Seven Post Mortem Principles Print
Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 07 November 2012 08:23

1. The first principle is not just that Jesus is Lord. That wonderful phrase is our foundational confession; it is not simply a sweet sentiment to tide us over until the sweet by and by. Rather we must say that Jesus is the Lord of history, and so He is the one who gave this electoral outcome to us. We don't fully know why He did, but we know that He did.

2. Given the wickedness of key elements in Obama's agenda (abortion, sodomy, thievery through taxation, etc.) we know that whatever the Lord is doing, it is for judgment and not for blessing. And in Scripture, whenever judgment is pending, or has begun, the appropriate response is repentance -- not mobilization or organizing our remaining tatters.

Postmillennial optimism does not mean the world gets better without repentance. It means that the gospel is powerful to save, and when the gospel is preached rightly it comes in the form of "repent and believe." Repent of what? Repent of our sins. Believe what? Believe in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen.

3. No principled vote cast yesterday, offered in faith before the Lord, was a wasted vote. Those who went to the polls with true faith in Christ and a sincere commitment to do what His Word required of them offered up a vote that was part of their living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2). And if He received it, so should we -- even if the vote cast differed from our own.

4. Every unprincipled vote, offerred to the bitch goddess of the state on the left, or the bitch goddess of pragmatism on the soft right, or the bitch goddess of ideology on the libertarian right, was simply thrown away. Professing Christians who voted for Obama were either confusedly or rebelliously heaping up judgment for all of us. Christians on the right who voted for Romney for no other reason than that he was "electable" found out that he was not as electable as all that. And Christians who voted for absolute ideological purity (which is, remember, a form of impurity) found out that that kind of purity wasn't in the running.

5. Consistent biblical thinking required us to be preparing to oppose the proposals of either a re-elected Obama or a newly-elected Romney. In my judgment, opposition to Obama will be much tougher, which is why I would have preferred to have been opposing Romney. But if the Lord has given us the tougher assignment, our responsibility is to take up that tougher assignment with a gladness that submits to His will.

So my predictions of a Romney victory did not proceed from support for Romney. I didn't want to vote for Romney, and I didn't. I didn't want to work for Romney, and I didn't. I was preparing myself to oppose either Obama and Romney, and would have preferred to go against Romney.

6. If you want this conservative to vote with you, stop trying to entice me with non-conservatives. Stop trying to feed bacon to your horse. One of the numbing numbers to come out of this fiasco is the fact that if Romney had simply gotten the same number of votes that McCain did, Romney would have won. This deflation happened without a robust third party candidate siphoning off a large number of votes. The results of this election should not cause us to think we need to "move to the center." Two establishment Republican candidates in a row have gone down, and this second time the centrist lost to a failed presidency. I mean, think about it.

7. Some of the post-mortems will rightly focus on particular political judgments made (e.g. the alienation of Ron Paul supporters). But the long game requires us to be thinking in broader cultural ways, not explicitly political ways. Here are several examples.

Over the next four years our energies should be focused on getting all Christian kids out of the government schools. If your kids are educated by people who are soft in the head, why would you expect them to grow up and not vote for people who are soft in the head? Students become like their teachers (Luke 6:40). Don't lament the fact that Obama won if over 90% of your children's teachers voted for him.

We also need Christians with a thorough-going biblical worldview writing good books, making good movies, and recording good music. As I have argued before, you can't have a naval war without ships, you can't have tank warfare without tanks, and you can't fight a culture war without a culture. And by Christian culture, incidentally, I do not mean pious schlock and I do not mean hipster poses with extra mousse in your hair to make it stick up.

So don't despair. As the Marine general said in the Korean conflict, when his forces were completely outnumbered and surrounded with Chinese troops -- "Well, they can't get away now!"

When the history of our time is written, and they are trying to describe us, we should want historians to have to use the word irrepressible.



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 Wednesday, 07 November 2012 16:27
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
John Simmons  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:45 am
Rise up, O men of God!
Frank Turk  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:54 am
Wow do I wish work hadn't robbed me of our afternoon together.
Robert Seward  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:57 am
Define Failed. He has done most of what he wanted to do and he has increased the power of the presidency by executive order. He has promoted evil most successfully and the results will last long after he is out of office.

I like the rest of what you wrote, though.
jon Erik Ween  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:00 am
One bright point in all the gloom: As the Obanation agenda will surely tank (along with western economy) at least this will keep Hillarious Clinton out of office in '16. We need to count our blessings here!

That said, I agree with a grass roots approach, starting with our kids, our local communities and districts. We just have to hold our nose and barrel through the forthcoming cesspool.

SDG

Jon
Avery Kelly  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:19 am
Good post, I enjoyed reading it. I have a question though, not entirely related to the topic of the post.

What is your stance on "cussing"? I try not to be dogmatic about it myself, and create lists of words that you can and can't say, however, I do feel there are certain words that fall under the category of "cuss words". For example, the "F-word", I believe would be one. I would also consider "bitch" to be one. So when you say it in your post, do you just not believe it is a cuss word, or what?

Not trying to attack or rebuke you, I'm just curious. Thanks.
Matt Weber  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:35 am
4: There's a difference between "electable" and "elected", and the former doesn't necessitate the latter. IOW, Santorum would have lost by more, not less.

5: Why would opposition be more difficult under Obama? With Obama you have the entire conservative movement and the Republican party standing with you, whereas had Romney won most of them would have immediately drank the koolaid.

6: What if the Republicans don't want your vote anymore? IOW, what can they entice you with that would also entice single people under 30, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama?
JP1  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:49 am
Quote:
7. Some of the post-mortems will rightly focus on particular political judgments made (e.g. the alienation of Ron Paul supporters).


The GOP and Romney in particular were as gracious as possible. They could've taken him seriously and ran against him exposing him for who he is and what he represents and what all he is in bed with. Irrational Utopianism, Hegelianism at near its worst.

That said, I'll simply leave this with Lew Rockwell from convention:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118691.html

Quote:
that Ron will never endorse a fascist warmonger for prez, nor has he ever called the Republican party "our family." Ron, who also has brilliant political skills, was able to use the (Manson) family GOP as a platform for his radical and magnificent views. I can't imagine any other libertarian being able to get away with that, if one were even to try.



Bob Drake  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:50 am
@DW I so wish that you were a serious man----you are not Sir! But God will be our judge and this too shall pass! But not without consequences--which you now own!
Douglas Wilson  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:05 pm
Bob, I have heard a lot of charges before, but I think that's a new one.
Rob Steele  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:54 am
"Young man, there's a lot of ruin in a nation."

Adam Smith, responding to a student who told him that the surrender at Yorktown would be the ruin of England

"The times are never so bad that a good man cannot live in them."

Thomas More, some time before being beheaded.
Michael Minkoff  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:30 am
Excellent post, Doug. As far as culture is concerned, how do you propose that we transform Christian culture in terms of art? The tools of distribution have largely been commandeered by the producers and promoters of mediocrity. I started a foundation for cultural renewal a few years ago, but progress is slow. The problem seems to be that most Christians just don't have a taste for sober art. They want mere entertainment. How do you overcome this? If you don't produce what they're currently buying, they'll never know you exist. If you make art like what's already selling, you are just contributing to the problem. If you criticize people's taste, they assume it's because you are an arrogant know-it-all. I find this process in application to be a very arduous one, and sometimes I believe my efforts are completely futile. Thoughts?
Robert Seward  Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:59 am
How about starting to produce serious dramas and put the up for viewing on you tube or some sort of centralized site? There is a man who lives in upstate NY. Every year, he and his buddies make their own Star Trek episodes. Everyone is a volunteer. The special effects quality of the episodes are excellent. Some stories are good, some, not so much. Production monies are totally by donation. With computer graphics, green rooms etc, people could start producing historical movies or whatever they wanted to see on a budget.
Mark Butler  - Getting our kids out of their indoctrination Centr  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:13 pm
Thanks for this great post Doug. Those of us who were victims of government indoctrination recall the arduous and time consuming task that was our own deprogramming. I would like to think that I would be years ahead in my calling if I had not had to endure the process of untangling my Christian faith from statist deviations and distortions that are inherent in state schools.I believe Christians should shake their children lose from the demonic and stupefying effects of these godless institutions. I see this as no less than the moral equivalent of our early ancestors rescuing abandoned babies from the city walls - only this time the foundlings are our own, not those of strangers. The central message of the Gospel is Jesus is Lord, and Caesar is not. Please let us not allow Caesar to raise our children.
Jonathan  - Question  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:38 pm
Hey Doug,
I enjoyed this post. I did have a question about the second paragraph of #7. Isn't it the parent that is responsible for bringing the child up correctly? I know many friends that went to private Christian school that are further off the plantation than those i went to public school with. I agree that many public school teachers are "soft" but if we as parents are actually doing our job rearing them (bringing them up in the Lord), why should we be afraid of sending them to public school?
Allen Miller  - Thank you !  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:05 pm
Thank you for that! I rarely say I'm inspired, but 'I feel inspired!' Your post really helped me out of the funk I've been in since I woke up this morning... :D

Now I'm going to repent of my attitude, when I should have been exhaulting... :oops:
Jonathan  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:45 pm
Elisabeth,
I agree with all of that. I am a product of public school and i have worked with church youth so i am well aware of what is out there in public school and how immoral it is, however, as parents we are to bring our children up as their teachers. The teaching and instruction should come from us as parents whether in public or Christian school. We are to be salt and light to the world and that includes public school. Public School can be extremely difficult, especially to Christians because we are different and are in the world but not of the world, I just don't see how there can be a mandate or suggestion that all Christians should take their children out of public schools when i do not see scriptural evidence of this position. On the other position, private Christian schools are a good option and i applaud anyone for sending their child there, however, these too can be a trap to parents. To often i have seen where parents think that just because their child is in private Christian school they can neglect proper rearing at home and shift the responsibilities to the teachers. From my perspective, as long as we as parents are properly teaching our children, setting an example by teaching them to pray, read and study their bible while actively involving ourselves in their school lives, class material and going over homework with them either one can be a valid option.
Allen Miller  Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:54 pm
Well being the product of the public schools myself I do wonder. I remember the unannounced assemblies (I was in Elementary School, they usually all were) where we had a visitor... One time it was planned parenthood, one time it was PETA. Neither time was this cleared, or even mentioned to my parents. I remember values clarification exercises like 'lifeboat'. They never mentioned these things to parents.
How do you defend against that?? How will your kids know they need you to help them defend against that??
I'm very unsure about using my kids as a mission field expedition, they're little sinners being molded.

I hear what you're saying, and see your logic. However, there is a time to separate, they need to know what salt and light is. Will they find it in the public schools??
oldfatslow  - Still a Loser  Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:18 am
Beancounter that I am, I took McCain's
'08 vote count by state and matched it
against Obama's '12. With that, Romney
would still have lost. In fact, he would
have had 3 fewer electoral college votes
than he actually won (since that would
result in losing NC [15] while picking
up Washington [12]).

He also would still have lost the popular
vote.

That said, my source for '08 numbers is
Wikipedia and '12 is CNN and may well
be error prone.

ofs
Jonathan  Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:03 am
Oldfatslow, thanks for noting that. I wouldn't have thought of checking that claim if you hadn't said that. I checked myself (using CNN for 2008 numbers and Politico for 2012) and saw that the ONLY new state 2012 Obama would have lost against McCain's 2008 numbers is Indiana. (Washington only has 57% reporting, so it looks like he would have that one fine as well once everyone reports.

In an election where the postmodern desire to create your own reality in the face of obvious facts has reached an all-time-high, I'm interested to know where this "fact" originated.
Jonathan  Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:20 am
I didn't vote for either candidate, because I couldn't ethically support either candidate. But in terms of those who voted for Obama "confusedly or rebelliously heaping up judgment for all of us", I do not see how that could be true and not be at least as true as a vote for Romney or Bush. Any "evil" thing that one of those three has either done, promoted, or just allowed to continue, the other two have as well.
Jonathan  Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:10 am
In regards to #7, when I graduated from college I answered a calling by God to teach in the inner-city public schools. I'm still shocked that people think teachers have that much influence over students. (And certainly not the Luke 6:40 influence, taken completely out of context by Doug.) I would have LOVED to influence my students in many ways, spiritual, cultural, and academic. My influences were slight, and pretty much limited to students who were already looking for something. Parents have far more influence over their children than teachers do.

If public schools are so influential, why not encourage committed Christians to become teachers, principals, and superintendents in public school systems? Then they'd be able to reach far more children than just their own. Not that there aren't already huge numbers of very committed Christian educators, but more is always better.

Now, peers is another issue altogether. But I have a lot of friends who went to private Christian schools, and I haven't heard any evidence that the peer influence there is any better than in public schools. In some ways the peer pressure is harder to resist, and the outer appearances are more readily white-washed.
Sara F.  - Public Schools  Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:55 am
Jonathan, I totally get where you're coming from. I used to be a staunch public school supporter, having been educated in them myself (and seeing at least one family transformed because of our presence there). I also taught in public schools -- good ones for the most part -- for 7 years. I don't want to return to teaching there because, as you alluded to, my influence was slim.

But this whole gay marriage/gender-eliminating trend has really changed my perspective. Imagine a teacher that you instruct your child to respect and obey pulling out a picture of HIS husband and telling stories about his marriage or brining his partner to class parties? Imagine your son being told that he has to be the princess in the class play (complete with costume) because his name was drawn randomly. Imagine your chld's teacher asking how the world was made then ridiculing your child for saying "God did it." Think of the complete mischaracterization of Christians as being hateful bigots, then imagine your child's teacher making it her mission to "re-educate" your child. I think my influence was minimal because I was a Christian teacher. If I had been teaching WITH the grain of the establishment, I could've made far more of an impact. Plus, it is easier to put out a candle than it is to light one.

Just some things to think about. I don't want to shelter my children to the point that they don't know how to interact with the world, but I want them to have deep roots when they do. I don't know what that balance is, and my kids are still pre-school age, but I'm pretty sure the balance for us will NOT include public schools.

Jonathan  Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:42 pm
Imagine a child finding out his teacher has a "husband". So then he knows the truth - such things exist in our society. Well, hopefully he should have already known that, and heard your perspective on that. I seriously doubt that it would drive the child to homosexuality. I also "imagine" that dressing up as a princess in a school play would have as high a likelihood of convincing the child that he was a girl as dressing up as a Pilgrim has of convincing the child that he's a Puritan. I've seen kids dress up as girls in church youth group skits numerous times.

I'm not sure what you consider the "grain of the establishment" to be. At one school I taught at in inner-city Los Angeles, I was one of 4-5 teachers who walked around with the principal, vice-principal, and several parents and prayed over and blessed every room of the new school after it was built. Schools are comprised of the people within them. If we keep telling Christians to abandon schools, then we'll turn the fear-mongering into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm a huge proponent of truth tending to win out when given a fair shot. For instance, several years after high school I read a book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me", that was filled with primary documents rather than broad generalizations. That lit a fire under me for more interest in U.S. History and led me to read much more historical material. Very quickly I was able to dismiss many things I had learned in my quite poor high school history class. If parents teach their kids well and provide them with good educational material, the same thing will happen - any mistruths spoken in the classroom will whither when exposed to any light.

p.s. - Because of my high regard for the power of truth, I would say that exposes one major area in which Christian kids (or any kids) might be threatened by schools. If parents have taught their children something that is obviously and demonstrably false, there's a chance it could be exposed there. When the kids hear something different in school, most will tend to stick with whatever their parents said, but a minority will at least consider what the teacher says, and possibly adjust their own views if overwhelming evidence and logic point in that direction. (They might also change just because they're strongly rebellious, but in that case it's likely to happen sooner or later anyway, and better on your watch when you can guide them through it than after high school when most Christian kids "fall away".) So if you teach your kids that nothing like the Crusades has ever happened, that black people actually liked slavery, or that the Earth has only been around 6,000 years, then it could come back to haunt you. But if your children have been well-taught in things that are true, well-grounded in the Bible, and given access to a broad range of good material, then that should easily counter any falsehood in a class.
Dustin Ranem  - Moral argument for Christian education  Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:50 am
As Christian parents we are commanded to train up our children in the ways of the Lord. By definition the public education system is agnostic. They will not receive their education in the proper context/worldview here.

Our children are our responsibility at all times, even when they are outside of our presence. That means we are responsible for what they're learning. It's not reasonable to assume parents could monitor, comment on and correct all that their children are taught throughout the day.

Doug address this in "Standing on the Promises." His primary argument is for the necessity of Christian education. In my opinion it's easier to refute peoples reasoning for why they *should* put their children in public school. He adresses this as well.
elisabeth thunderberry  - my comment to Johnathan disappeared  Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:20 am
I am not going to repeat myself again and say how public schools are not the only optin. I dont care about being salt andd light in the public schools...eerytime someone mentions public school my hair raises.....ack I am sick of all the nice reasonable talk.....have some backbone .
Matt Weber  Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:24 am
On the question of putting your kids in public school or not, there isn't really a one-size-fits-all answer. The main problem with the public schools is that they generally do a very bad job of educating children. People today have little ability to recognize propaganda, or to think clearly about things.

But not putting your kids in the public school has two downsides. One is that it is basically a luxury choice...not everyone can afford private school or manage home-schooling. The second is that it reflects a sort of secession from the mainstream of American life. If Christians are to have their own history, science, social studies, etc, then it really calls into question how united these United States are supposed to be. I mean, what is the endgame there? It seems more like giving up and retreating than anything else.

But it isn't so simple, because children are not very well equipped to fight any battles in the schools, and because control over education has increasingly been taken from localities and moved to higher levels, reducing the amount of influence concerned parents have over the curriculum. The endgame is important. If you envision America as being a united place with a united culture, then some involvement with public education is necessary (not necessarily to the level of your children's enrollment). If you are done with that and just counting down to when it all falls apart, then the public schools have no purpose for you.
Mitch Turner  - Out of the park!  Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:37 am
Doug, I think you really nailed this one, and it's a lot more useful than most of the commentary I've seen because it starts and ends with the GOSPEL.

That said I do have a quibble with one point and an addition to another.

#4: I don't know you are saying this, but I do not accept the myth that third party supporters are fixated on ideological purity. Some are. Many realize that all humans are not perfect, but we want one that at least is trying to go in the right direction rather than faster or slower in the wrong direction. And part of the reason third party candidates are not "in the running" is because Christian and conservative leaders, including Doug Wilson, do a great job at keeping them unknown.

#6: It's actually been five bad candidates in a row, 4 of whom lost. GHW Bush, Dole, GW Bush, McCain, and Romney. Bush 1 won as Reagan's heir, but lost after making things worse and showing his true colors. Bush II won twice thanks to fear of Democrats and really advanced the growth of the state. And heresy of heresies, you could include Reagan in there for #6 (for his Supreme COurt picks alone). I add that as a reminder that we haven't just tried this lesser-of-two-evils thing and failed twice. It's been going on for 3 decades and failed every time, even when we "won", and in the meantime we've lost almost every issue we care about.
Mitch Turner  - re:  Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:57 am
Jonathan wrote:
I just don't see how there can be a mandate or suggestion that all Christians should take their children out of public schools when i do not see scriptural evidence of this position.


I guess you missed that whole Deuteronomy 6 thing? Are you seriously saying Christians can put their kids under the authority and teaching of a system that absolutely denies God has any relevance to Math, Science, English, History, etc., for 35-45 hours per week, and expect them to be a clean slate ready to receive all God's wisdom in 10 minutes of family devotions and an hour on Sunday? And they will not be affected to their core by the constant beating of the cesspool culture that lives among kids, starting with the constant blasphemous language?

Some few Christians, by the grace of God in spite of them, do get their kids through public school with a really solid worldview. And some people go through public school and God mercifully shines light on us to get a corrected worldview after we leave. Those results are not normative nor can they be reasonably expected by any thinking person. Just ask Barna, who has the research on how most of the young generation leaves the church as soon as they can.

You CAN send a child through a mud puddle and they come out on the other side clean as a whistle and a little wipe on the bottom of their feet and they are pristine. But there is only one word for the person who sends a child through a mud puddle and EXPECTS that result: FOOL.

And those who tell others it's OK to send kids to public school because against all likelihood their kids turned out OK are just leading them to sin, because the vast majority are NOT coming out OK, and there is no way most Christian families have the time, resources, or motivation to obey God and carry out Deuteronomy 6 while having their kids in public school. We are losing generations of kids to Hell and Christians have so bought into feminist ideology and the extra income that they willingly tell themselves it's OK to use the public schools. Oh yeah, it's working out so well for us!
Jonathan  Monday, November 12, 2012 6:28 am
I'm pretty shocked that you think in the lieu of Christian school, you'd only spend 10 minutes a day talking to your kids about God. If you're invoking the spirit of Deuteronomy 6 here, then your children should be breathing in love for God and love for others every minute and hour that you're around them.

I'm also confused about what time or resources you think sending kids to public school takes away from families. There are many things (like, say, work) that can be done while the kids are at school, and public school, unlike private school, doesn't cost anything. If you send your kids to public school, you could easily have more time/resources/motivation to spend with your kids, since public schools often have shorter hours and less intensive homework and you're not working extra hours to pay for their schooling.

And Christianity isn't struggling in America because kids are going to public school. Christianity is struggling in America because people have been pushing a form of Christianity that is unattractive, without light or salt. Children raised in a loving Christian home would choose a church that is full of life over a culture that is full of death. Parents who deeply loving, spiritually engaged Christians will always be greater role models to their children than hateful, selfish secularists. Of course, secularists who act with love and care about other people might end up turning children away from unloving or selfish "Christian" parents.
Phillip Harrison  Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:13 am
This election hit me hard, not because I was sold on Romney (though I did vote for him) but because I was hoping it would be the end of BHO and an undoing of the damage he's already done. This post is a tremendous help to me in dealing with the outcome.

Quote:
... we know that whatever the Lord is doing, it is for judgment and not for blessing.

I think that's the case no matter which candidate won.