I really appreciate John Reasnor’s demeanor and reasonability as he seeks to take me to task over my pro-life incrementalism. There are some back-benchers in his corner who are pretty surly (but enough about Boljidar), but I think Reasnor is going out of his way to have an actual discussion, and I do appreciate it.
Reasnor says that he will let Joel McDurmon handle my questions about the seventh commandment, but the questions still remain for all that. I am concerned that if they are not careful, American Vision is going to fall between two stools. There really does appear to be something like theonomic mission drift going on, and it seems to me to be entirely possible to alienate your natural constituency without winning over any new constituencies. I am making no accusations, but I would urge caution.
Reasnor said this:
“We have to understand the difference between a just King going from town to town (thus not overnight) destroying idols, and a compromised King going town to town only tearing down a fraction of the idols he comes across.”
Which makes me wonder why Reasnor didn’t respond to my citation of Asa. He was a compromised king, perfect in all his days.
“But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days” (2 Chron. 15:17).
I grant that Asa had problems—the text says that he did. But I am submitting that in this gnarly world, it should be possible for an uncompromised prophet to work with (and to praise) a compromised king. The text also says that he was perfect all his days—high praise for a man who stopped short.
Let me see if I can highlight the issue, and so here is a thought experiment. Suppose I run for governor, and I do so as an outspoken abolitionist. I agree with everything Reasnor has argued, and I argue that way myself. I get elected by some fluke, probably having to do with my plan for the tax rates, but I get elected in some red state like Idaho. That would mean that my legislature is full of standard-issue pro-lifers, of the very kind that Reasnor objects to. That means that for the first time the governor is to the right of the legislature on abortion. Still with me?
Let me say further that in my state, for the last 20 years, there are one thousand legal abortions a year, and that 900 of them happen prior to 20-weeks. The legislature passes and places on my desk a “pain-capable” bill, banning abortions after 20 weeks. If I sign it, then 100 unborn lives a year will be saved. If I refuse to go along with such compromised triage, refusing to save 100 because they wouldn’t let me save all 1,000, what have I done?
I have refused to establish a beachhead at Normandy, that’s what. And this would be culpable even if I succeeded in coming to an agreement with Reasnor that my legislature was full of pro-life temporizers. I could agree with that, but I would still sign the bill–and I would do it with a song in my heart. Of course I would issue a signing statement along with it, saying that this bill was merely a start in the right direction, and that when it comes to the dignity of all human life, it was entirely inadequate. We can do better, etc.
Boil this all down. If Reasnor were in that position as a governor, would he sign the bill or would he refuse? If he would sign it, then I have no fundamental differences with him, and we should debate and discuss the terminology we are using. If he wouldn’t sign, then I would want to move the debate over to the proposition that perfectionism paralyzes.
We’ll write you in.
And in other news, the undocumented teenager known as Jane Doe has succeeded in getting her abortion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/undocumented-immigrant-teen-has-abortion-ending-weeks-long-court-battle/2017/10/25/9805249a-b90b-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.d1c1f2ac85fd
Sure you mean illegal resident teenager. She’s extremely well documented. Those documents just don’t confer upon her the privileges and responsibilities of being a part of American society.
I’ve given up on American Vision, after following them for 30 years. They have abandoned Theonomy and have embraced Libertarianism, which is no Christian doctrine. God is not a libertarian God. It’s truly sad that they used to be one of the bastions, and now they’ve been decimated with cultural compromise.
Exactly. And American Vision seems to have on some level drifted to a more libertarian mindset of law while attempting to still use theonomic rhetoric, while the crux of their argument is more on the libertarianism, not the theonomy.
But, Justin, would you be a bit keener on separation of church and state if church was taken to mean the Roman Catholic church?
The USA wasn’t actually secularist when founded. It was non-sectarian. I wouldn’t want to see the government establish and support any church, not the RCC, nor my own. I do want to see laws informed by godly principles. The great thing about those principles is that they are not esoteric. They are reasonable and the most basic elements are known to all.
I’d say that the institutions of a society will corrupt very quickly without genuine Christian faith, whether those institutions are overtly, systemically Judeo-Christian or not. And, if the electorate doesn’t have a living Christian faith, how could sin-nature fail to use state-sponsorship to corrupt the church?
Well I assume we agree that inevitably, being made by humans, all governments are corruptible. If the goal were an everlasting kingdom of man, you’re right my idea is quite useless indeed. I’m not suggesting that though. I’m suggesting that, given the world will inevitably turn itself against those loyal to God over time, we want to give ourselves as many tools as possible to use. Specifically barring Christianity from government and merely allowing it to inspire government takes away a tool, in exchange for nothing.
I don’t believe that government establishment or support of church(es) are biblically sanctioned tools.
“The U.S., having only Christian influence and not Christianity itself, is probably less than a century from overt persecution of believers. Then where do we go?”
To Heaven, where we have our citizenship.
By ” having…..Christianity itself” you would mean? Christianity is a system of government?
I completely agree with Justin.
To heaven?
Justin, so you would compel Jews and Catholics to pay taxes to support your church? And if your church were established, would you support preferential government hiring practices for its adherents? Would you want a system in which you must be Reformed to get a job at the post office?
lol. While I appreciate the good natured ribbing, I don’t think it’s comparable. Protestants didn’t demand that the state become secularist, they demanded to be allowed to leave it. So terrified were they of not being allowed to be left alone based on their experience with Catholicism and eventually the Church of Britain, that they accidentally made a secularist society. So in a way, this is all STILL the fault of the Catholic church not listening to Protestants hundreds of years ago. ;)
This has been my observation of American Vision. I don’t know the people at American Vision, so I don’t know there hearts to condemn them or cast judgment, but it has for a time appeared to me that they have mistakenly drawn a false dichotomy between libertarianism and theonomy. God’s Law does build a radically liberal society, in the classic sense of the word, with a minimal size of civil government. However, libertarianism is the worship of liberty, where liberty is an idol. I agree with Doug when he called it “theonomic mission drift.”
Hmmm… I’d hate to pass a bad law, when there’s a good one in place.
On the other hand, suppose you had two laws:
#1. Abortion is illegal. <– overruled by Roe v Wade
#2. Abortion after 20 weeks is illegal. <— theoretically allowed to stand by the courts.
If RvW is overturned, all you have left is a redundant law #2.
Problem is, your premise #1 is not true. Abortion isn’t (was not) illegal prior to Roe v Wade. It was regulated by the states.
Looks like no one understood was I was trying to suggest.
“perfectionism paralyzes”. That nails it, Douglas, as does your test case.
I love AV but I’m really tired of those of us with the same general perspective on things bickering about everything anyone ever says. It feels like gravy training and click bait.
I have really appreciated this back and forth between y’all. I think it’s a much-needed debate if Christian cultural reformation is going to be obediently successful to the plain teaching of the whole counsel of Scripture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
“It is good to see this argument move beyond whether an incremental approach is acceptable”
I hope so. Unless you’re a violent revolutionary, that’s the only approach we can take.
To Douglas Wilson: When was the last time that you have ever been to an abortion mill where the babies are actually being murdered? How much time have you actually spent protesting abortion at an abortion mill?
Hoppe on the “bad neighbor” problem, among other things. The current American Christian church virtually defines its role in the world as exacerbating, subsidizing, and defending bad neighbor problems. Leadership of every major denomination are waging culture war against bourgeoisie middle-America. American men need to stop tithing to these churches and supporting their charities and “missions”
work. http://www.unz.com/article/libertarianism-the-alt-right-and-antifa/
I hope you stick around just to drop the occassional great link. I think hoppe’s governing philosophy is incoherent to the point of insanity, but there is a lot of gold in that talk.
OF COURSE. But that is “not the question.” The question Abolitionists have raised is: Why won’t pro-lifers press for, and why do they actively work against, the actual Ending of human abortion / murder of preborn children. It makes me throw up in my mouth a little that when the real Elephant in the room is finally recognized, some will start discussing “what type of elephant is it?”, ad nauseum PURE DISCUSSION. (As a result of my stance, on principle!, I will not be engaging in further comments here. Hear me!