You Say You Want a Revolution
I apologize that this comment is somewhat removed from the article to which it is attached, but I have been considering a related question since Cuomo signed this atrocity. You may recall that toward the end of Lewis’ Perelandra, Ransom comes to the revelation that his possessed enemy, Weston, is tireless, indefatigable, and will never stop tormenting the Lady until he achieves the corruption he desires, and so Ransom resolves that the only solution is to fight. In past conversations with friends I have commented, somewhat facetiously, that the moment the pro-abortion movement starts killing live-born children is the moment I take up arms. To my horror, that moment appears to be arriving much sooner than expected. In this context, what threshold and justification, if any, do we have as Christians for the use of force?
David
David, the theology of resistance that developed in the course of the Reformation had three stages. The first is prophetic denunciation. The second was flight—get away if you can. Go to America. The third was to take up arms in defensive warfare. If there is wisdom in this, as I think there is, then the line would be when they come for our children.
“And so we also pray fervently that You would judge and bring low any self-appointed ‘Ehud,’ the kind of person who is thoroughly convinced of his own righteousness, and who would rob You of Your glory in judgment.” Was Ehud in the wrong? Please explain.
Matt
Matt, no, Ehud was not in the wrong. But a self-appointed “Ehud” would be.
I’ve been reading your blog since 2008, and your books since a bit before that. I read you because you aren’t afraid to apply Scripture to all areas of life, and you aren’t going to turn hard words into limp noodles. That is a service to your church and the church as a whole. What is your take on revolution? I look at things like this (the NY law) and the further divide between “left” and “right” and I can’t help but think this will either make Orwell look like a walk in the park, or we are going to walk ourselves right into Civil War take 2. You call out the “Ehud” who might take vengeance on behalf of God, and you are right to do so. But I guess I just don’t understand if any revolution is ever acceptable? I’m not saying, nor do I believe in secret, that any aggression (other than prayers) should be taken towards these lawmakers, and I also think our American Revolution was just. While I know that to conflate these things would be a category error, I’m not sure why I know it or how I would argue it. Could you help me? Was our American Revolution just? Could a theoretical 2nd Revolution be just? Or is it the job of the Christian to suffer, even if it means watching his children taken from him and put in fostercare for the “sin” of teaching against whatever degeneracy is the weekly hot topic? I can understand if you would prefer to not address this. I’ve just struggled with it for a while, and I’m not sure how to proceed. Thank you for your time and your ministry.
Zack
Zack, yes, I believe that the American War for Independence was justified, and I believe that there are circumstances where another revolt would be justified. But I also think, remembering the nature of man, that a majority of the time, revolution would likely make things worse, not better. I have written a bit more on this here.
Our country’s leaders look more and more like members of N.I.C.E. from That Hideous Strength. Would that make Trump Mr. Bultitude?
Joshua
Joshua, there you go.
The Abolition of Man is one of my go to books as well. I commend to you Alan Jacobs’ recent book The Year of our Lord 1943, where he investigates the question why in the middle of WWII, Christian thinkers including Lewis were thinking and talking about education. One of the best things I read last year. Also this essay is helping me to think about how to help my students fight the demons of their diseased minds and understand the true nature of the addiction that is crippling so many of them.
Michelle
Michelle, thank you for the recommendations.
I have for years read about submission to ruling authorities as coming from Romans 13, but recently listening to CrossPolitic and reading some of your posts I see a different idea being espoused. Lesser Magistrates? Could you comment or point me toward some good resources? Also when are we going to get a book with all your essays about intersectionality, race, and feminism?
Jonathan
Jonathan, as far as a book on intersectionality is concerned, I have been thinking about it. On the lesser magistrates, start with Book IV of Calvin’s Institutes. Another great one is Vindiciae Contra Tyrannus, a theology of resistance from an early Huguenot.
That Prayer for Cuomo
Thank you for posting this prayer for the NY Governor. I am appalled by this and am seeing on the news that other democratic state legislatures, such as Virginia’s, are beginning to push for similar legislation. I am struggling not to focus my prayers on the second half of yours, but I know I don’t have a right to because I have not done anything myself towards the pro-life movement. So, my question to you is, what can and should we Christians do in the face of this horrific onslaught?
Jessica
Jessica, you don’t have to do everything. But you should be willing to do everything within reach.
A hearty Amen to what Kat said. I have had the same experience. It is very discouraging to me as well. Thank you for your reminder to pray. We can always do much more of that than we are, especially on the issue of deliverance from the scourge of abortion.
Kelty
Kelty, yes, and amen.
“A Prayer for Governor Andrew Cuomo” Long time (ok, not so long. . . about a year) reader, first time commenter. Thank you, Pastor Wilson, for posting your prayer for Governor Andrew Cuomo. I have much to learn about offering imprecatory prayers and incorporating them in my life as I pray for my state (California) and our nation. Thank you for your teaching on the subject (in past posts and sermons) and posting this as an example (but first and foremost as a prayer). As God raised up Pharaoh to bring him down, so He has raised up abortion to bring it down all for His glory! May the Lord Jesus continue to put all his enemies under his feet. Grace and peace.
Bryan
Bryan, thanks.
Regarding your prayer for Governor Cuomo: Thanks for writing this and modeling this type of prayer. Imprecatory prayer is tough. It’s hard—for me anyway—to know when it is appropriate and how to apply it. This is very balanced. You address the issue as a whole first, then our (the church’s) role in it. You ask for forgiveness and reconciliation with God, and then for judgement if forgiveness isn’t God’s will. And close by praying against an Ehud figure (although I really like the story of Ehud). This is good for me to read. I appreciate it.
Nathan
Nathan, yes. This is an area where we all need to grow.
Fact Checked
As an alumnus of Williams College, my fact-checker funny-bone (plus some idolatrous school pride) got to tingling when, in your piece, “Distance Learning Across the Centuries,” you attributed Mark Twain as having said that, “all that was necessary for education to occur was to have a log with a teacher sitting on one end and a student on the other.” (I understand that you were paraphrasing.)
I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the proper Mark is not Twain but Hopkins—the Reverend Mark Hopkins, president of Williams College from 1986 to 1872. A nearly identical phrase was coined by Ohio Congressman (later U.S. President) James A. Garfield about Hopkins at a banquet at Delmonico’s in New York City in December, 1871.
Samuel Clemens would have been 36 years old at the time, with only The Innocents Abroad, to his credit, still five years shy of Tom Sawyer, much less Huck Finn. I.e., he wasn’t exactly a household name. It’s possible he wrote something similar in his journalistic meanderings, and that Garfield picked it up from him. But I’m going with Hopkins. J He was a Christian apologist (e.g., see http://bit.ly/Hopkinslectures – a forgotten gem, IMHO!!), and thus makes for a better story vs. someone like Twain whose first literary impulse was a snarky send-up of Pilgrims’ Progress.
P.S., the Williams campus pub is called “The Log”
Art
Art, thanks for the correction. I am going to have to start saying, “As Mark Twain once said . . . or perhaps it was Winston Churchill, or maybe G.K. Chesterton . . .
Some Housekeeping
Please forgive my ignorance but can you please tell me how to access the articles that are referred to in your weekly Blog & Mablog? When I type something in the search box it won’t take me to any articles, e.g. “The Unbearable Whiteness of Intersectionality.”
Mark
Mark, which search bar? In the search bar on the right hand side of the blog, if I type in unbearable whiteness, the article comes right up.
Big Rock Candy Mountain
Well said. I’d like to give a nod to Harry McClintock for his marvelous contribution of Big Rock Candy Mountain to the great American songbook. And to you for a fine reference.
Ron
Ron, thanks. But remember there are no copyright laws on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
The Right to Bear Rockets
Immensely enjoyed your recent entry on rights, but your reference to buying an AR-15 piqued a theological question where I’d appreciate your insight: You mentioned rights such as rights, arms, and religion. Of course, most would agree none of these rights are absolute—in the sense freedom of speech doesn’t permit me to commit perjury or make false accusations; freedom of religion doesn’t permit me to kidnap women for human sacrifice, etc. Now since these rights come from God (as you noted), the “limitations” or boundaries of where those rights stop seem to me relatively straightforward—similarly derived from God’s law: we may not use our speech to bear false witness, our religion to commit murder, etc. But the particular boundary line does not seem as obvious or straightforward to me (from either Scripture or general revelation) when it comes to the specific boundary regarding what particular weapons I should or should not be allowed to purchase or own. It seems patently obvious that people should be permitted to buy a handgun for self-defense or a rifle for hunting. But it also seems obvious to me that individuals should not be permitted to purchase a medium range nuclear weapon at the local gun shop, even if they had the money for such. Would appreciate your thoughts: What particular biblical, theological, or moral considerations should help us determine particular boundary lines in this area—for instance when considering questions of private ownership of explosives, grenades, automatic weapons, high-capacity magazines, chemical/biological weapons, blowgun with poison darts, nuclear weapons, land mines, etc.?
Daniel
Daniel, of course a man should be able to own a shoulder-mounted surface to air rocket launcher. How else could he shoot down government drones?
Seriously, I believe this is an area that requires some serious theoretical work—and from people whose commitment to gun ownership is rock solid. I have no trouble with private ownership of automatic weapons, but to George Washington, such a gun would have seemed like something right out of the Apocalypse. So also we need to make mental adjustments, it seems to me, for our current limitations. But in my mind those adjustments should be necessarily looser than many assume they should be. It seems like crazy talk to let someone go down to the gun shop and buy a nuke, right? But is a day coming when a brilliant teenager could build a nuke in the garage? With 3-D printed parts? That makes me nervous, but it seems likely to me that the only thing that could prevent it is a totalitarian government, which makes me far more nervous.
Hebrews and Historicism
You mention, in your Hebrews’ commentary and sermon, that the church today is somewhere in Judges when it comes to its New Covenant version of the of the conquest of the land/world. I can see that being the case in Europe and the U.S., with our seeming backwards slide, but it seems to me that Asia and Africa would fit more into Joshua. Thoughts? Also, you mentioned that one day we’ll be in the monarchical books. But those books ended with failure, and, as you’ve noted, the church won’t fail like Israel did. Where, then, is the O.T. book that models/types the church’s victorious, though imperfect, conquest of the land as we with an optimistic eschatology expect to happen in history?
Bill
Bill, my view is that the Great Commission being fulfilled is pictured through Solomon’s reign. But this greater Solomon will not compromise, will not fail, and will remain faithful to His one and only bride.
The Problem With Mocking AOC
“What’s Wrong With Human Rights?” Thanks for this tutorial. It seems that the 30 and under crowd are in desperate need of Anti-Socialism 101. Along those lines . . . I’m beginning to see how the 60’s went down. The 40 and older club are scoffing at Alexandria Occasionally Correct by writing out her quotes and hooting and howling at the nonsensical nature of her speech. But if you actually listen to her, she is very winsome and charismatic and believable, as long as logic doesn’t enter in to your thought process. She is in lock step with what is currently being taught in high schools and universities across the US; so she is connecting with young people. The “older crowd” assumes that their “common sense” is common to their young adult children (which of course it isn’t) and that their values are absorbed by osmosis, oblivious to the totalitarian socialism their kids are ingesting. The more they scoff at AOC, the more they alienate their kids who like her, and show how little they know of how little their kids know—because chances are their kids think just like she does.
Ginny
Ginny, exactly. AOC needs to be answered, not mocked.
The Right to Slow Medical Care
My reaction to your column “What’s Wrong with Human Rights?” Spot on. I’m an American who’s been living in Germany for the last 6 years and who has taken the opportunity to travel through France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, the Ukraine, and Italy. I’ve seen firsthand what all this “free” stuff actually costs. Though Germany is not England, it is still quite difficult to see specialists here or to get what in the US would be a fairly “run of the mill” medical test. In January 2016 I was plagued with massive headaches. I spent 6 hours in an emergency room, only to be told that I needed to see a neurologist, and that the hospital didn’t have one on staff. By the time I saw one 4 weeks later, the headaches were gone. He had me get an MRI anyway. That didn’t occur until early May. That was the soonest they could get me in. But my German friends accept this, because they think it is better than the horror stories they read of people going thousands of dollars into debt because they do not have insurance. It’s insane. Thank you for being a sane voice in this dialogue. Incidentally, I live in Chemnitz, Germany, which was formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt (literally Karl Marx City). Still a big bronze bust of him here in front of the building that used to house the Stasi. Keep fighting the good fight
Jim
Jim, glad the headache is gone. And may we all learn how to be a headache.
Wolves & Rabbits: It should be noted that in some states the wolves have already enacted the right to free grass for the rabbits.
Malachi
Malachi, “free grass for the rabbits.” Now there’s a campaign slogan!
Repenting Effeminacy
I just got done reading Future Men and I want to tell you something: I used to consider myself gay. I lived that way through high school and college. I hid it well—I was outwardly masculine but inwardly very effeminate. The Spirit convicted me about 4 years ago and I began the arduous process of repentance and belief. During that process, I’ve been longing to understand what it means to be a man, because my dad never taught me (and my culture sure isn’t teaching me, either . . .) I’ve been extremely disappointed at what I’ve found. Most evangelicals have a flaccid understanding of masculinity—one that I can’t respect or benefit from. Evangelicals call me to be some kind of weak, androgynous, non-gendered “person”—but not a man. (Probably because they themselves don’t know what it means to be a man.) And any time I bring this up with my mentors, they repeat the same flaccid talking points I hear everywhere else. But when I read your stuff (The Grace of Shame, Future Men, or just your blog) I come away thinking, “Thank God! somebody out there is telling me what I need to hear.” You regularly confirm things I’ve intuitively come to believe the past 4 years but don’t hear anywhere else. I wish there were more men speaking about masculinity as you do. Or maybe they’re out there and I just don’t know where to find them. I know you wrote Future Men for fathers teaching sons. I’m not a father, so I have no sons . . . but I still benefited tremendously from it. Thank you.
Ryan
Ryan, thank you for addressing this in your life the way we all need to address sin our own lives, with repentance. God bless you in your continued walk. And, for the record, The Grace of Shame is by Tim Bayly. They have some good resources for guys in your situation (at Warhorn Media).
Another Reminder
“9 Pitfalls of Homeschooling” I am wondering if you are still planning on writing an article on the pitfalls of Christian schooling. This one was very helpful on the homeschooling side. Thanks.
Shamira
Shamira, yes, it is in the works.
Abortion as Murder
I have a question for you about the murder epidemic that we call abortion. Are we honest to call it murder, a holocaust which we believe surpasses that of even the actual Holocaust while only responding with protests and hope towards legislative change? A critique I have heard is that if we really believed it was murder then we would have a much harsher, targeted and efficacious response. As in D-Day, not simply blog entries, protests, and voting Republican. I am not looking to validate bombing clinics but are we speaking out of two sides of our mouth on this, are we merely virtue signaling? Are we in danger of being less of a Bonhoeffer and more of a Milquetoast?
Gabe
Gabe, yes, that is a very great danger—using high voltage rhetoric for fund-raising purposes, but with no intention of real follow through. But there is also a danger in failing to count the count the way the Lord required us to do, even in life and death situations (Luke 14:31-32). I have no doubt the apostle Paul knew that the Coliseum was a place for many legally sanctioned murders, but he responded with a long term gospel strategy, and not by circulating petitions in a godless society. That is because godless societies must be bloody ones.
Classical PG-13
We enrolled our 1st grade daughter in a classical school this year and we are really enjoying it. Recently I looked at the future curriculum and noticed in 7th grade they read ancient literature, one book is The Epic of Gilgamesh. I read this in a college literature class and couldn’t remember much about it. I recently started reading it and felt like the content about the harlot and Enkidu was not appropriate for 7th graders. What is your take on this? A young mother of 5,
Hannah
Hannah, I think it depends on the maturity level of the kids. I would recommend talking with the teacher beforehand to see how they handle it, and make special arrangements if you need to. But keep in mind that 7th graders should have read through the entire Old Testament, and that contains some gnarly bits as well.
Authority and Rewards
“You define masculinity as the glad-hearted acceptance of sacrificial responsibility. What do you think are the chief rewards for taking responsibility? Wil”
“Wil, the rest of that formula, as I teach it this. Authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority flees those who seek to evade it. So I believe that sacrificial responsibility, true masculinity, is the foundation of biblical authority.”
I’m guessing you accidentally deleted or neglected to add an answer to Wil’s question. What are the rewards, specifically?
Garnet
Garnet, you are right. I did miss that part of his question, probably because the answer was implicit and assumed in what I said. I believe the principal consequence (“reward”) of having authority flow to you is the “reward” of being respected. As love is food for a woman’s soul, so respect is food for a man’s soul.
Mark (and all): You have to use the search box on the home page. For some reason it’s broken on every other page. I suspect this is an intentional programming feature to help us all learn patience. ????
It’s a feature, not a bug. :) As a software developer, I have my doubts.
Doug Wilson wrote: ‘Garnet, you are right. I did miss that part of his question, probably because the answer was implicit and assumed in what I said. I believe the principal consequence (“reward”) of having authority flow to you is the “reward” of being respected. As love is food for a woman’s soul, so respect is food for a man’s soul.’ I am flabbergasted. How could Wilson miss “that part of his question” in a two-sentence letter where the first sentence is a statement and the second sentence is a clearly-stated question? And how can Wilson claim that “the answer… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: Each of these positions manifestly has associated authority given by God, not earned by action. Obviously God has established and delegated certain authorities by His Word, and the responsibility that goes with this authority is a given, no matter how poorly executed by those in position. Not accepting or taking responsibility is not the same as not having the responsibility. God will hold each authority responsible. However, when Wilson says that “sacrificial responsibility, true masculinity, is the foundation of biblical authority”, I believe he is speaking in much broader categories, which would even include God’s masculine authority. Wilson… Read more »
Katecho and bethyada, It is disappointing to see the prevailing presumption that believing authority means control, command, or direction necessarily entails that the one who believes this also believes in lording it over others rather than exercising such authority in a loving fashion when necessary. You two seem to consider that there is a difference between authority as taught in the Bible and authority as it is defined in a standard dictionary. What is that difference? Would you accept the following as a definition for authority as taught in the Bible? “The God-assigned right to control, command, or direct others… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: You two seem to consider that there is a difference between authority as taught in the Bible and authority as it is defined in a standard dictionary. What is that difference? My point is not disagreement with the dictionary meaning of the term authority. But when Wilson is talking about “biblical authority” his added adjective signals that he is talking about more than just holding a title. OKRickety wrote: In my mind, that is essentially the standard dictionary definition with the added provision that it meets God’s standard of righteous behavior. Exactly. And what is essential within God’s… Read more »
Katecho, It would be ever so helpful if you would simply provide a short definition of “biblical authority” so I can understand the difference you perceive between it and the dictionary definition of authority. [By the way, the usual meaning of “biblical authority” is an explanation of why one should accept the Bible as authoritative. A strange choice for an educated man like Wilson.] It appears to me that I (and Oscar) have clearly accepted that God’s ideal for authority is not self-serving. For one who has complained about “putting words into Wilson’s keyboard”, you seem quite willing to be… Read more »
OKR, can I supplement katecho’s comments by focusing on the different responsibilities of the leader and the follower. Leadership is largely a result of position as you say. And for those under authority there is a general expectation to obey one’s superiors. And we obey our superiors in part as an obedience to God. The centurion in the gospels is a good example of this principle. But there are also commands given to leaders, and it is these to which Doug’s comments are especially pertinent. If we are leaders then we are to lead God’s way, and God holds us… Read more »
bethyada, “Leadership is largely a result of position as you say.” That’s false. Authority and responsibility are a result of position. Leadership can be completely divorced from all of that. We’ve all seen (or even been a part of) organizations where one person held the position of authority and responsibility, and a different person was the actual leader. For example, there is an abundance of families where the wife leads, and the husband obeys. Husbands even call their wives “the boss”, or “she who must be obeyed”. At least they’re honest. Pastor Doug is wrong when he states that “authority… Read more »
I use the term “leader” to mean he who is in a position of authority. You can read my comment in that light if you wish.
I am aware there is a difference between who is officially the boss and those who actually call the shots in many situations.
Oscar wrote: But, few here even want to accept the definition of the word “authority”, which is “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” It’s not surprising that there is so much confusion about authority’s source, since few here will even accept its definition. I think the disconnect here is that Wilson is talking about “biblical authority”, and Oscar is talking about dictionary authority. To sit in a position of authority tells us nothing about whether one has any remaining power of influence, or any capital in the bank, in terms of handing out orders.… Read more »
Katecho, “It (authority) may flow down from above (as in Matthew 25:23, which Oscar quoted), or it may flow from below, by an election to a higher office, or it may flow sideways from peers (Acts 6:3). Obviously, all authority is ultimately derivative from God’s authority, but even derivative authority is not static. It flows in multiple directions, and God has made the world in such a way that authority Providentially flows to those who take up responsibility.” No. Authority only comes from above, that is, a higher authority. In the case of “Election to a higher office”, for example,… Read more »
OKR, I agree with your main point here. The person in authority is in authority whether they act appropriately or not. Those under authority are not to continually reassess how they feel about the boss; they are supposed to obey. The danger of speaking of fluid authority, in an egalitarian culture like ours, is that people are likely to assume that authority flows by egalitarian means. That is, by continuous decisions to obey or not. In truth, God decides where he places authority, and it will often not harmonize with our egalitarian instincts. But we can’t say that authority has… Read more »
Nathan James, “But we can’t say that authority has no relationship to demonstrated heart. Remember that Phi 2:9 tells us that God exalted Christ above everyone else because of his humble, servant-like obedience and because he cared as much for others as for himself.” This returns us to the question of the basis of authority. God is the source of all authority, and can give or rescind all authority as He sees fit. In this case, it appears that God chose to give Christ greater authority. Although I’m not sure this is possible in my understanding of the Trinity, let’s… Read more »
I don’t mean to argue for arbitrariness at all. Nor for authority changing by grassroots means. Rather I want to point out that God is showing us the purpose of authority in the person of Christ, and that God intends ultimately that authority should rest with men (but especially the man, Christ) of character. The character mentioned in Philippians is selflessness, humility and obedience. God’s design for authority to be paired with this kind of character is part of the nature of the universe. Although sin currently militates against the it, the wise person will be able to see the… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: No. Authority only comes from above, that is, a higher authority. In the case of “Election to a higher office”, for example, elder, the authority still comes from God as He created the position, not those who elected him. In the example of the selection of deacons in Acts 6:3, it is clear that the elders gave the authority, not the selectors. We may simply have to disagree. I don’t think OKRickety has made his case. It’s fairly clear to me that authority can, and does, flow down from authorities above, sideways from peers, or upward from below.… Read more »
Katecho, It seems you define “flow of authority” to be something different from what I consider it to be. I consider the “flow of authority” to essentially reflect the hierarchy of authority. For example, God is the top authority. He gives (and removes) authority to others as He sees fit, for example, church elders. This flow would continue down to deacons. I consider this to be a flow of authority, from the maximum level (God) to a lower level (church elders). What do you mean by “flow of authority”? “I don’t disagree that respect and loyalty flows too, depending on… Read more »
Katecho: “I think the disconnect here is that Wilson is talking about ‘biblical authority’, and Oscar is talking about dictionary authority.” You’re trying to create a distinction where there is none. We’re both writing in English. And the Bibles we read are translated into English. The English word “authority” means what it means, and it doesn’t mean what it doesn’t mean. You dislike its meaning. Fine. Use a different word that means what you want it to mean. But don’t obfuscate by pretending that “authority” means something it doesn’t. Because the meaning of authority is: the power or right to… Read more »
Since you don’t like the meaning of the English word “authority”, let’s look at the meaning of the word ἐξουσία
ἐξουσία: eksousía (from 1537 /ek, “out from,” which intensifies 1510 /eimí, “to be, being as a right or privilege”) – authority, conferred power; delegated empowerment (“authorization”), operating in a designated jurisdiction.
See that? Authority. Conferred power. Delegated empowerment.
Delegated by whom? Obviously, by one in authority over the delegate.
Oscar,
It appears someone doesn’t like our comments and is downvoting them (I upvoted a couple of yours to zero it out). I take it as a badge of honor.
I don’t understand the resistance to what seems clear to me in the Bible. I wonder if the influence of the world has infiltrated the church to the point of misunderstanding.
I see the church discipline taught in Matthew 18:15-17 as one means of enforcement of authority. Does your church practice this? Do you know of churches that do?
Mr. Bultitude is either Trump or Owen Benjamin…
‘…then the line would be when they come for our children.’
We’ve, for the most part, have willingly surrendered our children by means of state education.
For Ryan: on the subject of masculinity, in addition to the writing of the proprietor of this fine establishment, I’ve also been enjoying the work of Aaron Renn at the Masculinist – https://www.aaronrenn.com/masculinist/ – and the Twitter account of Michael Foster – https://twitter.com/thisisfoster. I had a father who modeled masculinity, and effeminacy has never been my particular besetting sin, but as my sons grow into their manhood I’m finding it necessary to intellectually equip myself on this topic. I don’t know if it’ll be enough for my sons to know in their bones from their grandfathers and father and uncles… Read more »
Regarding the discussion of positive (“kamala”) vs negative human rights, it all sounds very tidy, but I don’t see any mention or accommodation of the positive rights in the original Bill of Rights. In particular, per the Sixth Amendment, the government is obligated to spend as much money as necessary to gather fair juries, to assemble favorable evidence for the accused, to collect all relevant witnesses together under compulsion if necessary, to provide a lawyer if a defendant can’t afford one, and per the Eighth Amendment, to provide suitable housing and food in prison. None of that can be accomplished… Read more »
Nathan, I suspect that the problem here is because there are two issues. Negative rights which come from God, and the positive duty of government to uphold justice. The former demands minimal contributions from the citizenry and the latter may require taxes. Now it seems that the performance of justice will have some costs, though maintaining the rights of the accused could be less costly. A jury of peers is not a necessity, nor is a providing a man with an attorney if he cannot afford one. Though a state may opt for some of these options to prevent abuse… Read more »
I’d generally agree. My main point was that it’s a lot more complicated than the trivialized “does this cost tax money” rubric Pastor Wilson appeared to be arguing for (not for the first time, and he’s certainly not the only one). And if the solution is “there are actually three types of rights” (the third category being rights granted by the government to better guarantee its own performance of its Romans 13 etc duties), well, it would be nice to have that mentioned explicitly somewhere.
I think, properly speaking, Trumpy Bear would have to be Mr. Bultitude.
Doug, Regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I’m pleading with you to stop framing her rise and appeal as being primarily about socialism. This has little to do with economics. It’s about racial identity politics. Here are some examples: “It’s a really big step from where we were, but you’re right, it’s nowhere near enough. And the solutions are so painful, frankly. I find it — I find the solutions for white communities to be very painful, because it’s very painful for a community to understand and have, go through this, like you can be, the idea that you can be poor and… Read more »
Armin, I continue to be intrigued by your thinking, but part of the problem is that I am fuzzy on what you are advocating for. For instance, you say: “If we believe that racial identity politics is bad, and that our nation cannot continue to exist in anything like its current form if identity politics is the norm, then at the very least, in order to combat it, we have to name it when we see it. Am I wrong?” But do you believe that racial identity politics is bad? I was under the impression that you saw identity politics… Read more »
BJ, To be fair to Armin, he did say: “Regarding your question about how to identify whites, I would say that the white race consists broadly of those of European descent” He also maintains that semitic is not white (still not sure what it is). I’m curious as to why he take this definition which is intermediate between Ben Franklin (white is anglo-saxons and german-saxons) and the US government in 1790 (white is people with light skin – Ashkenazi Jews and light colored hispanics are white), or why he puts so much weight on it. But maybe we will find… Read more »
In 1925 it was ruled in United States v. Cartozian that Armenians are white. The Kardashian family lived across the street from my in-laws’ house when the girls were darling and little, and I would see them playing on the sidewalk. They looked pretty white to me! Lebanese and Syrians gained white status at the US court of appeals in the early twentieth century on the grounds that they, like the Jews, were a semitic people who had intermarried with Europeans. Canary Islanders are white because they are descended from Berbers and Portuguese. But I don’t know anything about Laplanders!… Read more »
Demo, I missed that. My work schedule doesn’t allow me to read and post as consistently as I used to, and I simply missed it. Apologies Armin. I find your discussion on this to be more evidence for finding our identity in something outside of skin color. We are really so mixed genetically that finding a “pure” breed of anything is really nonsensical. And for those of us who see our genetic lineage reaching back to a real Adam and Eve, the idea that makes even less sense. I am not suggesting family is not important, and have a kinship… Read more »
BJ, You say: “We are really so mixed genetically that finding a ‘pure’ breed of anything is really nonsensical.” So is “race” just a social construct then? Would you tell a black person that they can’t identify as “black” because, after all, we’re all descended from Adam and Eve? Is the medical industry wrong to take into consideration a patient’s race when determining their risk factors for various ailments? Also, please see the chart contained within this article, which demonstrates very clearly that there are distinct races that are very distant genetically from one another. https://www.amren.com/news/2016/08/the-biological-reality-of-race-2/ “But to define that… Read more »
Armin, “So is “race” just a social construct then?” One doesn’t have to adopt leftist concepts to observe that genetics are pretty fairly mixed. The word race simply means extended family, and logically a certain degree of shared genetic traits, and once you get beyond a certain point, it begins to be a fruitless endeavors. We are all descendants of our first parents, and we share common genetics with every human. The medical issue does not prove your point. When a group of family members has a high degree of shared DNA, they, obviously, share a higher likelihood of similar… Read more »
Armin, You really need to find some better sources. That American Rennaissance article was written in 1999 before the Human Genome Project rough draft was even in. It’s like arguing against epicycles while only quoting Tycho Brahe. Further the piece is completely unreferenced. The only reference given is attempting to attach Australian Aborigies to Black Africans when, compared with sub-saharan African groups, Melanesians and Australian Aboriginies have the highest pairwise Fst values of any groups. I dont think Fst is a good measure for these sorts of long distance relationships, but the use of a 1959 book excerpt in an… Read more »
Would you tell a person with African ancestors they should identify as black if twenty percent of their ancestry is European? Or half? Or eighty percent?
BJ wrote: But do you believe that racial identity politics is bad? I was under the impression that you saw identity politics as simply the rules of the game today, and if so, whites, however one may define that, must seek to better their own community within those rules. Am I wrong? I tend to believe that to be the case, for the record, I just simply advocate for basing our identity in religion and not skin color. I believe that our nation-state’s best interest is served through a Christian Nationalism. Well said. I don’t see that Armin is against… Read more »
Katecho, “The problem is that we usually place the wrong identity as primary.” I don’t disagree with this, at all, but I think it is more complicated than that. Too many churches today are using our identity in Christ and our brotherhood across all of those identities to pander to leftists and undermine our nation-state. They could then say, “I am placing my identity in Christ as the primary.” Christ is our primary identity, full stop. If someone has placed their faith in Christ and has been baptized into His death, burial, and resurrection, I have a loyalty to him… Read more »
BJ wrote: Churches who use our identity in Christ as an excuse to advocate for and help our brothers in the faith from Mexico or Central America break our laws and use our welfare are sinning. It is not a proper use of our identity. Would you agree with this assessment? Good question, and good distinction to raise. As I mentioned, “the other problem” with identity politics is the temptation toward partiality. Partiality can work both ways. For example, we can be partial toward the poor, which God describes as unjust, or we can be partial toward “brothers in Christ”… Read more »
You have given me much to think about here. Let me chew on it a while and we can take this back up in due time.
I am confident this topic is far from over!
Blessings
BJ, I actually do think identity politics is fine, and certainly necessary for whites in the modern West, but I was trying to argue a point from his premises. I should have made that clearer. What I don’t want is to see Doug and people like him refuting Ocasio-Cortez by saying she’s not that bright, that socialism is dumb and evil, etc. That would be to miss the point, because it’s acting as if we’re primarily in a battle of ideas. I don’t think Ocasio-Cortez is a true, dyed in the wool socialist any more than I think Thabiti Anyabwile… Read more »
Armin, “I actually do think identity politics is fine.” So, to be clear, you are okay with AOC using identity politics to oppose white people? You don’t see that as morally problematic? I see the AOC situation differently. I may be wrong, because I don’t know her or know enough about her to give a strong opinion. What I see is someone who is playing the popularity contest that is our current political situation to her own gain. I don’t know if she hates white people. I don’t know if she is a true socialist at heart. I do think… Read more »
Armin,
I have always thought “cultural marxist” meant the same thing as social justice warrior – what Spandrell rebranded as bioleninism (very poorly named, but oh well). What differentiates “cultural marxist” from “engages in racial identity politics” except, I guess, the explicitness.
Regarding “The Right to Bear Rockets”, there is precedent in law. In the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) there is specific language authorizing a grant of “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”. These are issued to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliation and redress against other nations or entities. A “privateer” is private person (or corporation) that engages in warfare under the aforementioned warrant. (Sometimes “privateer” refers to the ship used, synecdochically representing the person(s) operating it.) The fact that the U.S. Constitution can issue a warrant… Read more »
Of course what needs must be granted can also be denied. Now, everyone who wants to hitch Clause 11 to the 2nd Amendment, raise your hand.
John, I think that the fact that the authorship of Clause 11 occurred during the same (relative) time and process as the 2A, that they did not think it needed hitching, but instead already saw them as lawfully wedded. IOW, the right (2A) exists (a priori), and so of course “entrepreneurs and their rightfully owned equipment may be granted warrants to perpetrate warfare on our behalf”. A number of documents attest to the similar thought (during the time period in question) of requiring citizens to arrive with their personally owned small arms when called up to duty, and in more… Read more »
And in concurrence with Katecho regarding the premise of magisterial authority adding legitimacy and proper “regulation” (being “well-regulated” in the 2A sense as performed by Baron von Steuben), I think that it is a reasonable argument that Clause 11 provides one example of the proper exercise of authority, in the context of use of personal weaponry.
Did using the weapons of an armed ship required magisterial authorization, and if so, what would have been the point of possessing them otherwise? Apart from operating under a Letter of Marque of what use would the owners make of the ships weaponry? A merchant ship might be armed against pirates, perhaps. I can also foresee the privateer *being* a pirate, without a government warrant. I’m not sure how Clause 11 might be used in the present day. I’d be curious to know what weaponry, beyond small arms, government contractors maintain? I would imagine without the prospect of a government… Read more »
The difference is that the arms of a merchant ship were defensive. but a letter of marque enabled a privately owned ship to seek out and attempt to capture or destroy enemy vessels, whether naval or merchant. So merchant ship guns were like a guy with a gun in his house; letters of marque were like private contractors authorized to use force.
Jane,
Correct to both elements; the fundamental point is that they both were understood to have the liberty to possess armaments as they saw fit. This was either as an individual privateer, whose equipment and skill in the utilization thereof was available for the aforementioned marque or reprise, or the merchant who desired self-protection and determined the arms and equipment based upon the threat matrix.
Either of these models presuppose the pre-existing ownership of the equipment and skill-at-arms needed to effectively employ them.
John, Please also see my reply to Jane. N To your first question, no magisterial authority was needed for any defensive weaponry. As I mentioned to Jane, the pre-existing ownership of the equipment and skill-at-arms needed to effectively employ them is a fundamental requirement in both defensive and offensive use. In the marque/reprisal schema this is different than “standing up an army”. This is contracting with a person or corporation that already possess all of the needed attributes, which presupposes the ownership thereof. And, for the sake of the discussion, this is a constitutional presupposition, and as such (based upon… Read more »
Perhaps “personal arms” is a better description of what I meant, but I’m not sure that is any ordinary definition of light weapons. In any case PMC, which sounds a lot like mercenaries, like any non-governmental entity need government approval to possess sub-machine guns; assault rifles; and light machine guns; crew-served heavy machine guns; hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns; portable anti-tank guns; recoil-less rifles; portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems; portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems; and mortars of calibres less than 100 mm. Suppose my home and/or business was being attacked by a… Read more »
John, I was not eliminating “government approval” from the paradigm of ownership. I am not “anti-government”. I think that it is an appropriate function for government to authorize or limit based upon an objectively reasonable examination of past behavior. Is the potential owner a convicted felon (based upon the type of deed that Henry Black would recognize as a felony)? I have no problems limiting weapon access to such. For, again based upon past practice, a law abiding citizen (in Mr. Black’s sense), then the most liberty advanced and generously. Regarding privateers or mercenaries, the same would apply. Vet the… Read more »
This is not being realistic. Even the US Army would (and does) back off when faced with superior firepower. So, yes, an armed crowd that will not retreat in the face of a few rifles may very well high tail it when the rockets starting going off.
Sure, I’d rather be better armed than the bad guys, but then, like I said, anything you can have the mob may well have too, which offsets your superior firepower…or worse.
Wilson wrote: Seriously, I believe this is an area that requires some serious theoretical work—and from people whose commitment to gun ownership is rock solid. … It seems like crazy talk to let someone go down to the gun shop and buy a nuke, right? I think Christians really need to be talking about this subject of escalating conflict. We need to have our corner stakes firmly planted. Christians have a strong sense of justice and that can make us ripe for being manipulated into anger and frustration and violence. When it comes to armed conflict, I believe that representation,… Read more »
katecho, You make an important point here, one I think you have made before. “We need representatives and offices of leadership.”, and absent those armed action, beyond immediate defense against violent aggressors, can never be a legitimate option. While I concur, I might even go beyond what I understand you to being saying, but correct me if I am not doing that. A militia, under the Constitution, and historically, is not collection of armed individuals. A militia is not organized ad hoc. A militia is not a private organization. It’s purpose is not to defend a private sphere of authority,… Read more »
I wasn’t very clear, but was intending to use the term militia in its most basic sense, namely, an irregular military, an “on call” fighting force of civilian or non-professional soldiers. I’m not necessarily advocating for militias, but I think the concept may be worth considering when discussing the question of access to weapons with capabilities somewhere between a semi-automatic rifle and a nuclear device. JohnM wrote: As specifically provided for in the Constitution, authority over the Militia is shared between Congress and the States. Organizing and calling forth *the Militia* is not a right of the people. Forming *a*… Read more »
For what it’s worth, current laws on weapon ownership are not compatible with the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Anyone who wants a militia capable of presenting a serious challenge to tyranny in today’s world would have to permit ownership of rockets (like stinger missiles) and machine guns, at a minimum. A rifle, even the assaultiest of assault rifles, is too insignificant a portion of a real modern army to make much difference. Rifles do not provide even minimal defense against armored vehicles and helicopter gunships.
Katecho, As has been mentioned before, Paul commanded believers to submit to governing authorities: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. … 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.” (Romans 13:1,2,5) I don’t think the church should get involved… Read more »
But what is proper for the church to do, and what is proper for individual citizens who are members of the church to do, are separate questions.
My Portion Forever wrote: I don’t think the church should get involved as a state authority, even in turbulent times. I agree that turbulence or instability in government is not an opportunity for the Church to interject itself in State matters. However, I’m referring to clear violations of authority by the State, such as if the State required Christians to kill their firstborn, or worship a false god. Of course we are called to submit to God’s established authorities, but none of these subordinate authorities is absolute. We must obey God before man. In a sinful world, this is where… Read more »
“I’m suggesting that the Church may have a role to play in representing the people in identifying violations of State authority that call for us to disobey, or even violently resist…I’m not saying there should be perfect symmetry, but it seems to me that the Church, with its prophetic voice, should have a role of representation in guiding and instructing the people on the criterion and timing for resisting State tyranny.” Strongly concur. There must be, as often as possible, more than just my mirror for support, substantiation, and corroboration. As our host has said in other words, those who… Read more »
Katecho and bethyada,
I would very much like to see your answer(s) to my question about the definition of authority.
Your definition is inaccurate when it specifies “… for the benefit of those led.” A proper exercise of authority is not always for the benefit of the people under authority. An easy example is military authority. When the general says “attack at dawn” it isn’t for the soldiers benefit. They are being employed toward another cause.
Nathan,
If that clause was removed, would you consider that to be a good definition of authority as God intends?
While the soldiers in your example may even sacrifice their lives for their superior, their behavior may still be to their indirect benefit in that it may provide direct benefit to their wives, families, and countrymen.
You know what? No. It’s a bad definition of authority. A good definition of authority would be one that leaves room for the misuse of authority. Much like the dictionary definition. The proper use of authority should be described and explained, rather than defined. For understanding sake, start with the definition itself, then outside of the definition, explain the proper use. If you start trying to add all the extra bits into a definition, the question is where do you draw the line? Does the proper use of authority really require revelation? I’d argue no, but I’d more strongly argue… Read more »
Nathan, “The definition should also be written broadly enough to include God’s own authority. This is broad indeed, but necessary, because God’s authority is not a different thing, it’s authority.” It seems that you disagree with those (Katecho and, I believe, Wilson) who want to distinguish so-called “biblical authority” from the dictionary definition of authority. I am basically in agreement with you, considering authority and how one uses authority to be separate, yet, of course, related topics. I think this is somewhat similar to marriage and God’s ideal for marriage. Even when the marriage is not according to God’s ideal,… Read more »
“The more they scoff at AOC, the more they alienate their kids who like her, and show how little they know of how little their kids know—because chances are their kids think just like she does.” Ginny “Ginny, exactly. AOC needs to be answered, not mocked.” Wilson Prior to “The Green New deal”, I was a bit worried about Bovine Flatulence, but now I am relieved to hear that AOC is sniffing out that problem! ; – ) Beyond that, AOC’s participation in both the hospitality industry and the political industry, is trophy worthy! AOC’s success in politics will further… Read more »