Mr. Vice-President,
I am writing you as one who has appreciated your work, and as one who has been most grateful for your presence and influence in the new administration. Your impact has not gone unnoticed, and we thank God for you. I am extraordinarily mindful of what you did in appearing to speak at the pro-life march. I have thanked God for you. We have prayed for you.
At the same time, there has also been obvious influence in the other direction, and so I wanted to take this opportunity address you in my capacity as a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. I know that you are a believer, and that you respect the authority of the holy Scriptures. I am appealing to those Scriptures, and come to you as a fellow servant of those Scriptures. I know, in fact, that we agree on this common ground.
I saw that you recently defended the president’s approach to LGBTQ issues, in his extension of President Obama’s executive order on LGBT rights. In the past you have said that you are a Christian first, a conservative second and a Republican third, in that order. In the past you have recognized that “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family.” But just recently, in this interview with George Stephanopoulos, you said that you applauded the president’s continued inclusion of the “LGBT community” in this way. You further said that there is no room in a patriot’s heart for prejudice. This is problematic in many ways, which I would like to take a moment to explain.
In the first place, as you well know, no responsible Christian leader advocates queer-bashing. But as you also know, the activists on the left have labored industriously to equate every form of principled biblical opposition to sexual perversion with such hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. You cannot echo this language, acting as though this were a battle with prejudice, without complicity in perpetuating the impression that the Christians who oppose sexual perversion on biblical principle are doing so because of discrimination and prejudice. But it is not prejudiced to read Leviticus, I Kings, and Romans with a submissive heart.
You are not the first person that God has been extraordinarily kind to with regard to high office, promoting you well beyond what many were expecting. You have been promoted far beyond what most in the world were expecting just a few months ago. Not only has this happened many times in history, but it has also happened many times within the pages of Scripture. Because we have accounts of this sort of thing in Scripture, we know exactly what God thinks of it.
You are a believer in an unbelieving system of power. Men have been right where you are— Joseph and Daniel come to mind—and they have stood true. Others, unfortunately more than just two, have been given glorious opportunities and have decided to rely on the pragmatic wisdom of flattering courtiers instead, rather than relying on the unvarnished, unpolished, unadorned Word of God.
As the examples of Joseph and Daniel show, there is no compromise in the mere fact of your presence in the halls of unbelieving power. We rejoice in that fact. There is no compromise through being in the presence of compromise. But nevertheless the challenges are great there. More men have stumbled there than stood. Let me give you some examples.
“Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince over my people Israel, and rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes; but hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam” (1 Kings 14:7-10)
“And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded. Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon . . .” (1 Kings 11:9-11)
These two examples show, as do others, that when God promotes a man to high office, requiring certain things from him there, and then that man does not do what God asks of him, God knows and recalls the fact of the promotion. God remembers how this happened. God says, in effect, you were nobody in your own eyes, and in the eyes of all Israel, but I took you and placed you to be a leader of this people. Why, when I have done all this for you, have you so quickly abandoned the wisdom that I set before you?
Here is another example, with the word of the Lord coming to Jehu:
“Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin . . .” (1 Kings 16:2).
This is not merely an intellectual issue. One of the men who compromised in just this way was the wisest man who ever lived. This is a moral issue, and since courage is the testing point of every virtue, as C.S. Lewis once said, it is a courage issue.
As you consider these things, as I trust you will, there are three factors you must keep in mind.
The first is the state of your own soul. I know that you believe you have been brought to this place to accomplish great things, and I also believe that you have in fact been positioned by God to do wonderful things. But there are always two directions to go wherever you are, and that would be the obedient direction and the disobedient one.
However grand the project, however likely it may seem that if you just trim at these edges here or there you will gain the world, remember what our Lord Jesus taught us. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul (Matt. 16:26)? That is the ultimate bad bargain. Remember also that the Lord himself was once taken to a high mountain and was there shown all the kingdoms of this world, and their glory—and this would include the kingdom that you are now privileged to help lead—and He refused the offer. Think about this. What you are being offered, Jesus was once offered. And He refused it because the offer came on the devil’s terms.
This is what you must resolve before God to do. When that moment comes—and I can tell that it is coming, and is almost upon you—this is what you must do. You must refuse the caYou must refuse the candied offers that will come, and you must defy all the threats that will immediately follow your refusal.ndied offers that will come, and you must defy all the threats that will immediately follow your refusal.
The second thing is that you must remember you are dealing with liars and cheats. Even if you did decide to bend and accommodate them, they will only take it as an indication that it is time for them to change all the terms and demand something new, and even more appalling. They will never be satisfied with anything you give them, so why give them anything? There are other letters in their abecedarian perversions. At some point soon in the proceedings, they will add B and P. At what point do you get off? At what point do we defy them and all their lusts?
Keep in mind that obedience is never easier to start later. Obedience now makes obedience later more attainable. Compromise now does the same thing. Compromise now makes it much easier to continue with the compromise. The man who takes one hundred dollars from his employer now will find it harder, not easier, to resist when the occasion arises to take a thousand.
Obedience greases the skids for more obedience. Disobedience greases the skids for more disobedience. The pragmatic spirits around you are lying their heads off. You do not want to find yourself two years from now, standing in the shambles of a once promising opportunity, wondering what the hell happened. If that happens, I want you to remember that this letter happened, and recall what the Scripture teaches. And what the hell happened is that Hell happened. Hell lies and then lies some more. This is why Scripture is filled with stories of men who wobbled after God had personally escorted them to the top. Don’t be another example of that old and overdone story. That story never ends the way the flatterers said it would.
Third, remember that you have many true friends across the country. Those in the media like to call people like this your “base,” but this is not really a cluster of people politically considered. The people of God are not a lobbying group, not a base in that sense. But these are the people who want you to stand, who want you to be vindicated, who want you to be promoted, who want you to prosper. These are the people who pray for you. After the Lord, these are the people you do not want to disappoint. And the alternative should be easy—disappointing the people who hate you, who want to tear you to pieces, and who don’t believe a word you say about discrimination and prejudice.
I said at the beginning that I was writing to you in my capacity as a minister of Jesus Christ. Part of the propaganda spread by the evil one has been to get the people to laugh off expressions like that. It can easily be made to seem risible, like Belushi in The Blues Brothers saying that they are “on a mission from God.” But just like in the Bible, we still have political rulers who are evil, political rulers who are good, and political rulers who are good but who have not removed the high places. A prophetic word needs to be spoken to all of them—whether rebuke, encouragement, or admonition.
And this prophetic word never comes from anybody with respectable credentials. In that sense I certainly qualify—I am a nobody in north Idaho with Internet access. But I am also a minister of Christ, and I am writing to you in His name.
So in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, here is the admonition. You know better. I know that you know better. I watched you interviewed about Bradley Manning, and admired how you made a point of referring to him as Private Manning over and over again, doing so in order to avoid honoring him with the name of Chelsea or the pronoun her. That was well done. You were walking carefully, but without compromise. What you were doing was obvious, but not obnoxious or provocative.
But you have now begun to do the one thing that you may not do. You may not defend corruption. You may be around it—in fact, you must be around it. This is what God has called you to. But you may not, as Jesus reigns, start strewing aromatic flowers over the cesspool. You may not start talking as though tolerance of sexual perversion were diversity. You must not act as though believing Christians really are homophobic and need to get over their “prejudice.” That narrative is the central lie—Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall—and the language you used in the interview with Stephanopoulos was a badly handled accommodation to that narrative. But the narrative is false, and further, you know that it is false. Return to an honest and winsome statement of your own convictions.
When this kind of thing comes up again—as it will, probably next week—you need to have an honest response ready. This response needs to be respectful of the president, but it must not maneuver you into calling good evil and evil good (Is 5:20).
I really believe that you want to help make America great again. But mainstreaming sexual deviance is not the way that happens. That is how we become one with Nineveh and Tyre. John Adams once said that our Constitution presupposes a moral and religious people, and that it is wholly unfit for any other. This testimony is true.
We will continue to pray for you.
Cordially in Christ,
Douglas Wilson
Check this paragraph Doug something screwy happened. “This is what you must resolve before God to do. When that moment comes—and I can tell that it is coming, and is almost upon you—this is what you must do. You must refuse the caYou must refuse the candied offers that will come, and you must defy all the threats that will immediately follow your refusal.ndied offers that will come, and you must defy all the threats that will immediately follow your refusal.”
How wonderfully and wisely started Pastor Wilson. I pray that our God will get this before Vice President Pennce.
You put your finger on the true issue right from the get go, does he believe and is he willing to submit to God’s law? In other words, by what standard is he willing to rule? If he fears the face of man more than God, we will have a lukewarm 4 years that God will repeatedly be spewing out of His mouth. This country already has so much judgement hanging over its head, due to those who died in unjust wars and those who died at the hands of unjust abortion providers, that to continue down the path of… Read more »
Excellent. It is sad to see our nation continue to defy God.
A nobody with internet access from Columbus, OH wholeheartedly supports this admonition.
Thank you for this post and the motivation it gives me to keep praying for believers in positions of power and authority, for unrelenting courage to speak truth when tempted to agree with lies.
What a lovely (and I do mean that in the strictest sense of the word), gentle, Christ honoring, pastoral letter!
opportunity to address
Typo Corrections:
– I wanted to take this opportunity “TO” address you
– But it “IS” not prejudiced to read Leviticus
Classic Wilson. Writing a whole post that could be avoided if he gave Pence a little bit of charity. Letting the language of inclusion mean “participation in society without fear of violent reprisal” is minimal charity at that.
The lack of a clarification at every mention of inclusion does not equate to going squishy on core theological issues.
These kinds of reactions come from a sensitivity, a soreness that I hope heals enough to let people make general minimal statements without the demands for a requisite four paragraph footnote that repeats an established and fundamental belief system.
Yeah, because that’s what the current cultural tension over homosexuals is about. Violent reprisals. Forsooth!
If he was not giving Pence a whole boatload of charity he wouldn’t bother to write this letter. It’s the most charitable thing I can imagine doing. Most people wouldn’t even bother.
A whole post? Our esteemed host here can knock out posts in his sleep. As for it being uncharitable though, that seems like an uncharitable accusation. Would it be more loving to not remind the vice president of these things?
Christians are not called to live as close to the line between righteousness and sin as possible, but to live a holy life as far from it as possible.
Nothing is therefore more charitable than admonishing another believer about the truth as stated in Scripture.
“Writing a whole post that could be avoided if he gave Pence a little bit of charity.”
That’s exactly what this is.
Hint: Next time, read the full post. It will help you avoid looking foolish.
You guys are sick. Read Galatians. You are declaratively the spies that seek to force Christians into slavery. Through Christ we have freedom and you are absolutely and definitively wrong in all your thinking. “2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not or in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was… Read more »
“You guys are sick,…wrong,..incompetent..”
Wow! Sounds like there is no law against irony either!
????
“…you are absolutely and definitively wrong in all your thinking.”
To make such a statement, you should at least be able to articulate some of the content of your opponent’s thinking…which I fear might not be the case. Long Scripture quotes do not constitute an argument or even a coherent accusation.
Simply put, be specific.
Simply put. Read.
I didn’t ask you to put it more simply. I asked you to be more specific. The problem with your original comment was not that it was simple, it was that it was vague to the point of simple-mindedness.
Are you saying that Jesus’s words and scripture are simple minded?
Your application of them was.
If you’re going to quote Scripture, you also need to show how it applies.
Without specifics, as previously stated, you haven’t made any kind of point.
This is from a guy who posted elsewhere: “Wow, you are super uneducated like the rest of the Republicans. Leave the government to the democrats, we have what I like to call a degree and actually paid attention in class. Bury yourself so I have a place to park my bike. You will absolutely lose the war you are waging.”
“Bury yourself?” Talk about fruits of the Spirit!
If prince charles actually had to bury anybody, he might get his pants dirty, then he’d be in trouble with mom. (Ruh-roh!)
Hence all “sick” bad people must “bury themselves”.
Prince charles must have a thing for zombies! ????
Please get started.
LOL!
yes, that is a fruit of the spirit as the bible states. Are you laughing at the bible or just your own ignorance?
I’m not quite sure what point you are making. I believe you are trying to say that homosexuality is OK because Paul allowed Gentiles to become Christian without being circumcised first. Then you use the fruits of the Spirit verse to say that there is no law against love. I assume that you are implying homosexuality is love, therefore there is no law against it. Is this correct?
He is rather incoherent. You’ve done a nice job trying to understand him but it’s probably best to assume he is incoherent on purpose. The alternative is that he’s an idiot. Or is there some other explanation I haven’t thought of? If he’s being incoherent on purpose or if he can’t help it, it’s probably best to ignore him.
So I guess if anyone was beginning to wonder if Pastor Wilson had let his Troll of the Month club membership lapse, you have your answer.
…. “Clark, its the gift that keeps on giving the whole year.”
Troll?
The little prince seems more like a hampster,
at best. ????
There’s also no law against executing sodomites.
There is unless said “sodomite” has been tried and convicted of a capitol crime. Being gay doesn’t count.
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:27,32
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
No reason sodomy can’t be a capital crime.
In some imaginary future Biblical republic, perhaps, as in Saudi Arabia. Would you insist on the standard of two trustworthy witnesses catching them in the act, or would the word of spies and informers be enough?
The former standard you describe would still be sufficient to prevent people from confessing to it, which would be a major improvement over how things are now.
It could be if you could get the laws changed(and Constitution amemnded). Citing Bible verses to justify such a thing will have about as much impact as quoting the Koran to non-Muslims.
I’m not interested in convincing non-Christians.
And I expect that most non-Christians don’t care much about your mythology, so we’re even.
Your comments (and misguided beliefs) are why people like Charles feel threatened and have a need to lash out. I personally don’t understand why our personal, intimate relationships have to be the center center of public forum? Everyone has the freedom to live as they choose, as long as they are not infringing on another’s same right. So let them live and pursue their own happiness. Meanwhile, as Christians we should pursue our happiness through Christ and it will be clear that we have something they don’t and therefore they would be drawn to Christ through love, not hatred.
Think about where you got this idea from. (It’s not in the Bible.)
What else were they wrong about?
“I personally don’t understand why our personal, intimate relationships have to be the center center of public forum?”
I guess for the same reason a Christian grandma is now making her way to the Supreme court after being fined over a million dollars for declining to do flower arrangements at a wedding.
Clarke wrote:
For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
So I think you are confusing Paul’s focus on not needing to follow Jewish customs in order to be a follower of Christ with morality that we owe Christ because of his great love and sacrifice for us.. You correctly point out that a fruit of the spirit is self control- that includes self control powered by the Holy Spirit in our sex lives/choice.
The fruit of spirit if love and against this there shall be NO LAW.
Love does not encourage others to engage in behavior which will leave them riddled with disease.
Love does not lie to people by telling them that their disordered sexuality is normal and good.
Love encourages people to live as God would have them live, which does not included erotic hedonism of any type.
God would have them live without sex with a woman. Direct quote.
Maybe you had a good point but I stopped reading after your first sentence. Please refrain from making dumb comments please.
Because in those things (love, joy, etc) they FULLFILL the Law. The context should be clear or at least made clear. Freedom in Christ is freedom from the chains of Sin and Death… to do…. God’s will (His standards). It allows us to fullfill the law and the NT is focused on the Law and how in the new covenant we are finally able to do so.
Charles, you have chosen Scripture about the circumcision argument to make a point about homosexuality while leaving out something very important. The argument is detailed in Acts 15, and it was an epic argument. It concluded with all coming to an agreement that they should not put a yoke around the neck of the Gentiles they cannot bear (they need not be circumcised or comply with all the law of Moses as it applies to the Jews), BUT: 19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we… Read more »
The fruit of spirit is love. And there shall be no law against it. You interpretation of sexual immorality is incorrect and incompetent.
You do not know what love is.
John 15:17 – You are not a follower of Jesus Christ.
“And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife.”
Deep, man.
I’m convicted.
(Or was “Josh 15:17” your appointment at the bathhouse?)
It’s a typo. He means John 15:17.
This is my command: Love each other.
Great and holy Lord God, please bless Charles with your love. Please reveal to him the whole and complete truth of that love and the glorious magnificence and purity of your will in each of our lives. By the power of your Holy Spirit, please melt away any anger and any pain in his soul and replace it with the peace that passes all understanding. Let all be to the glory of the name of Jesus Christ, AMEN.
Josh 15:17 – You are not a follower of Jesus Christ Part 2.
@ Charles Clarke
“You guys are sick. Read Galatians. You are declaratively the spies that seek to force Christians into slavery. Through Christ we have freedom and you are absolutely and definitively wrong in all your thinking.”
Ha ha! Thanks for the satire. You sound just like one of those pretend Christians who condemns his (supposed) fellow Christians who hold to the biblical view of homosexuality and therefore speak up against it.
Well done. You should get a job writing comedy!
You are clearly not a follower of Christ – John 15:17
Good response, Douglas, other than lumping Selma in with Stonewall. You have written in the past on this blog about the real prejudice you saw where you lived at that very time.
Jack, should have put the quote marks in. That was Obama’s line.
OK, thank you for the clarification!
I was at first confused by that too – it seemed like you were labelling all three things (Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall) as examples of compromise. But you are simply rejecting the false, liberal narrative that portrays LGBTQ issues as the new phase, or even culmination, of the civil rights movement. You are separating these things so that we can celebrate everything represented by Selma without celebrating everything represented by Stonewall. Is that right?
Hey V. P. Pence!
You did a great job articulating the good position against abortion, in contrast to Tim Kaine’s weak position for abortion in the V. P. Debate!
Keep doing something similar re: same sex issues! ????????????
Keep up the good work!
Prayers to you!
Doug — do you know Pence?
Did you send this to him personally?
Or are we relying on Providence whether he reads this?
Amen.
And Amen.
Too long winded Rev Wilson!
Jesus said ” go and sin no more” We love the sinner and show the compassion of Jesus at ALL times – NO hate speech!
What you have not mentioned is for the vice president to be in forfront in encouraging the President to ‘bridle his toungue! We will continue to pray!
John Simons (Rev)
Amen. Luke 19:27 should be the verse we meditate on when confronted with these kinds of challenges.
I see what you did there ….
Rev. Wilson is making the age-old mistake of forgetting that we do not live in a theocracy, and as such our country is not ruled by a conservative evangelical understanding of the Scriptures. VP Pence, in his role as VP, will never be faced with enacting policy related to LGBT rights unless he has to cast a deciding vote in the Senate. Beyond that rare possibility he is quite right to uphold the principle of equal rights and equal protection under the law for all. And, he can do so as a faithful servant of God and as a government… Read more »
But we do live in a theocracy. Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords. Christ is seating on the throne of the Father, ruling the nations with a rod of iron there, until all His enemies come to His footstool.
So the question before us is not whether we live in a theocracy, but whether we will honor Christ the King, or perish in the way (Psalm 2).
The question you raise is one for Christians and whether we will live under the rule of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Governments on the other hand are not charged in such a specific way but are to uphold what is right and punish evil for the common good (1 Tim.2 and Romans 13). The Bible is not an instruction book for how to set up a government. If the Spirit-indwelt church cannot agree on how to apply and interpret the Bible then how are secular governments to do so? Peace.
Neither is the Bible silent on how we should govern ourselves.
Cosmo wrote:
I didn’t raise any questions. Christ is King of kings, not just King of Christians. Therefore, since we live in a theocracy, where Christ is King of kings, the king is charged in a specific way. The king must bow, or perish in the way. Someone needs to read Psalm 2.
Cosmo wrote: The Bible is not an instruction book for how to set up a government. If the church cannot agree on how to apply and interpret the Bible then how are governments to do so? Psalm 2 is an instruction chapter on how to set up government. Kings who refuse to give homage to the Son will still perish in the way, even if the Church cannot agree on how to apply the Bible. This is because Jesus is King of kings, and rules the nations with a rod of iron, even if the Church cannot agree. The Kingdom… Read more »
I agree that “rulers” are to fear God and do what’s just and right in their service. But to expect governments to operate as some sort of national presbytery over a secular nation with the Bible as their rule of practice is not mandated in the Bible and indeed not necessary for a just and righteous government. With all due respect please tell me what that would look like, not only in the US but anywhere in the world? We’ll just have to disagree on this one. For those of us who are Christian we should get our act together… Read more »
Cosmo wrote: For those of us who are Christian we should get our act together first in humbling ourselves before The King and praying for our leaders. Cosmo supposes that Christ is The King, but The King of what? Apparently not The King of kings. Apparently the government does not rest on His shoulders. Apparently Christ is not The King in any sense that would require any notice from earthly rulers. Apparently they are free to just plain ignore this king of theirs. So perhaps Cosmo believes that Jesus is not King of kings, but King of his heart? Ya,… Read more »
Had to read this one to the wife. Made our morning. Thank you.
You are truly nuts. Most people don’t care about your religion.
Fortunately, God defines what is normal and sane, not “most people”.
The thing about Christians is that we are not relativists. There is an everlasting Truth out there that does not exist merely in the mind, and it is not changed regardless of anyone’s feelings about it.
Yet.
Error has no rights.
In the civil and social arena it is the government – through the will of we the people – who defines our rights, generally along the lines of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…for all. Thankfully, our individual understanding of error does not apply to others. Peace.
” …it is the government who defines our rights …”
Maybe where you’re from, but here in the United States our founding documents state that those right come from Almighty God. Seem unlikely that those rights would include forced celebration of things He calls abomination.
I agree. So are those God-given unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applicable only to “men” as stated in the document? Are women excluded? And are those unalienable rights only for those who meet a certain moral code or “all men”?
As for forced celebration of abominations I don’t understand where you are coming from on that one. No one is forcing anyone to celebrate anything.
Cosmo wrote:
So the florist can prepare dead roses for the homosexual mirage? Or must those roses be alive and celebratory of the event? How about the cake?
Yeah, what katecho said….
Don’t be obtuse.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past ten years, you cannot possibly be ignorant of the lawsuits brought against florists and bakers to force them to celebrate the sodomite’s parodies of marriage…
Or at least to punish the florists and bakers for refusing to participate. pour encouragez les autres , naturally.
People familiar with the English language understand that historically, “men” can be used to be inclusive of both sexes in formal writing. Many other languages also have this feature, where the masculine form is understood to include both masculine and feminine where the sex being referred to is indeterminate. It is understandable that children just learning to read would believe that the word “men” refers to males only, but literate people soon learn that language has greater nuance.
Except for bakers, photographers, florists, and wedding-chapel owners. And pizza shops. Nobody except them, for now…
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men …. are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Jefferson’s thesis is that it is self evident that government did not define our rights. This was a rebuke to monarchy, specifically King Charles. Jefferson was a Deist, and his idea of a “Creator” was much different from the idea of “God Almighty” expressed in these posts. Jefferson believed that the “simple teachings” of Jesus had been corrupted by the various sects of Christianity. He rejected most Christian doctrine, including the divinity of Christ. From Jefferson we get our… Read more »
richleng wrote:
This is true, except for the suggestion that Jefferson was a Deist. Jefferson refused the label of Deist and identified himself as a Christian. Of course he was a rather heretical Christian, tossing out whatever bits of Scripture didn’t suit his rationalism, but that didn’t make him a deist.
There was a significant plague of rationalistic influence moving through the educated Christians of that day, but it was still a Christian rationalism, affecting Christians.
Katecho, did Jefferson admit the divinity of Christ? I have been taught that he did not believe in our Lord’s resurrection.
Jefferson apparently rejected the deity of Christ. Although, oddly enough, when Jefferson took his scissors to the Bible (literally) he left in the passage about the Son of Man coming again, with His angels, gathering the nations before Him, to separate the sheep and the goats. Deists don’t go for that.
Needless to say, Jefferson was an odd heretical duck. That didn’t make him a Deist though. He identified himself as a Christian, not as a Hindu, or a Deist, or a Muslim.
In Jewish theology the Son of Man would not imply deity and is not interchangeable with the term “Messiah.” So if Jefferson was a Biblical scholar (I’m not, but Jefferson may have been) his use of the term “Son of Man” would have been consistent with his view of Jesus as a mortal man.
richleng wrote: So if Jefferson was a Biblical scholar (I’m not, but Jefferson may have been) his use of the term “Son of Man” would have been consistent with his view of Jesus as a mortal man. Judging from the manner in which Jefferson conducted his cut & paste, hatchet job on the Bible, he certainly shares an affinity with the modern “Bible scholar”. But we can’t, in any sense, call his handling of the Bible scholarly. He was merely indulging his own ideology through an act of self-expression involving scissors and a Bible. Scholarly research had nothing whatever to… Read more »
I don’t see any reference in the Old Testament to the “Son of Man” being a resurrected person. My only point was that the terms “Son of Man” and “Messiah” were likely understood by Jesus’ contemporaries as denoting different beings. I’ll accept that Jefferson was not a Biblical scholar to the degree that you obviously are.
The phrase “son of man” was how God addressed Ezekiel (the prophet-priest). One “like the son of man” is how Daniel (in his vision in chapter 7) describes the Messiah who comes up to the Ancient of Days to receive His Kingdom, and to rule and judge the nations. The Messiah (anointed one) is obviously an anointed king, in the lineage of David, but is also “like the son of man”. Thus we have a unique prophet-priest-king, all in one. In any case, son of man is referring to, well, a man who ascends to heaven to be crowned a… Read more »
A very intelligent post! I’d like to hear more of your views. If you call Jefferson a Christian, you have a very broad and tolerant view of the term “Christian” which I share. Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ or that Jesus was the Messiah (they are not necessarily the same thing). He rejected Trinitarianism and the existence of miracles. He did not believe the Bible was inerrant (He wrote his own version). He disapproved of established religious sects, particularly Calvinism. He believed in the moral teachings of Jesus and supported a tolerant, compassionate and non-doctrinal version… Read more »
richleng wrote: If you call Jefferson a Christian, you have a very broad and tolerant view of the term “Christian” which I share. Yes, I have a broad understanding of the term Christian, but my understanding of a faithful Christian is considerably narrower. Calling someone a Christian, like calling someone a husband, is not necessarily a compliment. There are faithful husbands, and there are unfaithful ones. Jefferson was a ridiculously unfaithful and heretical Christian. richleng wrote: Jefferson’s views were shared by the great intellectuals who founded our Democracy, such as John Adams, Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, Patrick Henry, James Monroe,… Read more »
Good point on Democracy. I was saying we are now thought to be a Democracy, but you are right, we were founded as a Republic. But the point is that while you can argue about what other founders thought of religious freedom, it is Jefferson’s view of separation of Church and State that has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a core principle of our Constitutional government since at least the mid 19th Century. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Courts, we are a nation of laws. Thus an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution is a… Read more »
Thanks to richleng for the compliment. While there is no Constitutional support for the attempt to remove recognition and submission toward God from government, or to remove religious standards from being enacted, I do wish that there had been something stronger in place to preserve and protect the wall of separation between the State and the Church, so that the State would not have swollen to usurp the role of the Church. I wish there had been some mention of a wall of separation between the State and the family as well. The State today is out of control, and… Read more »
katecho said “there is no Constitutional support for the attempt to remove recognition and submission toward God from government, or to remove religious standards from being enacted” I read the comment as saying that it would be Constitutional for the government to require recognition and submission to God and to enact religious standards. That is not true. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, agnostics, atheists, anyone who does not recognize or submit to the Christian God are equally protected from government imposed “religious standards” under the Constitution. Article VI sec. 3 of the Constitution is the only explicit mention of religion in… Read more »
Isn’t it a short step from “Error has no rights” to burning heretics?
If you’re opposed to burning heretics, doesn’t that make you a Protestant?
No, I think Protestants murdered heretics as well. I am opposed to all burning and oppression of heretics. While error has no rights, people do, including the right to pursue their own vision of truth–however demented and distorted it may be–right up to the point that their actions oppress others. Actions may be suppressed but not thoughts. And in this country actions may be suppressed only for the good of society overall on the basis of compelling secular reasons.
On this issue I go with Vatican II, not Innocent III.
“And in this country actions may be suppressed only for the good of society overall on the basis of compelling secular reasons.”
Or because someone was offended…
Pence has visibility and can make statements that either uphold or go against righteousness.
Is Doug Wilson a kjv onlyist?
From his past statements, I understand he’s a KJV mostlyist.
Definitely not. He is a KJVer on principle, but not including the bizarre beliefs of KJV onlyists.
No. He believes it is the best of the currently available English translations due to a preference for the Byzantine text-type and the lack of copyright on the text (in the US at least).
There is also a principle of the Church being the rightful “keepers of the oracles of God”, and that such duty is not entrusted to publishing houses or governments, etc. However, the KJV was commissioned by the King, rather than by the Church, which would imply that there is room to improve over the KJV itself, in regard to that principle.
Principles of text-criticism (i.e. trying to find the text closest to the original) show that the Byzantine text-type is not usually the best. Alexandrian tends to be better. Modern translations such as the ESV, NASB, NIV (1984!) are based on better scholarship and better knowledge of manuscripts than we had in 1611. However, the differences are not so great that the KJV is false or heretical. It is actually very beautiful in its form.
Didn’t make it past the first paragraph and as a Highly Conservative Libertarian, respecting ONLY doctrine which is Sola Scriptura, I’m thoroughly disgusted. We are not now, nor have we ever been, nor will we ever be a “Christian Nation”. We are a nation of, primarily, Christians, though one might argue that the number is vastly inflated by Cultural Christians. Our nation has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to impose our morality on citizens, and the fact that you have to be told this is very troubling. Nobody should be denied any rights or privileges any other citizen is entitled to sure… Read more »
You can always tell the heretics because they’re the ones who claim to know how the early church really was, and tell everyone else they need to throw out millennia of tradition.
Yes, they are readily identifiable to those who wish to use something as lame as Tradition and what passes for discernment to violate the words, teachings, and commands of Christ and those few Apostles.
Explain to me, from the Bible, why non-Christians should be able to vote or hold office.
I’m confused why you would conflate secular office and government with personal belief in God. Perhaps you missed the numerous discussions on how a Christian should act with regards to secular government, some with Christ himself.
Christ doesn’t recognize secular government. All rulers are instructed to render homage to the Son, or perish in the way. Christ is King of kings like that.
It is a sad myth to suggest that there is some secular ground that Christ is not Lord of, or that He is not exercising claim over. Those nations who resist submission to His rule resist in vain. They devise a vain thing. The Lord laughs in heaven. See Psalm 2.
Your theology differs quite a bit from the New Testament.
Cepel wrote:
Cepel does not indicate how. He needs to explain why Psalm 110 is one of the most quoted chapters in the New Testament.
I agree with you that all rulers are instructed to render homage to the Son, as Nebuchadnezzar was stricken with madness until he acknowledged the “God of Heaven” as the only true God, and as Herod was stricken with worms and died because he did not acknowledge God. Yet all governments are ordained and established by God, so he recognizes them in that sense (Romans 13:1). Also, the government does not have the responsibility to be the church, that is, to proclaim God’s word, and they cannot enforce beliefs. To do so is counter-productive, as the Roman Empire under Constantine… Read more »
Here’s a first attempt: because the Bible does not forbid it. Do you disagree?
No, I agree there’s no prohibition there, but you’re already operating in a different frame of reference; I suppose I phrased it poorly. More specifically: if a Christian prince decides it’s prudent to require church membership to hold political power, is that sinful? I was trying to get at the idea that “libertarianism” has a rather different foundation that isn’t in harmony with Scripture.
I wouldn’t think so. Insisting on church membership might be inadvisable – you wind up giving clerics veto power over political nominees. But that’s a prudential argument. Really, the best system would be one in which lack of church membership/credible Christianity is scandalous, rather than one in which it is illegal.
How the early church, is fairly well outlined in scripture, Acts, the letters of Paul to several large churches he helped plant and disciple, and the assorted epistles at the end not written by Paul.
Which, of course, you understand and all those church fathers and teachers got wrong. Augustine? Eusebius? Morons.
Sinful men as we are sinful men. Yes. They got it wrong… even if it could be argued that they were men of good intent. Whenever they deviated from the words, commands, and example of Christ, they got it wrong. Not morons. Just wrong. Hold them up against Scripture, and they don’t match. Wrong.
Someone’s morality is going to be imposed.
I agree, it’s a very difficult line to try to walk. We will always legislate morality in one form or another, it’s human nature and part of any civilized society. But one aspect of walking that line is recognizing when we really are trying to force our holy beliefs on a secular nation. My solution, perhaps a cop-out, is to stop participating in government on the issue of a sacred command/definition given by God in Genesis 2, Reiterated by Christ in Matthew 19, and elsewhere and really emphasized (at least on divorce) in Malachi 2:10-16, and instead only stick to… Read more »
Marriage is part of God’s design for a well-ordered society. Even in a secular understanding there are legal implications. Where the law is involved so is the government.
This is an alteration from the established early church. Rome did not care about the marriages, their status and disposition, they cared only about census numbers for the purpose of taxation and legislating remotely through potentates such as Herod Antipas. They left religious issues to the Jewish Authorities. The catholic church heretical assumption of Magisterium deviated the previous practice of NOT being involved in government by trying to become government and we’ve never since seen the two properly separated again.
An appeal to the ‘good old days’ of Rome is not a very strong argument.
Thank you BCB, but please don’t use informal logical fallacies to deliberately characterize my position. My appeal is to obey the example of Christ and the few apostles who had seen and interacted with Christ. Christ did not come, as expected, to conquer, but so that we might know the Truth.
Cepel wrote: My appeal is to obey the example of Christ and the few apostles who had seen and interacted with Christ. Cepel’s wording appears to be an attempt to position himself to reject the Apostle Paul. However, Paul did hear and see Christ on the road to Damascus. He was blinded by what he saw. Christ interacted with Paul rather directly. Cepel wrote: Christ did not come, as expected, to conquer, but so that we might know the Truth. This is false. Christ came to conquer, especially the nations and kingdoms of the earth, which is why Satan offered… Read more »
The verse about the gates of hell not prevailing did come to mind.
How is it that you keep quoting what I’ve written and saying “Cepel wrote” when “Cepel wrote” a request that you call him by his name, “Christian” *chuckle* I am not of Asiatic descent so I don’t use my patronymic as my identifying name. I actually plan on legally changing the Cepel at some point *chuckle* Ah well.
First to Paul’s Apostleship…. I was attempting TO include him, not use a logical && statement, so I should have said and/or. Mea culpa. No, Paul’s the man! Um… False? Do you consider Christ’s words to Pilate where He tells Him explicitly why he has come to be a lie? ‘Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth… Read more »
I like it when death gets its’ ass kicked! ; – )
God is the only one Who can do it!
Truth has no leavening effect apart from a personal pietistic change?
By the way… God’s definition/establishment of marriage never included any language or even any indication that He designed it for a well-ordered society. His entire motivation is summed up in “It is not good for man to be alone”. One small look to the future, “For this reason a man shall leave his family and cleave to his wife.” so he did go so far as to formalize families, but nothing is said of well-ordered society. IN FACT, when the Levites were given authority and made laws for a well-ordered society that included disposition of marriage, Christ EXPLICITLY stated in… Read more »
If no one suffered from hardness of heart there would be no need of the law to expose it.
And to exclude the thought that God did not design the family for the good of society fails to take into account how God values the family throughout the scriptures.
Cepel wrote:
Since we are on the subject of God’s intent for marriage, Cepel would do well not to overlook the context of the command to multiply and fill the whole earth. This marital fruitfulness is something which homosexual mirage is utterly incapable of.
I absolutely agree. Homosexual marriage is a secular arrangement of legal distinction only. It is not honored in heaven. That’s why I propose returning marriage to it’s original definition, man, woman, before God. Since the word has been ruined (and need I remind people that we are using a modern-day language to refer to the word used in Hebrew, for the purpose for which it was intended, we must call it something else. I am proposing “Sacred Marriage” but if someone clever comes up with a new name, I’ll embrace it as long as its definition matches scripture definition. A… Read more »
Cepel wrote: But one aspect of walking that line is recognizing when we really are trying to force our holy beliefs on a secular nation. Christ doesn’t recognize any secular nations. God requires every ruler to give Him the homage He is due (see Psalm 2). There is no permission to ignore God. Christ is King of kings, ruling the nations with a rod of iron, and His Kingdom overcomes all others. The zeal of the Lord of hosts accomplishes this, so it is not dependent on Christians to lead our own coup. We simply declare Christ as King, and… Read more »
So declare already, and then respect the fact that our founders elected NOT to establish a theocracy because they’d seen the failure of such ventures in the past. They established a government that may be influenced by the views of individuals who reverence God, but not in any legal standpoint, such as legislating morality. That’s not and never should be the role of government. Yes, God is Sovereign. He will see all things put in balance and put to rights… but He himself also instructed us to Render unto Caesar and to be obedient to the established government (at the… Read more »
Explain, from Scripture, why we should do so.
Explain why this was markedly -not- the practice of the early church in Acts and then in the glimpses we see of daughter churches throughout the holy land and Asia minor, and why that should ever have been altered. Honestly you rather sound like the Jews who missed Christ because they expected a conquering King to do away with the oppression of the Roman empire and to, in a sense, set up the church in the way set forth for the end times. Instead he led his disciples to practice their faith under the secular authority and to render unto… Read more »
Why do you think that anyone who doesn’t share your religion would care?
Cepel wrote: So declare already, and then respect the fact that our founders elected NOT to establish a theocracy because they’d seen the failure of such ventures in the past. What the founders elected to establish is irrelevant to whether Christ is King, and whether rulers have a duty to give Him homage. God established a theocracy and gave all rule and judgment to His Son. God requires all rulers to give homage to Christ. He does not ask them to establish what He already established. Cepel wrote: They established a government that may be influenced by the views of… Read more »
Thank you. Please call me Christian :) I think I hear where you’re coming from, but the disciples ignoring secular government was something done at a personal level and they were opting to face Crucifixion or lions. They were not seeking to overthrow the secular government and set up a theocracy. Rome fell a very short time later, some would argue, myself being one of them because of their defiance of God.
Cepel wrote:
This is because God set up a theocracy, and established His Son to rule the nations with a rod of iron. All secularist governments who refuse to give homage to Him will be overthrown, by the zeal of God. Cepel’s attempt to carve out a safe-space for secular government is a lost hope. Secular government is illegitimate.
Cepal says (kinda has a ring to it don’t you think?):
“…but not in any legal standpoint, such as legislating morality. That’s not and never should be the role of government.”
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. Are you saying government should make no laws concerning murder and theft, or don’t they count as moral issues?
It does, but that’s not my name :)
I have. I’m a libertarian. Murder and theft are acts against the rights of another person or persons. Personal practice regarding only myself is of no domain of the the government.
“I have. I’m a libertarian. Murder and theft are acts against the
rights of another person or persons. Personal practice regarding only
myself is of no domain of the the government.”
So then you do or do not see murder an theft as a moral issue? Because you said government should never legislate morality …
But I am happy to see you are in favor of laws against adultery, since that is clearly an act against the rights of another person, …or are you?
I misspoke. “Government should never legislate _personal_ morality.” That’s not its role. This coincides with my believe that government should legislate morality of one person violating the personal rights of others. Actually, I favor no governmental laws regarding adultery, especially as they no longer care and have established the LIE of “No Fault Divorce” You’re severing something sacred and tearing apart two or more lies. SOMEONE should be at ‘fault’. Those who commit adultery are under the authority of the sacred leader. The government does not, in a religious-only marriage, extend ‘rights’ to the wronged spouse. It’s not their job.… Read more »
Why was adultery a capital crime in Israel?
Sorry to hear that you spent your whole life working on coming up with a set of beliefs regarding morality and law, only to come to a conclusion that seems quite inconsistent. Not quite sure where “personal morality” separates itself from just plain morality. If there is such a thing as personal morality as you seem to use the term (now that you’ve abandoned “can’t legislate morality”) then isn’t it just a form of the materialist worldview that morality is relative? Isn’t God the ultimate authority on what is moral? And yet when confronted with adultery fitting into your formula… Read more »
Come let us reason together seems to be fitting to your comment. Reasoning is argument and that is why in court rooms the attorneys argue their points.
I am pretty sure that multitudes have come to Christmas through argument.
“We will always legislate morality in one form or another, it’s human nature and part of any civilized society.”
Just seeking clarification. Are you suggesting that there is a way to legislate something other than morality?
Our self evident Creator has pretty good morality!
Let’s use His.
Alleged “Sola Scriptural” dudes should have no problem with that, right?
????
Yes. In personal practice that is what I strive for and so often miss the mark. But we speak here not of personal practice, but of legislating the morality of others in a government defined from it’s earliest days to be free of the influence of religious practice.
No, “church” practice.
We have separation of church and state,
We do not have separation of God and State.
The Dec. of Independence says we get all of our “inalienable rights” from our self evident creator,
Aka, God. ????????????
That’s a pretty good semantic distinction. I don’t know that it’s valid. Our government has no basis on the Declaration of Independence. That document was by Christian men in a fairly informal collaboration telling King George III that we are declaring our geographical and personal independence. The document instituting our government, included certain protections both for government and for the church, original intent of course being spelled out by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Why should a Christian ruler be bound by the scribblings of a heretic like Jefferson, who twisted the Scriptures to suit his fancy?
Where is there a place for a Christian ruler in the United States? We have a government of three branches in a representative republic (not a democracy) so that no man or woman is ‘ruler’. Why do you keep conflating secular with sacred? I’ll remind you that according to a large portion of the western world, King George III WAS the “Christian Ruler” of the day. We’ve had presidents who are Christians who try to further the purposes of God under the authority given and laws imposed by our government. I respect those men.
Cepel wrote:
Why does Cepel keep attempting to carve out a secular zone where Christ’s rule does not apply? The civic rulers have no autonomy or excuse from bowing to Christ as their Lord and King. Their refusal to do so only brings Christ’s chastening and judgment closer. Christ does not bear a rod of iron for nothing. It is for the chastening of the nations. The kingdoms of the earth have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ.
Katecho, preach brother! Psalm 2!
Why are you so sure that the American revolutionaries were right and the loyalists were wrong?
Nope, but it is what happened. Discussing the alternative is merely academic and pretty pointless.
In a hundred years, the Constitution and your ideas about secular states will be academic and pointless for the same reasons.
Golly, I sure hope so. I didn’t say that I -like- this God-hating post-modern secular-humanist society or this government that has almost no resemblance to the Constitution. I’m ready for Christ to establish His kingdom whenever He’s ready. Hopeful anticipation. I wouldn’t put a hundred years on it. He said in no uncertain terms, “No man may know the hour.”
Cepel wrote: I’m ready for Christ to establish His kingdom whenever He’s ready. Christ was apparently ready to establish His Kingdom when He came the first time. Why does Christ tell His disciples, at His ascension, that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Him, if He is not claiming Kingdom authority over the whole world? Is Jesus not King of kings and Lord of lords yet? Why did the disciples get tossed in prison for preaching the Gospel of another King besides Caesar? Should they have waited with that message? Remember that Jesus compared His… Read more »
I wasn’t talking about the eschaton. I am talking about post-USA America.
You seem to believe the Constitution will be of no legal effect whatsoever within about 100 years. Why?
In a decade, the USA is likely to either be run by the Trump dynasty or converted to a People’s Republic of Social Justice. No doubt the Constitution will be kept around like the Roman Senate was, but I see no forces that would (or could) restore the 18th- or even 19th-century constitution of the government.
I am all for the tearing down of our current structure of governance, but I suppose I have a hard time believing that that time is upon us. So many people, Christians especially, are still so committed to our current system of governance and democracy as the only natural way to govern. It seems like any system of government must have some level of popular support and it seems like between the full-on panic of the left which is currently occurring in regards to Trump and the horror that would grip the majority of American Christians were Trump to tear… Read more »
It is remarkable how quickly we can forget the warnings about the tyranny of democracy, and suppress the knowledge that our founders rejected democracy in favor of a republic. Mankind has a very short generational memory.
I think we need to get to the point where people realize that unless we embrace Christianity as the foundation of our government, we will end up as either a godless secular oppressive state, ala the USSR, or more likely another Islamic sharia caliphate. If enough Christians wake up to this reality, we may be able to have another constitutional convention. We wouldn’t need to change too much except to add a clause that all elected officials must swear allegiance to Christ and to uphold the civic and moral laws of the Bible.
Upholding the civic and moral laws of the bible would require us to undermine the most basic aspect our of system of governance, democracy.
Theocracy and democracy cannot stand together as the basis for legislation. If we are going to swear allegiance to Christ, we must drop the allegiance to democracy.
I agree with you to an extent, but I do believe that a system similar to the Massachussetts Bay Colony would work, where voting citizens elected representative leaders, but they were bound to honor the teachings of scripture. So not a democracy, no, but a Christian republic with elected leaders who have to swear allegiance to Christ and his law.
I believe civil representation should begin at the very lowest level, with heads of families. These family representatives should choose believers from their communities (whom they actually, personally know) to further represent them to higher levels of government. This personal knowledge would avoid the need for a coerced requirement for a religious loyalty oath (which is easily bypassed anyway). In other words, the right sort of magistrate will volunteer his public oath of submission and obedience to Jesus Christ the King because it truly comes from his heart, and he wants it known to all. The Constitution might even say… Read more »
LOL, I agree but I’m not sure yet which of those two options I would prefer.
Well, if your prediction turns out to be right, a Trump dynasty definitely seems like the better option, but I’m very doubtful this option would actually prevail; there’s so much of the gov’t to clean out — hundreds of thousands of Obama/Hillary people/SJWs to remove.
I agree, it’s unlikely. But more likely than a return to the status quo of 10-20 years ago.
What does the idea of a “Christian ruler” have to do with the US? We’re not a theocracy and the concept makes no more sense than talking about a “Muslim ruler” or a “Hindu ruler” in regards to our government.
The Dec. of Ind. is the basis of our government and nation. It preceded the constitution.
Rather than being “informal”, the actual signatories said “If we don’t hang together on this, than we shall surely hang separately.”
I’m sorry, but that displays complete ignorance of the foundations of our government. There is nothing in the DoI pertaining to the eventual establishment of government. The signatories actually had no authority other than their prominence as members in that society. Please do your civics homework and stop distorting the reality of the creation of our nation which was much later than the DoI.
Puddleglum: ” There is nothing in the DoI pertaining to the eventual establishment of government. The signatories actually had no authority other than their prominence as members in that society. ” The Dec. of Ind.: We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved… Read more »
Thomas Jefferson was not a Framer of the Constitution. He was in France serving as an ambassador during the Constitutional Convention. Therefore, he could not have “originally intended” anything in the Constitution.
Mea Culpa. But that would further separate the DoI from the Constitution.
Cepel wrote: But we speak here not of personal practice, but of legislating the morality of others in a government defined from it’s earliest days to be free of the influence of religious practice. This is false, and revisionist. The concept of a wall of separation was not to separate the State from religious influence. The Founders opened with prayer. Rather the wall of separation was intended to keep the State (the sword-bearing institution) from usurping the role of the Church (the charity and benevolence institution), and vice versa. However, we have seen a complete breakdown in this wall in… Read more »
All legislation, at bottom, is a legislation of morality. The only question is who/what will be the source of morality? Man or God?
” resolve henceforth to restore Sacred Marriage before God, pastor, family, friends and get married without any “license” from the State which should never had had any rights in the commencement of marriage, adjudication of disagreements, divorce, and disposition of children where no laws have been violated.
That’s great. But what laws could be violated? Where do these laws come from?
I should have used grammar better Jeremy. Laws in our secular society against neglect, spousal and child abuse, and the like. That secular society posits the existence of a “natural law” while denying a “natural law giver” just means that they get some things right sometimes in spite of themselves. I can’t remember if it was Ravi, or Muggeridge, or Lewis, or someone else entirely who said, in some countries they greet their neighbors, and in some countries they EAT their neighbors, now which do you prefer.” :) Lewis in Mere Christianity has a lot to say on the fact… Read more »
Cepel wrote:
God also commanded secular authority to kiss the Son. Those that refuse will perish in the way, since we live in a theocracy, where Christ is King of kings, and rules all the nations with a rod of iron.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You cannot advocate for Christian morality, while at the same time praising and endorsing secular humanistic autonomy. One must eventually win out, and our nation’s ongoing slide into moral nihilism will continue unless we return to a biblical foundation for government.
Thanks for the discussion guys. I know we don’t agree, but I respect you all. I’m off for the day, so you’ll not get responses for me. Blessings and wishes for good fortune.
I wrote the Reader’s Digest version of this post to Gov Pence during the RFRA debacle here in Indiana. Sadly, Pence folded like a cheap card table. He has and, I believe, will to scurry away from the alphabet soup issue.
That was my immediate thought upon reading this post – Pence seemingly bowed down to the liberal left once while Governor. RFRA – Religious Freedom Restoration Act, correct? Would have protected bakers, photographers and such from sodomite activists.
Wow. I’m checking myself right now with a heavy heart. I might be in a position of influence soon, albeit with other brothers around me, and the last thing I want to happen is I end up like so many others. This letter was awesome and honest. By the grace of God I want to stand with the Daniels & Josephs. I hope our vice president will do the same. There is ample opportunity.
Sing “Dare to be a Daniel”! It actually helps.
Also remember that Esther, Joseph, Elija and many others were Daniels as well, and did “go to ground” at times while waiting for God’s time.
Are you suggesting that Pence could lose his salvation if he compromises, or that likely he wasn’t saved in the first place? I believe Obama’s executive order prevented discrimination in federal government employment decisions against LGBT. Is a Christian leader supposed to advocate employment discrimination? What about housing discrimination? The Old Testament also says that homosexuals be put to death. Is that something Pence should be advocating? After all, you told him to read Leviticus.
I too was a little troubled by the lack of specificity about what Wilson wants Pence to do. If it is to acknowledge that Christians may criticize homosexual conduct as sinful without revealing themselves as hateful bigots, I think Wilson is right. But if it is to encourage Pence to use his position to encourage discrimination against gays in employment and housing, I think he is mistaken.
Is being homosexual both an inalienable part of one’s character and morally neutral, in your mind? That’s usually the rationale behind restricting freedom of association with regard to racial minorities. Does that apply in this case? I wonder at the notion that it should be a crime to discriminate against perverts. Would you include other forms of debauchery on the protected list, or just this one?
Catholics are instructed that homosexual orientation (as opposed to conduct) is objectively disordered (but not morally wrong). It is disordered because it does not reflect male-female complementarity and is not open even theoretically to the possibility of new life. It is not considered morally wrong when it is so innate to the individual that there is no element of moral choice. A person who has felt gay from earliest childhood and who has absolutely no attraction to the other sex is not to be blamed for his orientation. I don’t think homosexuality is always an inalienable part of one’s character.… Read more »
But a landlord should be legally free to refuse to rent to a shacked up couple or an adulterous couple.
If that were the law, it would be fair to extend that to gays–except we would still have the legal issue of the supreme court of the land having recognized the validity of gay marriage. For example, I don’t think that I, as a Catholic landlady, would be permitted to refuse to recognize a Protestant remarriage after divorce while the original parties are still living. I am fairly sure that a gay couple who showed a landlord a marriage certificate would have a case for discrimination if he refused to rent to them in California. That issue has arisen with… Read more »
Of course I was speaking of what should be. If what should be actually was the case no landlord would ever be dealing with the issue of a legally married “gay” couple in the first place. As Catholic landlady, or any other kind of landlady, the question of renting or not renting your property would be up to you and your reasons would be your own.
All that said, we should not make the mistake of thinking one rationale for discrimination is morally equivalent to another.
How do you distinguish between the innate homosexuals and the other kind? Does church teaching draw such a distinction? Is is only a matter of their self-reporting? But at any rate, however you draw the line, you wish that their orientation should be protected, at least in some instances. So how about if one were to discriminate against them based on behavior? That is, if one refused to rent a one-bedroom apartment to an observably gay couple? Homosexual sin is flagrant in the case of wedding vendors. Whether a fellow divorced his prior wife on biblical grounds is a lot… Read more »
Thank you saying this Doug. Excellent and necessary.
I do not doubt that Pence is Christian but he is obviously a confused one on many levels. His comments here are not the only ones that should disturb Christians. Anyone that remembers the homosexual controversies of his efforts in Indiana knows that he wavered there to say the least. As for his faith, he says he is a ‘born again catholic’ so he is not exactly ‘one of us’. I am not saying that he is ‘not a Christian’ but I am saying that plenty of Christians are wishy washy on important issues including homosexuality and Pence lives in… Read more »
Yes, unfortunately Pence seems to have the backbone of a garden snail when it comes to standing up the LGTBQRVBP Secret Police.
Little typo: “But it not prejudiced to read Leviticus.” I think “”But it IS not prejudiced to read Leviticus” was meant.
Would take this seriously aside from my e’ search revealing no ‘open letters’ to dan quayle, geo. bush, Dick cheanie….etc.
And two; his total effort to destroy vips candidacy.
Smfh!
Well, first, you’d have to spell Cheney right.
Why; aont nothing ‘right’ about that guy
Phoenetic
Really? You couldn’t find anything on an Internet search pertaining to something that would have been written prior to 1993 by a man who didn’t publish anything outside the education field prior to 1995? That’s proof positive the man’s a hypocrite if I ever saw one.
I just realized Doug never registered his first car either — at least I couldn’t find a record of it in a Web search.
I think we are looking later; theres always time(2008, or latet). Btw, while we are in the seemless garment isle should we not look at the christian warmongering Arab killjoys?
Neoconfederate Chattel Slavery Apologist pens an open letter to VP Mike Pence, warning him of his eternal soul were he to be charitable to LGBTQ people — and yet makes no mention of the open and hostile racism of this administration towards Latinos, Middle Easterners, and Black people, nor its hostility to women’s rights.
Oh, wait, there *is* that line comparing Stonewall to Seneca Falls and Selma.
Stay KKKlassy, Dough Wilson!
“Of course, in posing this question, I am certainly not wishing for a
return to slavery. I am profoundly grateful that chattel slavery no
longer exists in our nation. Let there be no mistake here-the logic of
the Christian gospel is contradictory to the institution of slavery.” — Douglas Wilson. Black and Tan, page 46.
Try reading things before you condemn them.
Wow a whole sentence where he says he’s grateful that it no longer exists! wowee what a find, sir. After a book about how chattel slavery wasn’t really bad. woooow. Good job, chap. *clap* *clap*
Have you read either of Wilson’s books on the subject? Could you state the actual thesis he is trying to advance in either of them? Do you understand how Wilson’s writing about slavery was done in the context of explaining how Christians today should respond the bloodbath of abortion (a much greater evil at this point than slavery ever was)? Can you see how someone could support the South’s right to secede from a legal and constitutional standpoint, while not supporting the system of slavery that caused them to want to secede? Or is Doug just a big scary boogeyman… Read more »
The fact that you’re defending a slavery apologist (who wrote not one, but two books defending the honor of slavers) and a protector of a child molester (who married a child molester off so that he can have a child of his own to molest) says so much about you, sir. The fact that you consider abortion to be “a greater evil than slavery ever was” tells me all I need to know about you, Rick Davis.
And it tells us all we need to know about you, Jasdye.
So I’ll take that as a “No” to rational discourse. Oh well, it was worth a try.
Cheers. :)
This is why we can’t take folks like Jasdye seriously. Even when they are shown their error, they just double down in their false accusation anyway. They show that they are not interested in representing Wilson accurately.
Funny that. I answered, but someone deleted my comment. Was it because Doug Wilson and his fans approve of child molestation cover-ups?
J’, per our host’s comments in the below link, he does not approve of cover-ups or molestation:
https://dougwils.com/controversy
I bet our host is even against puppy fur coats! ; – )
Jasdye did you miss the forced slavery from the previous administration? Did you miss the support for those countries that kill homosexuals? Did you miss the hatred toward blacks by killing their babies before they are born? Now that is real.hatred not your hurt feelings driven by the TV.
Slavery is not a sin. Sodomy (and approving of sodomy) is.
Dear Mike Pence, ignore the above and just keep doing what you’re doing on this. In reality, no one outside the far religious right cares at all about rescinding some limited workplace protections for LGBT types. This is not a hill worth dying on, and one must pick their battles. A far better use of your limited time is to keep Trump from starting any stupid wars.
Man I hope he actually reads this
I hope you physically mail this letter to him!
Are you claiming Seneca Falls and Selma were also based on lies?
Of course, a kowtowing letter from a Christian. How lame, esp. for Pence. My open letter is less flattering, given his hatred of LGBTQ, renewable energy, etc.