Banner
Fools and Blind PDF Print E-mail
Engaging the Culture - Meaning of Judgment
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Saturday, 29 December 2012 08:55

In the long aftermath of the Newtown tragedy, one of the things that has become apparent in the midst of all the recriminations is we do not know how divine judgment works. We do not yet know how God operates, and we do not see how diseased our culture has actually become. We are not only visited with horrors like the shooting, but also with the horror of officially sanctioned nonsense circling over the first horror like an opportunistic murder of crows.

To the extent that Christians think about cultural judgments at all (which is not as much as it should be), we tend to think that because we have done this bad thing "over here," then that other bad thing might happen "over there." This might be the case early on, when the judgments are still warning shots, like the collapse of the tower at Siloam.

But what we are dealing with is a judicial stupor across the board, and it is the hand of God upon us. This means the darkness is settling in over everything. God is the one who strikes with blindness (Ex. 4:11), and He knows how to do it. Our prayer must be for a black swan reformation or, failing that, that God will encircle His people with the angel of the Lord (Ps. 34:7), protecting them from the chaos of justice outside (Zeph. 2:3)

"For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: The prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered" (Is. 29:10).

The central judgment upon us is that we do not understand the judgments. Our seers, our poets, our writers, our essayists, our producers and directors, our pundits, and our prophets all spend their time giving one another "blindest of all" awards at the Kennedy Center.

God is not just judging us for abortion; He is judging us with abortion. He is not just judging us for homosexual marriage; He is judging us with homosexual marriage. He is not just judging us for confiscatory taxation; He is judging us with confiscatory taxation.

We need to get this principle down. Adultery is not just a sin for which there will be judgment later on. Adultery is itself a punishment (Prov. 22:14). God does not just strike a man for adultery; He strikes him with adultery. Homosexuality is not just a sin for which there will be judgment; it is the result of the judgment already falling (Rom. 1:24-28). God does not just judge us for gay pride parades -- He is judging us with gay pride parades.

So again, what sense does it make for us to set all our hopes on all the parliaments of the blind voting to bring back blue?

If this the hand of God, then only God can stay His hand. And in order for God to stay His hand, it must be in accordance with the terms of His everlasting gospel -- Christ crucified and risen for all the world. And how will they hear without a preacher? And how will they preach unless they are sent?

There will be some who try to slip off the point by pointing out that I was not even-handed in this -- I condemned abortion and homosexual marriage, for example, but not gun ownership. Doesn't all America -- both left and right -- need to repent of her sins? Yes, but gun ownership is not a sin. It is a virtue. Neither is the ownership of 30-round ammo magazines a sin. That's a virtue too. Sin is defined by the law of God, and not by the night terrors of the recipients of Kennedy Center awards.

So all America -- left and right -- does need to repent of her sins. Abortion, sodomy, statist thieveries, voting for purblind leaders, secularism, fornication, and child abuse. That'll do to start with.

And Christians, in the meantime, need to learn how to see this unraveling spectacle as a severe instance of what God is doing to America with the left, and not a example of what the left is doing to America in spite of God. As though "in spite of God" were a real category! Fools and blind!



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Friday, 04 January 2013 08:28
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Rob Steele  Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:57 am
"Mags" or "magazines". Gun guys get testy when you call them "clips".
Douglas Wilson  Friday, January 04, 2013 8:29 am
Rob, my mistake. Fixed it.
Rob Steele  Friday, January 04, 2013 12:47 pm
I'm going over the top pedantic here but that's what I do. "Ammo magazines" is redundant, at least to my ear. Just plain "magazines" should suffice. You never know but this crumb of information might come in handy.
Jonathan  Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:06 pm
Pastor Wilson, you must define the word "virtue" differently than me. I've owned guns for over 20 years, and I can certainly say that there has been nothing morally virtuous in the mere fact of my initial or continued ownership. In fact, I was an unbeliever with quite little virtue when I acquired my first guns, and a great deal of my fellow gun owners were quite non-virtuous as well. It simply doesn't take virtue to become a gun owner, nor does becoming a gun owner point to the existence of any particular virtue that I am aware of.

To paraphrase you, sin is indeed defined by the law of God, and not by the night terrors of the recipients of Kennedy Center awards, and virtue is also defined by the word of God, and not by the Republican party platform.
oldfatslow  - What's the Bag Limit on Black Swans?  Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:27 pm
If we are depending on a "Black
Swan" to solve things, I think it
means we are lazy.

Whether it is dispies longing for
a Rapture or Puritans longing for
a revival, we don't want to do the
hard work of doing the hard work.
The liberals understood what it takes
and set out an agenda that has slowly
taken over the Christian west.

Christians are, for whatever reason,
too quick to wish for the deus ex machina
to come deliver them. We forget that
we already have the Holy Spirit in us and
at work. We need to face this world in
terms of that and quit expecting some
other deliverance.

I speak this to myself mostly for this
is a particular failing of mine.

ofs

Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Scott, did you read the post a couple down on the page? "Black swan" here isn't referring to one that comes about via deus ex machina, but one that comes about via Deus in caelo.
Ben Scholten  - Clarification please. Why not a whole blog even?  Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:48 pm
The virtue of preparedness to fight with 30 round capacities is begging to be explained. Please?
Matthew N. Petersen  Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:08 pm
I'm more or less with Jonathan here. I don't have a problem with people owning guns, but I don't own any. Does that mean I lack virtue?

Also, as Jonathan said, you'd be hard pressed to give a biblical support for raising gun ownership to a virtue. Gun ownership is adiaphora, and so we should, at least in principle, be willing to listen to arguments that it is foolish for a society to allow gun-ownership.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:44 pm
Doug, I don't think your even-handedness problem lies in your views on private ownership of guns; as it happens, I'm a big proponent of the Second Amendment who happens to agree with you on guns.

Rather, I think your even-handedness problem lies with not addressing sins that the right wing happens to like: Greed, for example, which has probably done far more to destroy this country than any of the things you mention. While I don't have my concordance right in front of me, it is my recollection that the Bible says far more about greed than it does about gay marriage or abortion.

Some years back, a notoriously crooked businessman was running as a Republican for Congress in my district. He told a local television reporter that his greatest hero was Jesus. The reporter then asked him, "Would this be the same Jesus who said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God?" The deer in the headlight expression on the candidate's face was truly priceless.
Jon Swerens  - Where to find greed  Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:16 pm
Greed is absolutely a vice, and is absolutely all over the so-called right wing. But greed positively drives the left wing. How you can locate private greed on one side of the aisle but not the public greed on the other escapes me.

Phillip Harrison  Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:02 pm
It's quite possible I'm all wet here, but I took Pastor Wilson's statements to mean that the virtue is in the RIGHT of lawful ownership and responsible use of guns and high-capacity magazines.
Timothy Murray  - re: Clarification please. Why not a whole blog eve  Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:14 pm
Pastor Wilson.

Clive Lewis wrote of 'men without chests'; You are one of the few Christians--and even fewer pastors I have met who has one.

Thank you for taking the fight to the enemy. Thank you for recognizing that we are in a fight.

I do agree with Mr. Scholten that there is no virtue in preparing to fight with 30 round magazines when 100 round magazines are relatively easy to forge.

Phillip Harrison  Saturday, December 29, 2012 3:44 pm
Quote:
I do agree with Mr. Scholten that there is no virtue in preparing to fight with 30 round magazines when 100 round magazines are relatively easy to forge.


All I have are 30-round Magpuls. I'll just have to limp by:D

The gun/magazine issue was just one point used to illustrate a much larger issue, and while I don't want to go too far down this rabbit trail, I still would be VERY MUCH interested on what Pastor Wilson has say about the looming posibility of the government's confiscation of our weapons. Could a Christian conveivably be within his rights to resist such a thing should it be made into law?
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:56 pm
Jon, you are right that greed is to be found on the left as well, but there are two critical differences between the left and the right on the greed issue.

First, the left doesn't celebrate greed as a moral imperative the way the Ayn Randian wing of the right does.

Second, there's an important distinction between greed that is taking a cut from feeding widows and orphans, versus greed that is taking a cut from sending American jobs overseas. In both cases you are trafficking in human misery, but the underlying goal of feeding widows and orphans is, at least in theory, more noble than laying off 100 workers so the CEO can buy a second house in the Hamptons.
David Runyon  Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:47 pm
There is nothing virtuous in feeding widows with other people's money.
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:21 pm
Especially not when the "other people" are widows and those being fed are people who could jolly well take care of themselves. Makes my blood boil every time I think of my 83-year-old mother having to pay property taxes.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:17 pm
David, what was the Old Testament gleaning law if not feeding widows with other people's money? Farmers were required, under the civil law, to allow widows to glean in their fields. That sounds like using other people's resources, with or without their consent, to feed widows to me.
Phillip Harrison  Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:22 pm
Quote:
David, what was the Old Testament gleaning law if not feeding widows with other people's money? Farmers were required, under the civil law, to allow widows to glean in their fields. That sounds like using other people's resources, with or without their consent, to feed widows to me.


If it's done under a theocracy in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, sure, put me down for it. But not under compulsion by a secular state.
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:24 pm
Are you sure that was a civil law? Looks to me from the context more like a moral law, and there doesn't appear to have been any civil punishment attached to it.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:07 pm
Phillip, is that true of all laws -- you reject the authority of the secular state in its entirety -- or just those you personally disagree with?

Valerie, I'm pretty sure that was a civil law, but even if I'm wrong about that, there are ample examples in the law of Moses requiring that the poor be looked after. Debt forgiveness in the year of jubilee, for example, and lenders weren't even permitted to take a rapidly-approaching year of jubilee into account when they made the loans. The idea that there's no biblical authority for using civil government to look after the poor is a recent invention.
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:34 pm
Again, are you sure that's a civil law? I don't see where the civil government plays a role either in carrying out the jubilee or in punishing those who fail to do so.
Phillip Harrison  Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:17 pm
Eric, I don't understand your question. I never said I reject the authority of the secular state, but the Old Testament commands regarding gleaning were about God's people taking care of God's people, and in a society that recognized God as their Sovereign. Our present government denies God, but when convenient will use a cherry-picked scripture refernce to justify its policies. They can't have it both ways.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:32 pm
Valerie, I just re-read it, and it sure sounds mandatory to me; the language used is "you shall" "you must" "you shall not". And I wouldn't expect there to be penalties since that section of the law is civil rather than criminal; that doesn't mean someone who was injured by a creditor not honoring the jubilee year wouldn't be able to bring a lawsuit for specific performance or damages. Under current civil law I have a duty to not maintain dangerous conditions on my property; if I violate that duty, nobody is going to send me to prison but I might end up getting sued.

Phillip, I think you've changed the subject. My original comment about gleaning was in response to a comment that it's not virtuous to use other people's money to feed the poor, so I provided an example of when it is virtuous to use other people's money to feed the poor: a civil mandate for gleaning. The broader point, though, is that the idea that there's no Biblical authority for civil government taking care of the poor is a fiction, and I've just given two contrary examples: the jubilee year, and gleaning. If feeding the poor is virtuous -- and it is -- then the civil magistrate has biblical precedent for requiring it.
Phillip Harrison  Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:57 pm
Eric, feeding the poor is indeed virtuous, but do it with your own money. If you're going to do it with other people's money then you're not allowed to use scripture as a justification for it if you're denying God in every other area (and there is certainly no constitutional basis for it). Like I said, they can't have it both ways.
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, December 29, 2012 8:57 pm
Mandatory, yes. All laws are mandatory. That's rather the nature of the beast. But mandatory to whom and in what way and in what context and subject to enforcement by what authority? I don't see from the context where the civil government comes into it. So you haven't proven a biblical case for government welfare. Whether or not something is virtuous is not a standard for determining what the civil magistrate can enforce. Should there be a fine for impatience? a jail sentence for lack of brotherly affection? capital punishment for anger?
Andrew Lohr  Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:21 pm
Gleaning is hard work, picking up leftovers after the reapers have gone through. Pay a bum a couple dollars to clean cigarette butts off a parking lot? Require businesses to make, say, 1% of their income available for that kind of thing? Is that what the 'welfare state,' the 'thou-shalt-covet' state, does? I think pastor George Grant's book BRINGING IN THE SHEAVES gives churches some hints at this kind of thing.

Since Jesus gave us salvation at the cost of his own life, giving away other people's money is antithetical to Calvary on one hand, though we must be generous ourselves on the other.
dan soltys  Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:47 pm
"So again, what sense does it make for us to set all our hopes on all the parliaments of the blind voting to bring back blue?"

What does this expression "bring back blue" mean? Is it related to "blue laws?"

Dan
katecho  Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:14 pm
Ofs (Scott?) makes a solid point against laziness, but I think I'm still depending on a black swan revival.

I don't believe anyone could make a case that Doug is lazy with regard to the Kingdom, but I'm sure he acknowledges that he has little control over the reception of his labors.

If there is a giving over of a culture to its lusts and perversions, and if there is a famine of the hearing of God's Word, then our faithful labors are not sufficient to go directly against a judgment of that kind. God must show mercy and bring revival. God must draw near. Sometimes our most important labor is to stop everything else and just intercede for this very thing, like Daniel. God tells us His pattern is to preserve a remnant for this very role, not so they can build a black swan through labor, but so that if such a revival is given, it will be seen as a gift and an answer to that prayerful labor.

While I do know of the broad evangelical escapist theology, and the vast cultural landscape that has been abandoned by Christians in the name of secular neutrality, I also see that being busy with Church programs and political action committees is no guarantee the people will listen either. This range of tactics has all been tried, in recent memory. Whether or not we think the culture has accurately perceived the message proclaimed, their general response seems to be clear enough. They don't want Christ in the center. They want just about anything else, whether it is salvation through government, or simply checking out with amusements and distractions. They want us to shut up. We are increasingly mocked and shouted off stage.

We may suppose that the Gospel just hasn't been delivered with sufficient doctrinal accuracy, or sufficient clarity. Maybe; but the Gospel is not rocket surgery and lots of churches still manage to get it sufficiently right in spite of weak doctrinal confessions. But what if I take the example of Christ Himself. His Gospel was perfectly delivered. I immediately see the problem was with the listener. As much as we need to be ready to judge ourselves within the Lord's house first, the same problem seems to be with the listener again today. They have spoken.

This doesn't mean I should give up proclaiming, but there is also a time to consider that the content and frequency of delivery of the Gospel is not the reason for the lack of conversion.

It's possible to take all the pressure on oneself (or to beat one another up) for the lack of cultural interest, which can lead to Christian burn out too. We can become overly reactionary. All sorts of creative gospel trendiness comes from that. We don't need to chew ourselves up in the face of rejection by the culture. Jesus knew all about the reality of rejection, and He warned us sharply about how not to treat pearls. The way the Gospel is presented speaks directly about its worth. A long term plan is in order.
katecho  Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:46 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
Jon, you are right that greed is to be found on the left as well, but there are two critical differences between the left and the right on the greed issue.

First, the left doesn't celebrate greed as a moral imperative the way the Ayn Randian wing of the right does.

Ayn Rand in her peak represented the "Right Wing" even less than Ron Paul did in his weakest showing. That is to say, she never did.
Ayn Rand was an atheist like Eric, and the two of them share the same lack of moral imperatives. Greed is just a label for a natural, amoral consequence of a godless fight for survival resources. Altruism is the anomaly that requires explaining.

The analysis shows that individual private giving is significantly higher in red states than in blue states anyway. Blue state liberals apparently outsource their "charitable giving" to be the responsibility of big government, to be paid back by some hypothetical future generation. This leaves more in their own private pocket for today.

Check out this recent story titled "Stingy Liberals" from the Boston Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/08/22/jacoby/NXAEKAAJzDeSuxK8QqG7iI/story.html
It even gives Doug Wilson's home state a mention. Interesting stats there.

Here's another older article titled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads" that actually tries really hard to soften the impact of the analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

"Right Wingers" aren't perfect by any means, but if Eric insists on his need to heap scorn and guilt, he might want to try criticizing them on points where they are actually weak. Eric the Red's moral hobby horse has no gallop.
Jonathan  Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 am
It's okay to tax everyone to buy multibillion dollar military equipment that the military doesn't want in order to keep a factory running, it's okay to tax everyone to stockpile ten thousand nuclear weapons that will never be used, and it's okay to tax everyone to send soldiers to invade a country on the opposite side of the planet. But it's NOT okay to use taxes to feed the poor. Not because of some constitutional argument or something, but because of morality under God. Sorry, I don't buy any of that for a second.

I wonder if it is also wrong for the government to use tax revenue provide for the care of widows, orphans, or the mentally/physically disabled who truly can't care for themselves. If these people have no family/friends who can provide for their care, and aren't within reach of a church that is willing to take care of them, should we still pass laws that ensure they are left to die? And does the same go for hospital care for those who cannot afford it?

I only listed a few of the things that our government uses tax revenue to pay for. But I'll note that there are a LOT of things the government uses tax monies to pay for which Pastor Wilson never seems to complain about. "Feeding the poor" is only one part of our tax budget, but for some reason it keeps being a primary target.
Jonathan  - re:  Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:46 am
Phillip Harrison wrote:
It's quite possible I'm all wet here, but I took Pastor Wilson's statements to mean that the virtue is in the RIGHT of lawful ownership and responsible use of guns and high-capacity magazines.


I'm not seeing that at all. He clearly said "gun ownership", not the right of lawful ownership, or anything about responsible use.

If the mere right to gun ownership is the virtue at play here, then I'm not worried about us losing that anytime in my life. Even as a gun owner myself, I'm in favor of much stronger regulation around gun transactions and registration, and would favor a few fairly minor restrictions on guns themselves. But no serious person thinks for a second that Americans will lose the right to own a gun in the near or distant future.

Unless Pastor Wilson is saying that ALL Americans deserve the right to own guns, including the young, the mentally ill, and felons who have already paid the penalty for their crime. If Pastor Wilson believes that the right to gun ownership itself is a virtue and that all should have access to that right, then I'd like to hear the full case for or against our current restrictions of the right.
Phillip Harrison  Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:35 am
Jonathan, I will concede your point so allow me to rephrase:
Ownership of guns, coupled with the will and intent to use them responsibly and even righteously, is in itself a virtue. And even high-capacity magazines can be used righteously, as when store owners, armed with "assault rifles" during the L.A. riots years ago, stood guard over their property against a violent mob.
I may still be all wet as to the intent of Pastor Wilson's remarks, but this is how I see it.
Eric the Red  Sunday, December 30, 2012 7:04 am
Neither Ayn Rand nor I disbelieve moral imperatives; we just disagree with Katecho as to their source and their ramifications, and she I and also disagree with each other on the substance. However, we've been over this ground before and I'm not going to rehash it.

I've seen the statistics about individual giving in red states and blue states, and I don't buy it because much red state giving is to religion rather than actual charity, so I'm not inclined to count it. Proseletyzing or buying a stained glass window for a church is not the same as running a soup kitchen. However, even if true, that proves, at worst, that liberals are human and so don't always live up to their own standards. (It may not even prove that; liberals may feel it's the role of the state to look after the poor and they pay taxes to support the state.) Ad hominems are not valid arguments.

And my point is not to attach blame; merely to demand even-handedness. If Doug wants to castigate America for gay marriage, even handedness then requires that he also castigate it for failing to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction. I agree that people who can take care of themselves, should take care of themselves. That said, nobody makes it on their own.
Eric the Red  Sunday, December 30, 2012 7:22 am
Valerie, so unless a law is followed by the words "or he shall be stoned" or some such, it's not a real law? If so, you've just gutted most of the Law of Moses.

No, that doesn't mean the death penalty for anger. It does mean that something that is clearly part of the civil law -- gleaning and the year of jubilee -- can't be pooh-poohed away merely because there aren't criminal penalties.
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:57 pm
Oh, I'm not at all denying that it's a real law. It's just not a civil law any more than "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is a civil law.

And I'm not by any means pooh-poohing anything away. (Not even piglet-pigleting anything away!) The moral principles of caring for the poor is still very much binding. But not every moral law is meant to be enforced by the civil magistrate. You keep saying that gleaning and jubilee were civil laws, but you haven't supported that assertion, and I remain unconvinced.

I bring up the issue of prescribed punishments because that's a helpful clue for identifying what sphere of government is responsible for addressing a particular sin -- the civil authorities, church authorities, family authorities, or my lil' ol' self. And of course each of these lesser authorities is subject to the King of kings and Lord of lords who will see to it that every injustice is ultimately righted!
oldfatslow  - re:  Sunday, December 30, 2012 7:33 am
katecho wrote:
Ofs (Scott?) makes a solid point against laziness, but I think I'm still depending on a black swan revival.


ofs is fine. Valerie knows me in other
contexts.

I imagine I react against the discontinuity
of revival by looking back at the history
of it (well, at least the American history
of it). Revivals tend to bring in wackiness
and corrupt the church. On the other
hand, the early church did not spend
a lot of time desiring revival. Maybe
the closest thing to revival would be
the Montanists and the church was
able to overcome them and, eventually,
to overcome the pagan world they
lived in. That's the model I would
choose over revival.

ofs
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:06 am
What about the 16th-century Reformation? Can't we look to that as a positive example? Yeah, that opened the door for some wackadoodles, too, but the overall effect was glorious and unexpected. I just don't see how acknowledging the need for God to act is a cop-out, because I don't think anybody expects Him to act ex nihilo, but through faithful men.
Phillip Harrison  Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:53 am
Quote:
If Doug wants to castigate America for gay marriage, even handedness then requires that he also castigate it for failing to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction.


It seems to me these are two different issues entirely. Individual, personal sins have always been and will always be with us, and God will judge in His time. But I think the article refers mostly to widespread sins that are becoming accepted by the national culture and perpetrated by the government. Nobody justifies failing to visit orphans and widows, but the things Pastor Wilson mentioned are being celebrated.
David Runyon  Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:00 am
@Eric - gleaning is an example of personal responsibility to help the poor. It is not an example of a civil government helping the poor. The government didn't take the land, glean from it, or give the excess to the poor. It was up to the land owner to do it. To not do so was a sin.

The issue at hand is what is the role of government and what is the role of the Church. The role of government is not to help the poor, it is to defend life, liberty and property. Helping the poor is the role of the Church. The government is force. The Church is charity and love.

I also find it ironic that those who claim that the government should help the poor, are also the same who say that morality should not be legislated. So which is it?
Jonathan  - re:  Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:06 am
Phillip Harrison wrote:
It seems to me these are two different issues entirely. Individual, personal sins have always been and will always be with us, and God will judge in His time. But I think the article refers mostly to widespread sins that are becoming accepted by the national culture and perpetrated by the government. Nobody justifies failing to visit orphans and widows, but the things Pastor Wilson mentioned are being celebrated.

People certain justify failing to help the needy, with the justification that any such help will only make them more dependent.

As far as other sins being celebrated, greed is heavily celebrated in our culture to the point that it might as well be the national motto. So is materialism. So is lust - with permarital heterosexual lust being celebrated far more than homosexual lust is. Nationalism is celebrated in our culture. In certain rather large circles, hatred of the stranger (the immigrant) is celebrated as a virtue. Some of those same circles also celebrate war and violent retribution. I think that all of those issues, in our culture, are corporate issues and not just personal ones.
Jonathan  - re:  Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:15 am
David Runyon wrote:
The issue at hand is what is the role of government and what is the role of the Church. The role of government is not to help the poor, it is to defend life, liberty and property. Helping the poor is the role of the Church. The government is force. The Church is charity and love.

I also find it ironic that those who claim that the government should help the poor, are also the same who say that morality should not be legislated. So which is it?

I believe that morality cannot be legislated, and that attempts to legislate morality likely make people less moral, not more.

But I don't believe that the government should help the destitute because it will somehow make rich people more loving. I think the government should help the destitute because I love and care about the destitute. I believe that the government should work for justice for the poor and oppressed and protection for the needy. I don't think doing so will make the rich better people. I think that WANTING to do so will make the rich better people, but if you're asking for government action to result in moral improvement, then you have the cause-effect in the wrong direction.

Providing health care or food for a person who cannot afford them DOES protect life, much more so than building a nuclear weapon or bombing some people in Iraq does.
katecho  Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:17 pm
Jonathan wrote:
Quote:
I believe that morality cannot be legislated, and that attempts to legislate morality likely make people less moral, not more.

Jonathan has argued that the State should legislate the increasing confiscation of wealth in order to redistribute it to the poor. Given his statement above, Jonathan either holds that his agenda does not involve morality, or else he thinks his own efforts are likely to make people less moral.

Both conclusions are disturbing.
David Runyon  Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:38 am
@Jonathan - "I think the government should help the destitute because I love and care about the destitute."

This is a moral claim. You want to use the force of government to advance your moral agenda, even one as virtuous as helping the poor. The government makes a really bad moral agent because in order to help those who have not, it must take by force from those who have. That is theft.

Now if you love and care about the destitute then care for them with your time and money. Convince your fellow citizens to do the same out of that same love. This is what churches do. This is what the faithful do.

Bastiat sheds some light on this confusion -
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain"
katecho  Monday, December 31, 2012 5:31 pm
Nice quote. David Runyon has identified the central fallacy of Statists like Jonathan. Jonathan thinks that he is being loving and Christian by insisting that the State care for the poor, but it really amounts to full endorsement of the State in usurping the role of the Church, and Jonathan's agenda also excuses the Church for its own abdication of those roles to the State.

You still hear the occasional unbeliever talk about separation of Church and State, but they're overwhelmingly clueless as to what it actually meant. The State has nearly completely usurped the roles of the Church in our culture. The Church didn't object very loudly to the conquest of their sphere. Jonathan can't seem to understand the distinction at all.
Phillip Harrison  Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:40 am
Jonathan, I didn't say "failing to help the needy", I said "failing to visit orphans and widows".
Eric the Red  Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:53 am
Phillip, all you've done is to label as "public" those sins that you think require government involvement, and "private" those sins that you don't. Liberal Christians -- and there are liberal Christians -- simply do the reverse. And by the way, if you want to reduce the number of actual abortions, there is a well-documented correlation between abortion and the unavailability of services for single mothers.

David, my support for government services for the poor has nothing to do with legislating morality; it's purely utilitarian. The problems of the poor have a tendency to spill over into the rest of society if left untended.

And while I take your point that just because the government isn't doing something doesn't mean nobody else can either, there are some problems that really do require a governmental solution because of their size. If you compare the number of hungry children today with the number of hungry children before government social programs, there's no real question that those programs have left people better off. Of course those programs have created problems of their own, but even factoring that in there are still fewer hungry children than there used to be.
Jonathan  - re:  Sunday, December 30, 2012 10:07 am
David Runyon wrote:
This is a moral claim. You want to use the force of government to advance your moral agenda, even one as virtuous as helping the poor. The government makes a really bad moral agent because in order to help those who have not, it must take by force from those who have. That is theft.

If you think the government should do something because it is the right thing to do, then you are using the force of government to advance a moral agenda. That's why we want the government to stop abortions and bring justice to the victims of crime. No one here is arguing for an amoral government that cannot distinguish between right and wrong. I agree that government is a poor moral agent (nearly as bad as a militia or a profit-obsessed corporation), which is why I spend the vast majority of my time and effort on other agendas and only a tiny bit on influencing government. But as bad a moral agent as government is, I'd rather work to make it a better one rather than an even worse one. While I don't think the government can make anyone morally better, I think that those who are moral will want the government to preserve life.


David Runyon wrote:
Now if you love and care about the destitute then care for them with your time and money. Convince your fellow citizens to do the same out of that same love. This is what churches do. This is what the faithful do.

Churches and "the faithful" in general spend a vanishingly tiny percentage of their time and money caring for the destitute. Certainly nothing like what they did early on, which is shocking because the church is so much more powerful now, the faithful are so much richer now, and the destitute (in total numbers) are so much more numerous now.

So right now, there are millions of destitute who are out of the reach of any church or faithful willing to give them the help they need. Until churches in general work to move into poor neighborhoods instead of out of them, and until the faithful make it a general goal to try to live among the poor, suffering, and oppressed rather than among the rich and worldly "safe", then most of the needy will always be out of the reach of the church. I spend literally every day of my life fighting to help the church fulfill its mission in this area more. But until it does that, I have no problem at all advocating for the government to help out with food, shelter, and medical care so that those people will still be alive for the church to serve when they finally get about to fulfilling their mission.

I also think that women should not abort their children because a church community had taken them in and lovingly convinced them it was wrong, not because the state forced them not to abort at the point of the gun. But as long as young women are still choosing abortion (in part because the church is failing to love them enough to give them the physical care and spiritual discipleship they need in this area), then I'd rather the baby lived by the force of the government than died by the inaction of the government. That's a moral decision I don't mind the government getting involved in. Just like giving medical care, food, and shelter to those unable to procure it for themselves.
David Runyon  Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:00 am
"The problems of the poor have a tendency to spill over into the rest of society if left untended."

I agree with this sentiment which is why I am all for people helping the poor with their time and money and not via the force of government. However, there is also the unintended consequences of government involvement in this endeavor. We have seen an increase in children born out of wedlock, more people on disability, more people dependent on government support, more fraud, more single moms, and more dependence in general.


I would also think the utilitarian in you would see how a free market with a Christian moral ethic has helped the lot of the poor and middle class more than any other system in history.
Timothy Murray  Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:43 am
Two points.

One. the back-and-forth of the conversation here has the feel of the 'argument' Pastor Wils addressed recently, where referencing the Five Solae, he concluded both men where correct.

Two. My apologies if linking to an external site is bad form (and I will not do so again, if it is) but regarding Our Lord and 30 round magazines, Ann Barnhardt's http://barnhardt.biz/ "Jesus & Guns Part 1 - IV" raises some interesting theological (?) issues regarding the translation of the Bible (she is using the Douay-Rheims translation--my own Bible is the ESV study) that directly addresses what we are discussing here.
Eric the Red  Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:48 am
David, I absolutely agree with you that one side effect of government programs is that they create dependency and increase the number of illegitimate births. And I also absolutely agree with you that people should be discouraged from becoming dependent, but I think the way to address that issue is by having checks and balances in place that encourage people to get off welfare and back to work. And, no matter what system we have, some people will find a way to game it.

There's another issue hovering over all of this that nobody has addressed: We are engaged in a grand social experiment to see what a society looks like in which the traditional nuclear family is a thing of the past, and gay marriage is the least of it. Between the high percentage of divorces, the high percentage of people living together without being married, the high number of children being raised by single mothers, I think we're a generation or two at most from traditional nuclear families being a small minority of the population. There are a great many things that have contributed to that, including, I will admit, the availability of government money for single mothers who don't want husbands and fathers in the home.

It may be that we will discover that this is a cultural and social catastrophe from which we won't recover. Or, we may discover that the nuclear family was always over-rated and people do just fine without it. At this point, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Overall, I think nuclear families have been good for society and I would mourn their passing, even though I support gay marriage. But one way or another, we're about to find out; I'm curious enough about what the answer will be that I regret that at my age I probably won't live long enough to see.
katecho  Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:07 pm
Eric has sentimental feelings about the nuclear family. Lacking any moral imperatives, this must be the extent of his contribution on the subject. He is "curious" what will follow, but, absent any moral prescription, all such things are but a curiosity.
Jonathan  - re:  Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:04 pm
Timothy Murray wrote:
Two. My apologies if linking to an external site is bad form (and I will not do so again, if it is) but regarding Our Lord and 30 round magazines, Ann Barnhardt's Jesus & Guns Part 1 - IV....

There are a ton of problems with Barnhardt's interpretation, which enables her to say something that pretty clearly isn't implied by the text.

1) Jesus is quoting Isaiah 53:12. That's the suffering servant passage, about the lamb being led to slaughter and all that. It's pretty clear that the lamb in question is not fighting back.

2) Jesus tells them "he will be numbered among the transgressors" in order to fulfill that prophecy. Personally, the way I understand the sword reference is that he's making a colorful metaphor for division, just as he did in Matthew 10:34-39. To deny that he was using the sword as a metaphor in Matthew 10 is a losing argument, since the parallel passage in Luke 12:49-53 explicitly says "division" instead, showing that these were interchangeable for Jesus. Jesus is telling them that division is coming, Isaiah is being fulfilled, they're going to be labeled as transgressors and he's a sheep led to the slaughter. Jesus had used "sword" as a metaphor for division before, but he had never told the disciples to literally pack swords before.

3) Barnhardt dismisses the "Enough of that" translation of the verse just by mockery. She ignores that the phrase is the same used by the Septuigent in Deuteronomy 3:26, where the Lord is clearly angry and "Enough of that" is clearly exactly what he meant and how it's translated into English.

4) If Jesus actually meant his words as a literal command, then his follow-up phrase makes no sense. If Jesus is being literal, then he says that EVERYONE without a sword should buy one. But no disciples buy swords - two already have them, and Jesus ends it right there. Barnhardt makes it clear that Jesus knew they had swords the whole time...so why would he command the ones without swords to buy them, then immediately tell them that no one actually has to buy anything because two swords is enough?

5) In what world would two swords be enough for 13+ men who often split up into groups as small as two? Just that night, the disciples are split up while Jesus is praying, split up after he is arrested, and split up during and after his trial. So how could two swords be enough for the different split-up groups? And doesn't the "enough of this" clearly contradict the command that everyone without a sword buy one, if that command is taken literally?

6) Jesus makes this whole statement only hours before he is arrested. That also happens to be the only moment in which swords are used by the disciples in the entire New Testament. What does Jesus say to their use? He shouts, “No more of this!” and immediately healed the servant in Luke 22:50-51. Hmmm, doesn't "No more of this!" remind you of "Enough of this!" And isn't it clear that he's rejecting the use of the sword? To be even more clear John and Matthew record that Jesus told that disciple to “put your sword into its sheath,” and Matthew adds Jesus saying, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Remember, this is just HOURS after Jesus made the statement that Barnhardt takes as a command to use swords. I don't see how this incident alone doesn't clearly rebuke her interpretation.

7) Every single other time Jesus is recorded as using the word "sword" in the Gospels, he either uses it as a metaphor or speaks negatively of their use. No exceptions. One interpretation is in line with this pattern. The other one is at distinct odds with it. Which interpretation is more likely?

8) The disciples misunderstand Jesus all the time. There's quite a good pattern for that in the Gospels. It's not at all surprising that the disciples misunderstand him here. Barnhardt makes a big deal of the fact that a couple of the disciples must have had their swords at the Last Supper. So? The disciples still had tons of misplaced expectations during the Last Supper, as proved by the fact that they clearly still don't understand that Jesus is going to go to his death, is not going to become a worldly king, does not want them to fight back when he is arrested because his kingdom is not a worldly one. I don't see why the fact that the disciples still didn't get it at the Last Supper shows anything that we didn't already know about them.

9) Nowhere in Acts, or in any of the letters of Paul, James, John, Peter, or Jude, is the use of the sword by disciples ever mentioned. Barnhardt makes a big deal that Luke included this verse in his gospel. I think he included it because it shows how the disciples misplaced expectations for Jesus's messiahship stayed with them almost until his death. N.T. Wright expertly shows how Jesus defied the Jews' expectations for Messiah who leads a revolution against the Romans. This is yet one more demonstration of that. If Barnhardt's interpretation was correct, and Luke was really putting this verse in here to show that Jesus wanted all the disciples to pack weapons in order to defend themselves violently, then wouldn't Luke have shown just ONE positive example of them doing so somewhere in his Gospel or Acts? Instead, he shows one example, which Jesus immediately condemns, and that's it. That doesn't sound like a case at all to me.

10) Along with all the specific evidence against that interpretation, it doesn't fit in with the rest of Luke or the Gospels. Jesus clearly says that his Kingdom is not a worldly Kingdom that his disciples should fight for, all who live by the sword will die by the sword, turn the other cheek, love your enemy, pray for your persecutors, don't resist them, and on and on. Her interpretation is wrong in the small context and wrong in the big context. It just doesn't fit Jesus in any way.
Jonathan  Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:17 pm
Oh, my goodness, I just got to the end. Barnhardt's attempt to explain it all away as a veiled prophecy about Islam really has to take the cake. And then to follow up that it's a command to the disciples not to try to convert by the sword - even though, you know, Peter is pretty obviously not trying to convert a Roman soldier in that instance - is also pretty classic. Her idea that this apparently quite rich phrase also is meant to justify just war and self-defense, even though the exact context is denying self-defense, is also nonsensical.

To summarize, Barnhardt says that:

"Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword"

In the context of self-defense, does not mean the obvious interpretation of "don't take the sword, even in self-defense", but actually means:

1) A veiled prophecy about "the Sword of Islam", and maybe Marxism too.
2) A command not to convert people by the sword, but only with love.
3) A clear ratification of just war and self-defense.

She gets all of that out of that line without a single reference to a single other command of Jesus. Richard B. Hays was right - some people will get whatever they want out of the Bible.
Timothy Murray  - reply to Jonathan  Monday, December 31, 2012 6:19 am
Jonathan,

Thanks for the input. I will re-read the piece with your rebuttal alongside as I try to make sense of it. Please bear in mind that I am lay person who cannot describe many areas of doctrinal differences; i.e. I am a rookie.

In looking at an idea, I like first to get a sense of its limits and then go from there. To my feeble mind, those two limits in this matter are:

1. Christians are to be pacificists
2. Christians are to be armed warriors.

Does that strike you as reasonable limits to what the correct position is? or is it your position that Christians are to be pacifists? Or do the limits of the debate exist elsewhere?

On a side note (and I am not defending this, I am only noting it) Barnhardt used the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible (my own bible is ESV) and I noticed you linked to KJV in your rebuttal to her. Shouldn't the first thing we should get out of the way is the veracity of the version she uses? I honestly don't know, she strikes me as an honest woman who I disagree with on some doctrinal issues (she is a catholic, I am a mere-christian)
Jonathan  - re: reply to Jonathan  Monday, December 31, 2012 8:41 am
Timothy Murray wrote:
In looking at an idea, I like first to get a sense of its limits and then go from there. To my feeble mind, those two limits in this matter are:

1. Christians are to be pacificists
2. Christians are to be armed warriors.

Does that strike you as reasonable limits to what the correct position is? or is it your position that Christians are to be pacifists? Or do the limits of the debate exist elsewhere?

I don't think I could define the limits, because I don't think it's a single linear scale. There are many different types of people somewhere on the "pacifist" end. There are those who say that some types of force are okay but never killing, others who are against all force, others who say that even killing animals is wrong, and all those might be labeled pacifists by some. There are pacifists who don't tend to get involved in any violence and pacifists who take dramatic, courageous action to stop violence that puts their own lives at considerable risk. There are also those who believe that private violence is always wrong but that the government can use violence, those who believe that violence in self-defense is always wrong but that it's okay to use violence to defend others, and those who think that nonviolence should always be the answer except in rare extreme examples. Personally, I believe that Jesus and the New Testament authors teach a clear and fairly strong nonviolent message, but some other nonviolence proponents might take issue with the fact that I am a gunowner and that I support hunting and target practice, though I would never kill another human being. So there are many versions of the "pacifist" end.

On the other end of the scale, there are "armed warriors" who believe that one should only act under the sanction of the government and others that believe that private vigilante justice is okay. There are ones who believe that conversion by force is acceptable and others that believe that violence can only be used for secular wars. There are ones that believe in violence to punish religious/moral law and others who believe that violence should only punish secular laws meant to defend life and/or property. There are ones who are quite okay with assassinations, some types of torture, the killing of civilians, nuclear bombs used on population centers, and other such things, and others who are not. And there are all types of just war proponents, though quite a few seem to stretch the historical boundaries of the term quite a bit.

For myself, I believe that I should never use violence/force that is not done with the aim of restoring the person I am using the force against to God. I don't think loving my enemy could mean anything less. In other words, I would never kill someone, I would never use violence in anger, and I would never use "violence" without the salvation of the person I am using this "violence" against being one of my primary concerns. I think that greatly restricts the kind and degree of violence I could ever use. I believe this not from any single Bible passage, but from my understanding of the Bible as a whole, especially the New Testament. It takes me about 35 pages of typed pages to bring in all the relevant material from the New Testament alone, without really even going into church history or practical application.

As far as Ann Breitbart goes, she is against forced conversion, but she does strongly support the Crusades. I know she supports private self-defense and at least some secular wars. Other than that I don't know her exact position on violence or where she gets the position from. I'm waiting for her permission to post her response to my 10-point response, which sort of shows where she's coming from, but I won't post it until she gives me permission to.


Timothy Murray wrote:
On a side note (and I am not defending this, I am only noting it) Barnhardt used the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible (my own bible is ESV) and I noticed you linked to KJV in your rebuttal to her. Shouldn't the first thing we should get out of the way is the veracity of the version she uses? I honestly don't know, she strikes me as an honest woman who I disagree with on some doctrinal issues (she is a catholic, I am a mere-christian)

I didn't link to the KJV, it's just what automatically shows up when you type in a Bible verse reference on Pastor Wilson's site. I don't have any strong doctrine on Biblical translation - I favor the NRSV, and have very minor issues with the NIV and ESV, but I'm happy to use whatever and actually own all three. I do believe that there are some slightly larger issues with the KJV and Douay-Rheims, but not so large that I am against their use. I am against those who suggest that any single version should be used at the exclusion of the others.
holmegm  Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:22 am
Jonathan wrote:
Churches and "the faithful" in general spend a vanishingly tiny percentage of their time and money caring for the destitute.


You are joking, right?
Jonathan  Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:56 am
No. Annual giving by the faithful in total is something like 2.5%, and less than half of that goes to helping the destitute. Considering that we're an exceedingly rich population, I would consider 1% of our income to be a vanishingly small amount.

I don't know what the statistics are for time, but if the churches I've been involved with have been any indication, it's an equally tiny number.
katecho  Friday, January 04, 2013 1:28 am
Unfortunately, Jonathan seems to be serious. Rather than acknowledge and encourage those who are doing the hard voluntary work of giving and serving in our culture, he seems to prefer heaping up guilt with manipulated statistics.

Even worse, his solution appears to be the obsolescence of the Church, bypassing it entirely in favor of having the State simply confiscate and redistribute wealth in the name of a faceless war on poverty. This is what care and love looks like in Jonathan's egalitarian Statist world.

Jonathan doesn't seem to realize that the State justifies much (most?) of its present existence on the back of the alleged poor and entitled class. They are its power base. The State would sooner eliminate the wealthy than eliminate the underclass.