Abortion Really Does Matter
Concerning “Why Abortion Matters So Much.” I’m a young man, headed to college soon; considering all of these things, considering why abortion is such a big deal, why it’s such a terrible thing, a question has entered my mind. Why do we not strive to war against abortion doctors in the most literal sense of the word war? Why do we not pick up our weapons and fight for those lives? If a man were to enter my house to kill my siblings, I would surely stop him at whatever cost. If a man enters an abortion clinic to kill fellow image bearers of God, why would I not try to stop him at whatever cost? I know this seems extreme, but it’s something I’ve thought about. It’s not something I’ve considered yet, if that makes sense; because I feel as if this would not be the answer. My question is, why is it not the answer? Thanks,
Isaiah
Isaiah, there is a section in my book Mother Kirk that addresses this particular question. The short answer is that vigilante action will only make things worse, while action by the lesser magistrates certainly is called for. Christians should support the establishment of “pro-life sanctuary states.” Arms come into it, but not by ones and twos.
The abortion debate and the creation debate are two sides of the same coin. God created just one pair of humans, and everyone who came after them partakes of that same, original, specially created life. This life and its imago Dei are passed along when men and women join with one another. The developing fetus does not “achieve” humanity after graduating to this or that stage of development, and it is certainly not created new. It’s just the same life that God gave Adam and Eve. Until that is settled, even the most well-meaning Christians will continue to give weak, insufficient arguments for a good cause.
Steve
Steve, thank you. Wonderful.
Thank you for a much needed reboot!
Melody
Melody, you are most welcome.
RE: Why Abortion Matters . . . “A new-born infant is also powerless to stop you. An elderly, incontinent woman with Alzheimer’s, taking up a bed at the retirement center—she too is powerless to stop you.” Reminds me of this quote in the book No Country for Old Men, by the great Cormac McCarthy: “Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talking about the right wing this and the right wing that. I ain’t even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the sayin goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was sayin somethin bad about ‘em, but of course that’s a high compliment in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I don’t like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I don’t think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don’t have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m going to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.”
Darius
Darius, yes. Well, that is a conversation stopper . . .
Thank you for this. Your distinction between sanctity and dignity has always stuck with me. It gets at the core of the issue, because dignity is given, not self-determined. And if it is given then there is a Giver (and His holy will) that must be reckoned with. I recently was asked to give the keynote address at our local PRC . . . link. Thanks!
Joe
Joe, thanks.
Antinomian Mablog?
Not sure what your problem with Weber and company is . . . after all, “Grace messes up your hair” and overflows the banks, and all that other stuff you’ve said about it. They’ve taken your teaching to its logical conclusion. I remember when Tullian T used your quotes in his antinomian sermons too. Odd.
Paula
Paula, not quite. The fact that Tullian used my quotes does not mean he understood what I was saying, which he obviously didn’t. There is a difference between how grace messed up the older brother’s hair in the parable of the prodigal son, and how the girls in the bar messed up the prodigal son’s hair. Grace messes up your hair, but not everything that messes up your hair is grace. Dogs have four legs but not everything with four legs is a dog.
Mahaney and Denhollander
Woe to you if all twitter speaks well of you.
Rachel
Rachel, exactly.
Hello from Las Vegas! Yes, there are a few of us Christians out here. Shocking. We have been grateful to the Lord for the stand you have taken on many issues and for the way the Lord has blessed you all up in Moscow. We continually pray for you, that you would keep your hand to the plow and not look back. By God’s grace we hope to do the same. The article “Higher Than Scripture, Holier Than God” highlights a point for me that I would love to see you flesh out in an article in the future, unless, of course, you have in the past. One thing that I have noted in this whole SG debacle is that well-meaning Christians have bought into a victim mentality whose dogma is, “Once a victim, always right.” That seems to be a cause for the push back you receive. To call into question the judgement of someone who was a victim of some sort is to then call into question their credibility on everything else they say. This seems to be the case with SG and Denhollander. While you have rightly noted many things Denhollander has done that is praiseworthy, that does not mean someone can the push and pull in any direction they desire. Yet, I fear Christians have the lost all nerve to simply say, “You can’t do that.” Would really enjoy something in the future that draws out this problem and how Christians have been influenced by the victim mentality of our age. Grace and Peace,
Aaron
Aaron, that would be a very good point to develop further. Thanks.
Regarding “Higher than Scripture, Holier than God”—I’m a pastor of a Sovereign Grace church in Fredericksburg, VA. Let me tell you, it was poetry, music, to read your blog post. So encouraging. Our church is small in SG, but it is clearly a part of SG. That means we have been suffering the effects of online slander for 5 years and counting. We lost over 50% of our church a few years back because we decided to stay in SG despite all that was being said. We’ve lost countless visitors. The kingdom impact is real and it is sad. But the servant is not greater than his Master, and I think there was some bad press about Him too. And as I recall He used that for a good purpose, so I don’t think His kingdom is toppling quite yet. Anyway, thank you for courageously standing for justice when it is unpopular. You are the first person I’ve read in 5 years willing to do it. Thanks.
Ken
Ken, you are most welcome.
I think if you would just consider all the good that came out of the Mueller report, you would change your position on the Sovereign Grace issue. But seriously, the reality is that any third party investigator has to find them publicly guilty or it will be the end of their career (does anyone care about Robert Mueller anymore since he let everyone down?). Alternatively, they could get someone for whom it isn’t their career, but then they can be dismissed as not expert enough. Hey, maybe you could start a ministry called “Pitchforks for Peace” where you could do third party investigations?
Robert
Robert, you are exactly right. PoP has a nice ring, and we could get business cards and everything. But nobody would ever call.
King David and Trump
Israel owed an ongoing loyalty to David, who was their king before his sin with Bathsheba. Christians do not now and never did owe such loyalty to Trump, whose adultery was well know long before he was elected. For that matter, Christians would owe him no particular loyalty, apart from whatever loyalty citizens generally owe elected leaders, even if he were not an adulterer. Trump is not a David analog in any way previous presidents, Clinton included, were not, and frankly it scares me a bit when Evangelicals suggest that he is. If indeed that is what some Evangelicals think, then which of them are willing to play Nathan and face to face unsparingly confront President Trump with his sins?
John
John, our means of selecting leaders is different, but even in a monarchy as pertained under David that selection process was an ongoing political one. And it depended on the will of the people, and that is why Absalom was campaigning the way he was. And when Ahitophel threw in with Absalom, the fact that he was Bathsheba’s grandfather may have had something to do with it. In other words, individual Israelites had to decide whether or not David was still qualified to be king. After all, there was a presidential campaign/civil war on. Which way do you go? Nathan stayed with a king who had discredited himself, and did not deserve support. But he still got it.
RE: King David and Donald Trump I couldn’t help but disagree with your central premise. Nathan the prophet didn’t choose King David because of some political calculation. David was the Lord’s anointed. Neither Donald Trump nor Obama can claim that title. In a democratic system ascribing God’s will to the will of the people is a bit odd. Israel had a lot of kings and not all of them were God’s preference. A comparable king would be Saul since he was chosen by the people based on less than stellar reasoning. Furthermore, didn’t David’s repentance and humility play a role in Nathan’s loyalty? Donald Trump is a lot of things, but “humble” and “repentant” don’t describe him well. And as for “Mayor Pete” (barf) Buttegieg, I believe his candidacy exposes the rot in right wing evangelicalism. Trump the fornicator, the groper, and peeping tom is ok, but gay sex isn’t. If you condemn him but not Trump for sexual immorality you’re basically making the argument that God would spare the city of Sodom if they’d settled for raping Lot’s daughters and low taxes.
Larry
Larry, two quick things. We are sometimes surprised in Scripture at what kind of repentance from political figures God will accept (1 Kings 21:27-29). And secondly, the issue with Mayor Pete is far more serious than Trump’s transgressions because he is affirming his lifestyle as a positive good. Trump has certainly committed adultery, but he does not affirm that “adultery is the way.”
Eric Mason’s Book
The systemic shuffle. Slow clap.
Mike
Mike, thanks.
Re: Systemic Shuffle – you state “redlining is when someone has trouble getting a loan or insurance because they live in an area that flags them as a poor financial risk. So biblical justice requires companies to make loans that their actuarial tables define as too risky? Biblical justice requires them to place crazy bets in defiance of their shareholders’ best interests?” As a commercial loan officer, I would like to clarify that the practice of redlining is refusing to make a loan, regardless of what the actuarial tables say. Instead of relying on typical measures such as actual income, actual debts, credit score, etc., the loan decision is based solely on what part of town you live in. “They live where? East side of the tracks? I don’t care if they qualify, we’re not making a loan there.” I haven’t read the book, but I assume that is the practice that Mr. Mason is bemoaning, and rightly so. Also, as a long-time reader, I qualify my comment with the following: I may have misunderstood you, or took something literally that you meant figuratively. If so, I retract my comment!
John
John, I was unfamiliar with the term and so I looked it up. The definition I read said that redlining was the practice of determining a bad risk based on factors like neighborhood. And it seems to me that a lending institution has the authority to decide what risks are and are not acceptable, and if they have had bad experiences associated with bad neighborhoods, they should be allowed to remember that.
Apparent Age of the Earth
In reference to the “young earth” questions that have been swirling lately—what are your thoughts on virtual history? Which is to say—when something is created, it has a history. If God creates a fully-grown oak tree, ten minutes later, that tree shows all the signs of being fully grown. It’s 80 feet tall, it has acorns, if cut down it will have rings, etc. It will show all the signs of, say, being 100 years old. And furthermore, only an idiot would say it was anything but 100 years old . . . unless that idiot had been told by God that the tree was created ten minutes ago. To me, this seems to be the simplest and most obvious answer to the age of the earth question. Your thoughts?
Joshua
Joshua, yes, this accounts for many of the apparent problems. There is no way to create anything from nothing without creating the appearance of age. When Adam was one-year-old he looked a lot different than all subsequent one-year-olds.
A Heart for the Fatherless
I was so very blessed by your comments in Plodcast #90. The idea that these kids on college campuses are just scared and lost and without a father . . . that really spoke to me. I have been a Bible teacher for 15 years in a small Christian high school, and I have felt the Lord continually calling me to stand in the gap for these fatherless kids. And point them to their heavenly Father, thank you for your pastoral heart and the love you showed these people in your words. I pray for a new Great Awakening on our college campuses. Thank you
Jonathan
Jonathan, thanks.
More on Infant Baptism
Peter denied Jesus at the bronze altar of death (John 18:18). Jesus commissioned Peter as a witness above the bronze sea at the golden altar of resurrection (John 21:9). Peter was called to martyrdom on that beach, after being called to feed Jesus’ sheep—for the coming slaughter. The incense altar is not a “place to be fed.” The table of God is like King Arthur’s round table—a place where those who dine with the king do so to become bread and wine as He is, as public servants. That is why, although all Israel was included in the worship at Sinai, only the legal representatives dined with Yahweh at the crystal sea (Exodus 24:9-11). Now that the serpent has been crushed, women are included in that meal, because the Sanctuary has been made safe for Eve as “co-regent.” But there are never any children at God’s table. It is not the place for the sons of men, but for the Sons of God who represent them (Numbers 3:12). The table of God and the household tables of Israel were always distinct. Likewise, baptism into Christ is not for the little children, but is an investiture for those commissioned with bringing them to Him.
Michael
But Michael, in the Lord’s charge to Peter, he didn’t just tell him to feed the sheep. He also told him to feed the lambs.
Stuck on Seventeen
1) Parthians and (2) Medes and (3) Elamites and residents of (4) Mesopotamia, (5) Judea and (6) Cappadocia, (7) Pontus and (8) Asia, (9) Phrygia and (10) Pamphylia, (11) Egypt and (12) the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and (13) visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, (14) Cretans and (15) Arabians. Even if you count the Roman Jews and proselytes as separate (not sure why you would), that’s still only 16, right?
Bryce
Bryce, I would include the natives of Jerusalem—the observers of all the newcomers.
Biblical Republics?
In one of your Plodcasts, I recall you making a defense of the American Revolution as a fight to enforce the English constitutional order rather than to subvert it. I’ve been teaching a course on Constitutional Law at a local university this semester and I’ve been immersing myself in the writings of the Founders in attempt to get into their heads. My studies have caused me to question whether the catalyst ideologies of the American Revolution, Liberalism (in the classical sense of the word, of course) and Republicanism, are compatible with a biblical understanding of government. It seems to me that the biblical writers presupposed a “top-down” understanding of power and authority; with imperium coming down from Heaven and descending down the hierarchy of kings, princes, potentates, magistrates, and subjects. As far as I know, all of Christendom from the Apostle Paul to Martin Luther held to this idea of civil government. On the other hand, the post-Enlightenment Novus Ordo Seclorum upon which the American Republic was founded repudiated the medieval philosophy of government and postulated an inverted “bottom-up” theory of political power. As Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, “[g]overnments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” My question is not whether we can reconcile the Enlightenment with the Bible. I think Romans 13 and Social Contract Theory mix about like oil and water. Rather, my question is whether republicanism per se is compatible with a genuinely biblical worldview. How, if at all, is Israel’s political system under the Judges instructive in this inquiry? I look forward to your response. In Christ,
Joe
Joe, the best way to answer you would be with some book recommendations. The first would be Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos by an anonymous Huguenot, the second would be Aaron’s Rod That Budded by Gillespie, and the third and fourth This Independent Republic and The Nature of the American System by Rushdoony
Darius, it reminded me of No Country as well. I remember reading No Country because I had read that it contained that line.
Yes, Joshua, yes! I do not know why it is so difficult for Christians to grasp that it is not deceptive to make something look a certain way when we are not left alone, even for a moment, to discover for ourselves the age, but are told the age of the thing from the get go. The newly created trees on the third day looked like older trees because that is what trees look like, but they also looked like newly created trees, because that IS what newly created trees look like!
Jane, The Omphalos hypothesis is well and good but for theological reasons many christians don’t want to affirm the propositions that follow. When we recieve light from a supernova that is 2 million light years away, did it really happen? was the star that we saw there before ever really there in a concrete physical sense? What does it mean that light is reaching us now from a place so far away that it takes millions of years to transit and it is revealing apparently discrete events to us that we can study and describe? Also if we hold to… Read more »
Of course I’d have a problem with insect and fire damage, but if a pink elephant flew in my window I’d also be disgusted at the mess he’d make. I’m not sure that speculating on how I’d react to things that are outside the scope of created reality and not revealed as miracles is useful, though. The first trees weren’t damaged by fire or eaten by insects, when they were created, and it is not a possibility that they might have appeared to have been so. Damaged trees are not “very good.” I’m am not saying that all the question… Read more »
Jane, I don’t see that the appearance of age does us any good if it doesn’t include any sign of death or destruction. I would question your assertion that insect and fire damaged trees are not “very good.” Insects have to eat, many are specifically created to eat woody material. Many plants are created to live in harmony with fire. Many trees will not propogate themselves if there are no fires, whole communities of plants and animals rely on the creative destruction of fire to thive, or even survive. Why are these things not part of a very good creation… Read more »
I don’t mean to sound dismissive but if you don’t see damage and destruction of living things (not the mere existence of fire and insects) as a negative, I’m not sure I can explain why I do.
Jane,
I don’t see animals eating as a negative… no. When i go harvest an asparagus spear from my garden and take a crunchy bite, it is a beautiful and very good thing. I don’t see any problem calling it very good and I don’t understand an emotional reaction against it. If God created insects surely it isn’t a negative for them to eat.
Jane,
What sorts of things do you think apprearance of age can explain?
demosthenes1d wrote:
Appearance of age is not intended to be explanatory of anything about the object possessing the apparent age. Rather appearance of age is a recognition of a necessary consequence of fiat creation. Christians are being pressured to abandon a six day reading of Genesis based on appeals to appearance of great age. We may grant the prima facie appearance, but we are merely pointing out that appearance of age, by itself, is not logically equivalent to actual age.
demosthenes1d wrote: Many trees will not propogate themselves if there are no fires, whole communities of plants and animals rely on the creative destruction of fire to thive, or even survive. As one who attempted to critique Wilson for not presenting a careful accounting of a topic, demosthenes1d seems to be leaving off major realms of consideration that are basic to his approach. For example, does demosthenes1d assume that these species are completely dependent on serotiny by fire for propagation, or is it merely a predominant mechanism of their propagation? Does demosthenes1d assume (extrapolating into the past) that even if… Read more »
Katecho, Comment sections are for discussion, it is a very different format from an essay – even if in a blog post. Surely even Katecho can see that different modes of speech, and speech from those with different levels of authority are performed to different standards. Katecho will note that my comments are characterized by questions which are probing Jane’s view on the topic. I am legitimately interested in what people see the appearance of age hypothesis as explaining. WRT to fire and insect damage, I am not the one who said these things are not “very good,” to the… Read more »
Demo, essay or not, you are evidently treating my posts as though they are just ad hoc, made up ideas that can be challenged by what about this, what about that, kinds of examples. Katecho is correct — I am assuming the general arguments that support the appearance of age view, which I had assumed were known and understood, if not agreed with, by you and others here. If you don’t expect your comments to be treated like comprehensive essays, it might be better if you didn’t assume that my specific comments contained the sum of my understanding of the… Read more »
Jane,
I don’t believe your comments to be comprehensive, by any stretch, which is why I asked questions to try to understand the extent of phenomena that may be attributed to creation with appearance of age. Had I assumed your comment contained the sum of your understanding my many questions would have been a fruitless endeavor; on the contrary I assumed you had a great deal more to say on the topic and I was interested in learning about it and possibly pushing on it.
That is the point — my comments were not intended to be comprehensive. They were part of a conversation which assumes a background, including the well-established (I would think) background of what informed young earth adherents believe about the appearance of age. Most conversations here are of that nature, and I don’t think it’s constructive to treat other commenters as though they need to be probed and challenged about details in situations where there are established schools of thought informing the positions they take, that can be assumed to be generally known to sympathetic commenters such as yourself. If you… Read more »
Jane, I have to confess that I am very confused by this thread. The well-established background that you assume just doesn’t seem to exist. I have read a great quantity of YEC literature and the understanding of what the appearance of age can account for is all over the board. One of the best explications of the appearance of age argument with the broadest reach as far as its explanatory power is from Jim Jordan here: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/open-book/no-45-creation-with-the-appearance-of-age/ Based on your responses to me it appears that you completely disagree with him. How was I. or any other commenter, to know… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: I asked a series of questions regarding examples of possible artifacts or phenomena explainable through the appearance of age, but you assented to none of them, therefore I asked more generally what you think appearance of age can explain. I am no more informed now than I was at the outset. I already addressed this. I wrote: Appearance of age is not intended to be explanatory of anything about the object possessing the apparent age. Rather appearance of age is a recognition of a necessary consequence of fiat creation. Christians are being pressured to abandon a six day… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: Katecho will note that my comments are characterized by questions which are probing Jane’s view on the topic. Demothenes1d will note that I had a few questions of my own, and he seems to be trying to avoid them. Demosthenes1d is not simply asking questions, he is presenting insect “damage” and serotiny as if they should be challenges for a young earth, or fiat creation, model. But in doing so he appears to be overlooking a number of key considerations and distinctions. demosthenes1d wrote: Insect damage to trees is simply “animals eating” so I fail to see what… Read more »
Katecho states that I represented seritony and insect damage as challenges to a YEC model – however, i asked whether appearance of age could include the sorts of artifacts consistent with fire damage or insect damage to a tree (or varying amount of isotopes), I also aksed whether it could account for things such as light created in transit from apparent supernovas which occurred before the time of creation. It appears that Jane thinks not and Jim Jordan thinks it is permissible – though he take no position on whether this is the best explanation for the phenomena. The rest… Read more »
Isaiah — you may be interested in Gary North’s letters to Paul Hill: https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/lone_gunners_for_jesus.pdf
Isaiah, as someone who once reasoned like you, and who now is a member of the church Paul Hill was excommunicated from before he unrighteously took vengeance into his own hands, I strongly second this suggestion.
Joe,
The question of the justification of the American Revolution and the question of whether democracy is a biblical form of government are two different items. I would argue that the first is yes, it was justified, and that the second is no, it is not biblical.
BJ, I agree that the two questions should be decoupled – but my intuition on the answers to the two questions are reversed (admittedly, I haven’t spent a lot of time working through this). The case for taking up arms against Britian in the 1770s seems really thin to me. I have a hard time constructing a just war case from the colonial perspective. On the other hand, systems of governance seem to be prudential questions that should by governed by empirical observation and the application of wisdom. Some forms of democracy seem very unwise – as do some forms… Read more »
Demo, I’ve questioned the justification for the American Revolution myself, but I might decouple declaring independence from the question of taking up arms. The second preceded the first, and hypothetically could have been done defensively without seeking full political separation. On the other hand, formally declaring independence made armed conflict inevitable – or if the willingness was lacking, any such declaration was pointless. If there is a justification for the colonies/states separating from Britain it would be the lack of representation in a system of government predicated upon representation. No, of course not in the way we know it, but… Read more »
That’s important to decouple the decision for independence and the decision to take up arms. Of course, the distinction might be irrelevant if they stored up a bunch of arms and then immediately fought in supposed “self-defense” knowing that they were begging on an armed response to their decision. Of course, that hypothetical doesn’t matter because it’s not what they did. They really did take up arms, and while I find Just War Theory to be unBiblical it still bears mentioning that I’ve never seen a reading of Just War Theory which would remotely justify that example of warmongering. As… Read more »
Well, if you want to I suppose you could say *any* speculation about historical possibility doesn’t matter if it didn’t happen.
The colonial militias maintained a store of arms long before the revolution, with the knowledge of, and for purposes supported by, the British government. They did not “immediately” upon disagreement with London take up those arms against British troops, but only when armed troops were set against them. Whether or not they should have submitted to those troops is subject to debate…unless we decide it doesn’t matter.
And yes, you do digress. But hey, welcome back.
John,
You are right that we can additionally separate the declaration of independence from armed action (which took a variety of forms) but I’m not sure that changes my judgement. Are you saying that some of the armed actions were licit, while the secession was illicit?
I agree that the argument regarding representation was a legitimate argument but contra-BJ (maybe – I don’t understand his position) this implies the legitimacy of mixed government with some democratic element (or at least oligarchic, I guess).
I think there is a reasonable argument that armed resistance without disavowing a government could be legitimate. I don’t have a particular instance in mind. If we reject absolutism, which I do (and the British had long done by the 18c), then I think we could accept a government as fundamentally legitimate authority while rejecting certain of it’s actions as illegal and to be resisted.
Demo, My primary reason for thinking the American Revolution was justified is because the colonists saw themselves as executing a defensive war. There were multiple direct appeals for reconciliation to the Crown that were met with violence. English Common Law was nearly totally ignored by the Crown and Parliament in their dealings with the Colonies. The Boston Massacre was an egregious violation of the English Bill of Rights. There is certainly more to the story than this, but a strong case can be made that the colonists were reacting to provocations by the Crown. The tax issues might have been… Read more »
BJ, I don’t see the colonists subjective belief that they were the defensive party as particularly strong evidence. The Japanese famously thought they were fighting a defensive war in China and that Pearl Harbor was a defensive act (necessitated by an oil and steel embargo that was crippling their war effort). It is no surprise that people cast themselves as the heroic defenders. I also think the Boston Massacre is a very week case. By all accounts the soldiers were threatened with violence, it is very unlikely that they were ordered to fire. The soldiers and their officers stood trial… Read more »
I only care about engaging with the *really* important topics ;)
Pastor Wilson, if you really wish to defend the actual practice of redlining then I can’t imagine you understand the issue historically at all, and looking up a dictionary definition will not be sufficient to alleviate that. When a people is segregated into certain disadvantaged neighborhoods, and then specifically discriminated against due to the neighborhoods they live in, an obvious injustice is taking place. To try to look at each step of the process in isolation distorts reality. The stealing of wealth from the Black community, segregation, White flight, and redlining all interacted with each other to ensure that Black… Read more »
I have no idea why you would look for an argument about Wilson “defending redlining” when he just directly stated that he was unfamiliar with the term, and had to look it up. You go to the point of picking at him for looking up a definition, and that definition not being sufficiently alike the definition in your head. What precisely do you suggest he do when he encounters an unfamiliar term? ” all interacted with each other to ensure that Black people would remain poor and that as much Black income as possible would continue to be transferred into… Read more »
Justin, The whole conversation about redlining began with this quote: “And redlining is when someone has trouble getting a loan or insurance because they live in an area that flags them as a poor financial risk. So biblical justice requires companies to make loans that their actuarial tables define as too risky? Biblical justice requires them to place crazy bets in defiance of their shareholders’ best interstate ? If the church is woke, does that require the insurance companies to go to sleep?” https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-systemic-shuffle.html This certainly evinces a lack of understanding of what redlining entails (backed up by Doug’s response… Read more »
“That sort of rhetoric”? What sort of rhetoric? The sort that only applies to the definition of the term he gives within that very quote? You make it seem as though he said something bold or controversial. “This certainly evinces a lack of understanding of what redlining entails ” Well that depends. It has become not very uncommon to call precisely what Doug is describing as “redlining”, and pretending that when a low income black applicant gets denied a loan, that race is involved. There’s been active attempts for decades now to confuse negative outcomes that happen to minorities with… Read more »
Justin,
Doug was mocking Mason’s inclusion of redlining as a bibiical justice issue. When criticising someone in a public forum, as a prominent writer, you should avoid weakmanning the position you are criticising.
If you read the piece in question you will see that Doug chose redlining to harp on from a list of far more tenuous cases of injustice (access to healthy food!), I don’t understand the reasoning involved if he had just learned what redlining was from a quick lookup – I don’t support the process or the result.
Which is a much more reasonable criticism of what Doug wrote. It’s also not in any way the criticism that Jonathan made, so I’m not sure why you’re using it as a defense of Jonathan’s criticism.
Who says I’m defending Jonathan. I was simply providing context and providing my own criticism (which I believe is warranted). If Jonathan wants to extend or defend his critique that is up to him.
Fair enough. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The nature of “comment – reply” threading in web forms tends to evoke an adversarial tone even when none exists.
Justin, I believe that redlining in America is a serious justice issue. As Demo pointed out, Pastor Wilson was arguing that redlining was not a serious justice issue. As Demo also pointed out, Pastor Wilson’s response suggests that he is unfamiliar with what redlining consisted of in American history. It is not the definition in my head that matters, but the one that Eric Mason is referring to when Pastor Wilson chose to call him out. And no, I don’t think that the various steps I detailed acted “in collusion” with each other. I was saying that different factors interacted… Read more »
In other news, Idaho Republicans have chosen once again to focus on that which is truly important.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/441447-idaho-county-gop-urging-federal-government-to-allow-austrian-nationalist
Quick thought experiment….if Sellner was not a White Nationalist but instead was Syrian or Somali or South African and was connected to an anti-White movement in those countries, and further had been shown to have connections to a terrorist who had recently committed a massive act of violence, would Idaho Republicans have stood up to press the government to reinstate his visa? Anyone here honestly believe that for a moment?
Given that I’ve never, not once, seen a mainstream media outlet report on a right of center youtuber’s views accurately, I thought I’d look into this scary alt-right youtuber the article uses to paint the narrative but doesn’t actually describe.
Evidently “alt-right” to thehill is an anti-feminist that ideologically opposes Islam and doesn’t think Tommy Robinson should have been jailed for his speech. Oh the horror.
Given how they were willing to paint her, I’m not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt surrounding the rest of the article.
Justin, I don’t think they call her White Power Barbie just because she supports free speech and doesn’t much like Islam’s ideology. While she says she isn’t racist, she certainly hangs out with some famous ones. There is video of her discussing with white nationalist James Allsup how to introduce identitarianism into the US; she favorably covered Nathan Damigo, the founder of Identity Evropa. She has re-posted white genocide materials with troubling pictures of Israeli flags in the background. She was featured on a video as a leading authority on Pizzagate, a debunked conspiracy theory that led some lunatic to… Read more »
Jill, and to an extent, Jonathan so I don’t have to bother retyping the same information twice. ” But her own association with people who do believe in a white ethno-state raises questions even among those of us who try charitably not to call our opponents unkind names.” Responding, in summary, to your first paragraph: While I wasn’t aware of a fair bit of this, and I am taking it on trust in you that it is an accurate account, there’s still trouble with this reporting. If you refer to someone as an “alt-right youtuber”, it carries the particularly strong… Read more »
I’m a bit confused as to how you define alt-right such that it doesn’t include her. Do you know of her ever denying that she is alt-right, or distancing herself from any of the alt-right figures who she interviews or covers positively? I would think that the fact that she appears on “altright.com” and other explicitly alt-right channels, as well as inviting famous alt-right figures to appear on hers, makes any attempt to deny that she’s alt-right a pointless exercise. She’s certainly not trying to avoid the term. But again, it’s neither here nor there, as Martin Sellner, the White… Read more »
“I’m a bit confused as to how you define alt-right such that it doesn’t include her.” “Do you know of her ever denying that she is alt-right, or distancing herself from any of the alt-right figures who she interviews or covers positively?” “She’s certainly not trying to avoid the term.” I already gave you my reasoning and methodology. If you declare someone an “alt-right youtuber”, there is a reasonable expectation that when I go to their youtube channel, there will be predominantly alt-right content. I went to her youtube channel and didn’t even find much particularly right wing content (as… Read more »
“If you’ve been following the issues with the alt-right, whether or not she wants to divorce herself from the term isn’t particularly relevant, as there is a significant wing of the ‘alt-right’ both ignorant and in denial of the group’s true nature.” So your argument is that The Hill should have done a better job of identifying her than she does of identifying herself. With a term as nebulous as “alt-right”, it seems far safer for a journalistic outlet to call people alt-right if they self-associate as alt-right rather than to designate your own personal definition for term which you… Read more »
Jill Smith wrote: Her fiance, however, does in fact believe in a white ethno-state and favors the forcible removal of all Muslims living in Europe. Does Jill have a citation for this claim? The BBC has an article that quotes Sellner as saying : “Assimilation means that you completely identify with the country, the nation, its history,” he says – otherwise, he warns, “it’s treason, because you’re betraying this community… because this community is giving you open hands, taking you in and then you have to put the interests of this community in front of your own.” He seems to… Read more »
I’m not sure that “The Hill” qualifies as mainstream Justin, but literally the only things they said about her was that she was “alt-right” and that she posts on youtube. As she has contributed to altright.com and other openly alt-right outlets, that doesn’t seem like such an unfair way to characterize her. It certainly would be silly to disregard an entire article because you don’t like them saying “alt-right” when she doesn’t mind appearing on channels declared “alt-right” herself. And regardless of what you think of the “alt-right youtuber”, she’s not the one that Idaho Republicans are petitioning to be… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Quick thought experiment….if Sellner was not a White Nationalist but instead was Syrian or Somali or South African and was connected to an anti-White movement in those countries, and further had been shown to have connections to a terrorist who had recently committed a massive act of violence, would Idaho Republicans have stood up to press the government to reinstate his visa? Anyone here honestly believe that for a moment? Not sure why Jonathan is putting so much emphasis on asking what Idaho Republicans would do with arbitrary cases involving Syrians, Somalis, or South Africans. Does Jonathan not… Read more »
Speaking of “alt-right,” this little 14-year old girl absolutely skewers the worldview and tactics of Jonathan (and similar woke types, whether allegedly Christian or not) in ways that I seriously doubt he understands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdaUDeAGIck
“Trump has certainly committed adultery, but he does not affirm that “adultery is the way.”” …what does he need to do, march in an Adultery Pride Parade? When it comes to philandering, Trump is as shameless as it gets. If he doesn’t qualify as an example of “pro-adultery” then no actually existing person could possibly qualify and the category is useless. The left has been saying for years that the Christian right didn’t care about any of these character issues and just used them as an excuse to attack people they disagreed politically with. Turns out they had your number… Read more »
Matt,
I was also taken aback by that statement. I guess the adultry equivalent for gay marriage is an open marriage, and it certainly seems that Trump behaved like he was in one (likely without his wives’ consent, though given the history it is hard to say any post-Ivana weren’t well warned).
I think Trump is about as “pro-adultry” as you can get.
The left accusing Christian voters of hypocrisy? Sure. That happened and will continue to happen. But Trump votes don’t get cast in a vaccuum; the only real option to Trump was Hillary thanks to the 2 party system. Voting for Hillary would have been even MORE hypocritical for a serious Christian. If I were given a choice between Trump and a genuine mature Christian in a life-long committed marriage with no blemishes? Well, Trump loses my vote to that hypothetical candidate every time – and the votes of every Christian I respect too. But Trump versus Hillary? Let’s just say… Read more »
I understand your opinion, but I get annoyed when people who hold your opinion wax philosophical on “character”, “honor”, etc. If the argument is that abortion is so abhorrent that any candidate on our side automatically gets the vote over the other then that’s fine. But don’t make that argument and tell me “character matters” (as Doug has). Don’t make that argument and compare Donald Trump to King David which was a comparison that made me throw up in my mouth a little.
The comparison was much more between us and Nathan than it was between David and Trump. The entire article cannot be honestly described as defending Trump’s morality, as the entire premise of the comparison was ceding the point that Trump was behaving immorally. Now, while I have my own issue with the comparison, specifically the lack of evidence that Trump appreciates and has repented of what he’ done, it just doesn’t hold that admitting Trump did something immoral and analyzing how we respond to that constitutes ignoring Trump’s wrongdoing. Most especially when your example trying to establish the hypocrisy is… Read more »
I understand the argument. With abortion being as abhorrent as it is, it’s not hypocritical to support a bad candidate in order to move the ball forward towards making it illegal. That’s not an argument I agree with, but it’s certainly a respectable one. What is hypocritical is pretending that the above argument isn’t a purely materialist one. “Character” clearly doesn’t matter if we’re measuring candidates based solely on their legislative outcomes as opposed to an assessment of their virtues/hearts. Pastor Wilson is trying to have it both ways, which is why this comparison to Nathan/David is so tortured. Nathan… Read more »
How about this- “all else being equal, character matters.” No one ever said character is the only thing that matters.
And besides that, I tend to think that the people in the Democratic party who are attempting to use the LGBT rights angle to persecute Christians are evincing a character flaw of their own. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Some have said things far stronger than “all else being equal.” For a moment I’ll just focus on Dennis Prager, using only examples from Conor Friesendorf’s column: “F-Word Laced Speech Disqualifies Donald Trump from Presidency” “The man is Donald Trump. And the words render him unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president. They also render a need for some Republican Party soul-searching as to how a group of Republican women could laugh and cheer at such language coming from a would-be presidential candidate.” “If we cannot count on Republicans and conservatives to maintain standards of public decency and… Read more »
I’m not sure I can agree here, insofar as I’m not convinced that Trump actually has ideological positions. When he gets up to a crowd of Christians and praises Christian values, I think he is sincere. When he turns around and immediately becomes preaching the opposite, I also think he is sincere there. A man who holds all positions can be criticized for many things, but being definitively of one opinion is not one of them. On a slightly more serious note: “The left has been saying for years that the Christian right didn’t care about any of these character… Read more »
If Trump has no positions of any kind then there isn’t even a political reason to vote for him, as the only way he will do anything good is by sheer chance based on however his lizard brain is pulling that day. In any case, whatever he says when the cameras are rolling, his revealed preference is pretty consistently that adultery is fantastic. “This is pretty far out of line. ” See this is where English really needs a distinct second person plural pronoun. I’m talking about the Christian right as a whole, not Doug Wilson in particular, who is… Read more »
“If Trump has no positions of any kind then there isn’t even a political reason to vote for him, as the only way he will do anything good is by sheer chance based on however his lizard brain is pulling that day. ” So it follows how I didn’t vote for him. Though what I’ve found in the last few years paints a more specific picture. He consistently opposes whatever his public detractors favor. So as long as Trump’s enemies circumstantially coincide with your own, you’ll get some outcomes you like. “frankly your credibility on this matter is dead.” This… Read more »
Were they not? Bush 2 was the worst president of recent years, but he had no personal scandals and appeared upright enough. Obama, whatever you think of his politics, was much the same regarding his personal life. Granted, Trump is so dirty he might have lowered the bar for what counts as having character.
A better point for an R voter would have been that any other candidate in the 2016 field looked like a canonized saint compared to Trump.
Personal life? Who said anything about personal life? The standard being used was if they had character. Certainly their conduct in their job also qualifies. You aren’t counting lying to the public you serve as a character issue? While I don’t buy into the “Bush lied, people died” slogan, clearly lots of people do. As for Obama, he was telling provable lies specifically to *incite* racial hatred even before he got into office. He got the award for lie of the year when he was selling the public on his healthcare bill. I’m no grand defender of Trump’s integrity, but… Read more »
“this is where English really needs a distinct second person plural pronoun”
Matt,
We in rural America have lots of options for you. I personally go with you’uns, but that stems from my Kentucky roots.
Here are some other options:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/yall-youuns-yinz-youse-how-regional-dialects-are-fixing-standard-english
“Pro-adultery”? Seriously?
Is Trump agitating to give adultery a legal status? Is Trump treating adulterers as oppressed victims? Is Trump claiming that if Pence has a problem with adulterers then he should take it up with God?
Trump is shameless in his sexual deviance, but that is a far cry difference from Mayor Peter turning his even more deviant sexuality into a mandatory celebration.
It’s funny that “Adultery Pride Parade” was used as an absurdity, but yes, that is what it would take to put it on equal footing with the LGBT craziness.
Nathan and BJ, Celebrating different sins takes different forms. Gay sex has been widely reviled therefore the celebration has taken the form of demanding public approval, and unashamedly publicly declaring your gayness. Adultry has a very different form, and we are in a different place in time on the issue. Adultry is celebrated by bragging about it, by cultivating an image of a playboy, by giving status to men with more partners. Adultry has already won its legal battle – it was illegal and is now legal. And if Pence, or anyone else, wanted to bring back criminal punishment or… Read more »
Demo, I see your point, but the two are still not comparable. First of all, homo sex and adulterous sex are worlds apart in their sinfulness, both biblically and biologically. One degrades the marriage vows, the other degrades the human body. Secondly, Trump might be personally despicable with regard to his philandering, but he is not trying to change society and punish those who disagree. Mayor Pete has been very open about trying to change religious and social opinions to make homo sex “wholesome.” Can you point to anything Trump has done or said that indicates he is on some… Read more »
BJ, I really wasn’t trying to draw a moral equivalency, I was supporting the idea that Trump is “pro-adultry” and I stand by that assessment. Trump is a high-handed sinner who has actively and publicly revelled in his rebellion. It would be tedious to trot out all of the quotes to support this, but here is a quote from his best selling book (couldn’t be more public): “If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller (which it will be anyway!). I’d love… Read more »
I think we are talking by one another a bit. We can squabble about the definition of “pro-adultery,” but the original comparison was between Mayor Pete and Trump. Doug said: “the issue with Mayor Pete is far more serious than Trump’s transgressions because he is affirming his lifestyle as a positive good. Trump has certainly committed adultery, but he does not affirm that “adultery is the way.”” Matt took issue with that implying that Trump was “pro-adultery” in the same way that Mayor Pete was “pro-gay.” I am glad that you are not drawing a moral equivalence, because Trump is… Read more »
BJ, Fair enough. My responses were geared toward Doug’s claim that Trump is not affirming his adultry as a positive good. I was pointing out that he has bragged about it in public and in semi-private. This doesn’t quite rise to the level of writing op-eds promoting gay marriage but bragging about your filthy lifestyle to Playboy is enough affirmation for me. My personal view is that neither Trump nor Mayor Pete meet the most basic standard of human decency and Christians should not affirmatively consent to being represented by either of them. I know others disagree with me –… Read more »
I looked in the archives a bit. There is this bit from the New York Post (February 23, 1990) when Trump was being interviewed about his courtship with Marla while still married to Ivana: “Do you think adultery is a sin?” Trump was asked in the February issue. “Very good question,” he responded. According to the report at the time, Trump paused and then said: “I don’t think it’s a sin but I don’t think it should be done.” The reporters pressed: “Would you do it?” After which, Trump coyly responded “I’ll let you guess.” He tweeted about Arianna Huffington:… Read more »
There are no adultery parades (yet), but I can think of quite a few public celebrations of adultery to which few people have appeared to object. The Tail Hook Convention in Las Vegas in 1991. The sniggering, men will be men social acceptance of the Ashley Madigan website for facilitating adulterous liaisons. Billboards covering every square block of my city inviting businessmen to stop by “Dames and Games” for some fun before heading home to the wife in the suburbs. Vegas hotels that accommodate conventioneers’ requests for female companionship away from home. Mass media that seldom presents adultery as morally… Read more »
Although if we’re making hypothetical pride parades for various sins, how about the natural fit, pride? I would love to attend a pride pride parade. The t-shirts alone would be worth the trip.
It would be very good indeed, but on thinking it over, I really like the idea of a humility parade. I would rig myself out in hairshirt, sack cloth, and ashes. Do you remember that Monty Python sketch where every few feet the procession of penitent monks bash themselves in the face?
“When Adam was one-year-old he looked a lot different than all subsequent one-year-olds.”
Worth the price of admission, thanks.
“State Rep. John Rogers (D) said abortion “ought to be a woman’s choice,”…“Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later.”
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/02/dem-state-rep-abortion-lets-kill-em-now-rather-later/
And given the extant ratio of those children murdered by abortion, isn’t that a “racist” declaration?
If Mr. Rogers were not black himself, his comment would have been interpreted as “Kill poor black kids because they’ll grow up to be murderers” and met–quite properly–with howls of outrage. While it’s nice to see a politician concerned with saving time and money, this is a truly breathtaking display of cold-bloodedness. Mr. Rogers can’t be accused of indulging in euphemism: retarded? half-deformed? There is something seriously wrong with this man.
Jilly,
When I read this I couldn’t help reading “Mr. Rogers” as Fred…
I always thought the puppets were a little creepy.
That kind of fatalism hasn’t been widely popular in the West since the fall of Rome, as far as I know. Shakespeare had fun with it in his tragedies, but I doubt he really believed in it.
It’s — interesting may not be the word, but something like that — to see a black politician building a policy case on the concept of bad seed. He might get Armin’s vote, at least.