. Thank you for this breath of fresh air.
Hmmm.