If Westminster Seminary were hoping for a media bump from its decision to sue the federal government over the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Affordable Care Act, they couldn’t have picked a worse day. The seminary’s press release did reach at least one Roman Catholic website, but events at the Vatican absorbed most news coverage. A small Protestant seminary was no match for God’s new vicegerent.
Publicity tactics aside, Westminster’s decision to sue the federal government is an odd twist in the institution’s long associations with the spirituality of the church and biblical theology. The suit comes in the form of a protest against federal policy but it masks a chance to make a public pronouncement against abortion:
The Complaint, submitted to the federal district court in Houston, Texas, states federal agency defendants are violating Westminster’s rights under the First Amendment, and related statutes, to the free exercise of religion, by requiring the Seminary to provide health insurance to its employees that covers, and thereby promotes, their use of abortion-inducing drugs. Westminster believes this is in direct violation of one of the most basic tenets of its religious foundation – the sanctity of life – the understanding that every human life is created in the image of God.
So instead of explaining how Obama Care will hurt the Seminary, its president, Peter Lillback, uses the podium to protest abortion:
“It is indisputable that every human embryo, formed the moment a human egg is fertilized, has a unique human identity,” said Westminster President Peter Lillback. “That is a human life the Affordable Care Act we are challenging would destroy. In Westminster’s view, this mandate is the antithesis of the federal government’s solemn responsibility ‘to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty’ for its citizens.”
Declaring the sanctity of human life is fine, but taking the government to court (or jumping on a case already before the courts) is another. Paul’s example of going to court in Acts 24-26 would hardly be the model for such litigiousness. His motivations were first of all self-defense and evangelistic. Posturing does not come to mind. (And if some think “posturing” is too cynical a read, how exactly do they think the editors at the Philadelphia Inquirer are looking at it — if they noticed?)
Equivocation on the politicized nature of this decision — and the press release to publicize it, mind you — comes in the responses supplied at the WTS website:
Q: Does filing the lawsuit involve Westminster in a political cause?
A: Westminster is not a partisan institution. Joining this lawsuit is an expression of our deeply held religious beliefs. We are united in this action with many other religious institutions that are standing for religious freedom unrelated to any partisan cause.
That is not an answer.
Q: Shouldn’t Westminster concentrate on its core mission?
A: Teaching the whole counsel of God is at the core of our mission. Westminster’s commitment to the whole counsel of God includes matters of public theology. Thus, when necessary, the Board and faculty must be prepared to speak and to act our deeply held Biblical convictions that from time to time require appropriate civic engagement.
Westminster already does plenty of speaking and acting. It teaches, holds conferences, its faculty and board members preach, and I am sure many of these people take actions in the civic realm that testify to their convictions. But a law suit? Isn’t 1 Corinthians 6:7 part of God’s whole counsel? “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong?” If you want to say that Paul is only talking about lawsuits by Christians against fellow believers, then what about 1 Timothy 2:1-2: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”
Wherever you look in the New Testament, Christians were not trying to rock the boat aside from the God-appointed means of preaching the word of God and worshiping the author of that word. And that was a different kind of boat-rocking, not one so close to show-boating.
Old Life 
“matters of public theology”
what?
Might it not be sufficient to say, “Hey faculty, your insurance covers such and such a procedure, but we sincerely hope that you would never utilize those procedures because they violate God’s law in almost every instance.”
Or you could to just refuse to buy that kind of coverage and let the government be the one to file the suit against you, thus putting them in the awkward position of looking like both a bully to a religious institution and an idiot (for requiring a conservative, Christian theological seminary to provide insurance coverage that clearly goes against their beliefs).
Sometimes it is wiser to be passive than it is to be aggressive.
LikeLike
Darryl, help me here. Isn’t there a difference between WTS and the church? Isn’t WTS (a school) a corporation, i.e. a corporate citizen under the laws of this country, unlike the church (another kingdom)? And therefore can act in that capacity? I ask this only to understand better how you are thinking about this as to distinctions, so as to better think this through. For instance, if the U.S. passed a law mandating all parents had to give their teenage daughters a supply of ‘morning-after’ pills or an IUD, would Scripture prohibit a Christian parent from opposing that in court given they are members in the civil society and it can be argued that that law is in violation of a higher civil law of the state (probably on a number of grounds), the Constitution? Are the two situations different?
LikeLike
Erik, but waiting for the gov’t to sue WTS puts it eventually in the same position – going to court – to change what they believe to be an unjust law under the Constitution. So I don’t know if your suggestion of waiting changes things that much.
Your first suggestion makes more sense to me, if going to court over this must be avoided.
LikeLike
Sometimes it is wiser to be passive than it is to be aggressive
Erik, how is it being “aggressive” by defending in court? Now, WTS may be wrong to defend itself in court, but I wouldn’t call that as being aggressive. Seems the gov’t is being aggressive. Passive would be just going along, completely yielding to the law.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I see no problem with this statement from the seminary. As Mr. Miller pointed out, Westminster Seminary is not an institution of the church, though it does train up ministers (a highly unfortunate arrangement). If all things were as they should be, the seminary would be an institution of the church and then I would be more inclined to agree with you.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: But a law suit? Isn’t 1 Corinthians 6:7 part of God’s whole counsel? “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong?” If you want to say that Paul is only talking about lawsuits by Christians against fellow believers, then what about 1 Timothy 2:1-2: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”
RS: But Paul was talking about lawsuits among fellow believers. Is it wrong to sue an unbeliever for damages incurred when they are driving in a reckless (not necessarily wreckless) manner and collide with your vehicle? Is it necessarily against a peaceful and quiet life (possible grandstanding aside) to file a quiet and peaceful lawsuit against a law that one thinks will force them to be part of immoral activities? Paul also teaches that if we wish to lead a godly life WE WILL be persecuted. Sometimes peaceful and quiet are not always possible. Would you sue the government if they decided that all cats should be killed?
LikeLike
Jack,
Do you know the difference between the “plaintiff” and the “defendant”?
LikeLike
Luke – “If all things were as they should be, the seminary would be an institution of the church and then I would be more inclined to agree with you.”
Erik – Ever heard of Calvin Seminary & The Christian Reformed Church?
The OPC concluded that seminary training fell under the sphere of the family, not the church.
LikeLike
Erik, a bit snippy? You apparently missed my point. I wasn’t using “aggressive” and “defending” in the courtroom sense of plaintiff and defendant of which, yes, I know the difference. The point is the state, if enacting an unjust (i.e. unconstitutional) law, is the aggressor against the unsuspecting citizen who is minding his own business. Going to court to seek redress is, in that sense, a defensive act. Capisce?
LikeLike
Jack,
My point is, why not just not do what they tell you to do if conscience demands vs. going on the offensive and suing them and drawing a bunch of attention to yourself (which I think is D.G.’s point). Kind of like Dr. King’s nonviolent resistance. What the seminary is doing reeks of Jay Sekulow going on the 700 Club to rile up the pentecostal, fundamentalist, and evangelical troops to send in money to keep the American Center for Law & Justice going. Reformed people should be cats, not dogs. Don’t do your good deeds before men, do them in secret so your Heavenly Father can reward you.
LikeLike
Erik,
I wrote concerning your first comment: Your first suggestion makes more sense to me, i.e. not going to court and just going along with the law. You are arguing something that I’m not arguing against.
LikeLike
Jack,
I see. I agree that mounting a defense if the government is the aggressor (i.e. files suit) is fine. Paul did that. Sorry for misunderstanding you.
LikeLike
Richard, there’s always the option of not committing immoral or unconscionable activities without having to get litigious about it, isn’t there? Maybe refraining from litigiousness is just as counter-cultural as fighting culture war through the courts.
LikeLike
One might also consider the wisdom of initiating a lawsuit against a defendant with scores of lawyers on staff and a limitless checking account (at least until the Chinese say enough is enough).
LikeLike
Dr. Hart seems to have left open the question of whether providing an insurance plan which covers abortions to employees would be sinful, and therefore grounds for civil disobedience. Seldom mentioned in these discussions is the fact that many employer-funded insurance plans already cover such procedures with no state intervention. One would think we would hear more exhortations for employers, share-holders, and others with corporate influence to avoid such plans if the concern here is really moral purity rather than political posturing.
LikeLike
A tangent, but I read yesterday that the initial application for the uninsured to get the mandated insurance under Obamacare is 15 pages long. The wino on the corner who has no insurance and is facing a fine if he doesn’t get it will surely be able to get that baby filled out. No problem. This was in the Des Moines Register, not some right wing organ.
As an accountant who lives to fill out complicated forms I am envisioning a bright future.
LikeLike
The most complicated form I filled out this year (for two different returns) was the form to figure the tax credit for small employers who provide health insurance for their employees — and this is before Obamacare has fully kicked in. There is about 20 different ways I could have filled it out to get 20 different numbers. I just blew through it in one pass and called it good.
LikeLike
Here are the 10 pages of instructions:
Click to access i8941.pdf
The time needed to complete and file this form will vary depending on individual circumstances. The estimated burden for individual taxpayers filing this form is approved under OMB control number 1545-0074 and is included in the estimates shown in the instructions for their individual income tax return. The estimated burden for all other taxpayers who file this form is shown below.
Recordkeeping ……………………………………………………………. 12 hr., 46 min.
Learning about the law or the form ………………………………………………… 1 hr., 23 min.
Preparing and sending the form to the IRS …………………………………………… 2 hr., 48 min.
If you have comments concerning the accuracy of these time estimates or suggestions for making this form simpler, we would be happy to hear from you. See the instructions for the tax return with which this form is filed.
LikeLike
What was Machen’s position on Prohibition?
LikeLike
Only seven worksheets to complete one form. It reminded me of second grade.
LikeLike
I’m sure the goal is to get everyone so sick of all this nonsense that they beg for single payer, government-run insurance so we all have the equivalent of Medicaid and Medicare from cradle-to-grave. The government will go broke paying for health care that gets harder for everyone to access, but we will have no other option and our lives will literally be in their hands. Politicians will bypass the whole fiasco and get access to the best doctors and hospitals without hassle.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, there’s always the option of not committing immoral or unconscionable activities without having to get litigious about it, isn’t there?
RS: True, but I would wonder if Westminster thinks that they are being forced to be immoral in funding abortion.
Zrim: Maybe refraining from litigiousness is just as counter-cultural as fighting culture war through the courts.
RS: That would also be true in certain cases. On the other hand, in China the government forces women to have abortions if they already have the allowed number of children. I think we would argue that the Chinese government is wrong. It appears that with the new laws (in the US) the government will be forcing all people to pay for the abortions of some. Perhaps Westminster thinks they are forced to take a stand on this point in order to follow Christ and that this is more honoring to Christ than to simply refuse to follow the law.
LikeLike
What began as a “tangent” is now five posts of Erik talking to himself. Does anyone moderate the comments around here?
LikeLike
Brian, he opposed the church supporting Prohibition. He opposed Progressive reforms and the expansion of the federal government’s power. His family was not in the bootleg business.
LikeLike
Richard, you pay taxes (I assume) to a government that legalizes (and sometimes pays for) abortion. In case you missed it, we are IN the world. It is one thing to be part of a creation that groans, another to be forced to have an abortion. This difference is crucial to the way the apostles comported themselves and explains why they could tell Christians to honor — HONOR — emperors who were persecuting Christians. That’s a very different posture than litigation.
Are you superior to the apostles?
LikeLike
Jack, lay off Erik. He has a permanent seat at the bar. NORM!
LikeLike
Do you know if he practiced civil disobedience in the matter?
[I betray some technical ignorance… I know there were some significant — and significantly abused — carveouts in the law. I guess I’m asking, did he drink and violate the law in drinking?]
LikeLike
The tax form comments are practical and useful, unlike other pet topics which seem to never come remotely close to being useful or reaching a merciful ending….
If I don’t like it, I stop reading the topic.
The best form of moderation.
LikeLike
And since I have your ear at this hour, is it legit for any para-church Christian organization (school, publisher, et al) to sue the government over such a matter? What about a private business owned by Christians who are morally opposed to paying for abortion services? How would you counsel a businessman in your church?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you pay taxes (I assume) to a government that legalizes (and sometimes pays for) abortion. In case you missed it, we are IN the world. It is one thing to be part of a creation that groans, another to be forced to have an abortion.
RS: The difference, as I see it, is that this particular law is setting up a system where all abortions will sooner or later be paid for by the money (or system) that people are being forced to pay in.
D.G. Hart: This difference is crucial to the way the apostles comported themselves and explains why they could tell Christians to honor — HONOR — emperors who were persecuting Christians. That’s a very different posture than litigation.
RS: It is one thing to honor the position as such, but we still have a Constitution that gives us the right to use litigation when “lawmakers” transgress the laws themselves. The litigation is an attempt to get the “emporer” to go by the law so that Westminster (and others) will not have to be forced to pay money into a system that will fund millions of abortions.
D.G. Hart: Are you superior to the apostles?
RS: I would imagine one could point out some logical fallicies involved in such a question. But Paul did invoke the law when rulers were violating the law in Acts 22. He also used the law when he appealed to Caesar in contrast to Agrippa and Festus in Acts 26. So appealing to the law is what Paul did. It seems that litigation in our day is simply one way of appealing to the law.
LikeLike
I do think the argument RE taxation and abortion is interesting, in the light of Paul and Jesus specific teaching on paying your taxes.
It’s not as though the Roman armies, supported by taxes, were building schools and roads. Just subjugating the Holy Land and crucifying our Lord. Apparently, those aren’t objectionable activities, at least so far as “supporting with our tax drachmas.”
LikeLike
Jack – What began as a “tangent” is now five posts of Erik talking to himself. Does anyone moderate the comments around here?
Erik – In other words, it’s another day that ends in “y”…
LikeLike
Brian – I heard Machen used to hang out at Fat Sam’s:
Jodie Foster was on a good streak with “Taxi Driver” (written by Paul Schrader, who grew up in the CRC), “Bugsy Malone”, and “Freaky Friday”.
I tried to find the speakeasy clip from “A River Runs Through It”, but couldn’t.
LikeLike
We can short-circuit this whole thing. Rev. Lee’s in D.C. Brian, go knock on the White House door and see if you can get a word with President Obama. Maybe he will come to his senses. Invite him to church while you’re there.
LikeLike
Brian – I do think the argument RE taxation and abortion is interesting, in the light of Paul and Jesus specific teaching on paying your taxes.
It’s not as though the Roman armies, supported by taxes, were building schools and roads. Just subjugating the Holy Land and crucifying our Lord. Apparently, those aren’t objectionable activities, at least so far as “supporting with our tax drachmas.”
Erik – Good point. We always have the option of not carrying insurance at all, trusting God, and paying the fine. If our faith never costs us anything something may be amiss. When Jesus said to seek first his kingdom I think He knew that we wouldn’t be able to remove every obstacle to doing so by means of a sharp legal team.
LikeLike
Richard, the point isn’t that there is never a time for litigation. Rather, it’s that even when there are political rights in place is there something spiritually to be said for not taking advantage of them? Sure, Paul appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen. But if Christ is the example, and if he willingly laid down his rights then perhaps the fact that “we a Constitution that gives us the right to use litigation when ‘lawmakers’ transgress the laws themselves” pales in comparison. And what’s the scare quotes for lawmakers? Paul says there is no authority except that which is ordained of God.
LikeLike
Brian Lee: I do think the argument RE taxation and abortion is interesting, in the light of Paul and Jesus specific teaching on paying your taxes.
It’s not as though the Roman armies, supported by taxes, were building schools and roads. Just subjugating the Holy Land and crucifying our Lord. Apparently, those aren’t objectionable activities, at least so far as “supporting with our tax drachmas.”
RS: But the Romans did build a lot of roads, even roads that made the spreading of the Gospel a lot easier. The nation of Israel was under the rule of Rome, but in our day we are supposed to be under the rule of law. All are (in theory) supposed to be under the rule of law, so when one or several (regardless of their position) are not following the law it does not appear wrong to try to get them to obey the law.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the point isn’t that there is never a time for litigation. Rather, it’s that even when there are political rights in place is there something spiritually to be said for not taking advantage of them? Sure, Paul appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen. But if Christ is the example, and if he willingly laid down his rights then perhaps the fact that “we a Constitution that gives us the right to use litigation when ‘lawmakers’ transgress the laws themselves” pales in comparison.
RS: If the ultimate authority in this land is the Constitution, then to uphold the law we should stand for the Constitution. We are a Republic and we are to follow the law. Christ laid down His life so that the glory of God would be displayed in saving sinners and in doing so He upheld the highest law.. As citizens, we should want people and work to see that people do keep the law. When the law we are defending is the Constitution and are attempting to fight against unlawful taxation which is used to murder other citizens, I simply cannot see the problem with that.
Zrim: And what’s the scare quotes for lawmakers?
RS: When “lawmakers” make laws that make them lawbreakers, it seems to make a mockery of the intent of making laws.
Zrim: Paul says there is no authority except that which is ordained of God.
RS: Yes, which means that our Constitution has been ordained by God. I may have the right to stand by and do nothing when a man breaks in and intends to do harm to my wife and children, but that is not the only or best alternative. It is also lawful to do harm to the one in order to prevent much harm to others. In fact, one could say that the law of love requires one to do so. Fighting for the Constitution and our rights is not something we should take lightly. Remember what happened in Nazi Germany. Perhaps we are not as far away from that as you think.
LikeLike
Richard, it’s true that the Constitution rules the land, instead of the Bible. But the Bible rules believers. I’m not sure the spirit of the Constitution promotes litigiousness, but even if it did the Bibles teaches a spirit of humility toward civil authorities, even those that may invite its citizens to “take a stand” against it. It could be that the kind of civil posture many think our republic is all about (again, I’m not so sure) is one the Bible opposes, in which case it could just as dangerous to live free in America as some think it is to be pregnant in China.
Did Mark put scare quotes around “what’s his” when quoting Jesus about rendering unto Caesar what’s his? How about Paul when describing the magistrate who used Xns for candles?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, it’s true that the Constitution rules the land, instead of the Bible. But the Bible rules believers. I’m not sure the spirit of the Constitution promotes litigiousness, but even if it did the Bibles teaches a spirit of humility toward civil authorities, even those that may invite its citizens to “take a stand” against it.
RS: While the Constitution does not promote litigiousness, filing one lawsuit does not make one guilty of litigiousness. One can still have a spirit of humility toward the civil authorities while trying to show them in court that their laws are against the Constitution.
Zrim: It could be that the kind of civil posture many think our republic is all about (again, I’m not so sure) is one the Bible opposes, in which case it could just as dangerous to live free in America as some think it is to be pregnant in China.
RS: If our leaders continue their erosion of the Constitution, there is no reason to think it will be worse here than in China in a few years.
Zrim: Did Mark put scare quotes around “what’s his” when quoting Jesus about rendering unto Caesar what’s his? How about Paul when describing the magistrate who used Xns for candles?
RS: No, I gues he didn’t. But then again, I don’t think that the Greek language used those. I still cannot see what is so wrong about pointing out the interesting think when those who make laws are actually breaking the law by doing so. I would also remind you of the numerous times in the OT when God noted the oppression of those ruled over. I would also remind you of the numerous times when God moved His people to rebellion against their oppressive rulers.
LikeLike
If we are free as Christians to withhold our taxes (or mandatory insurance premiums) because they fund abortion are we free to withhold them because they fund drone strikes overseas that kill innocent noncombatants (“collateral damage”)? It seems like wherever we look we will find our government intertwined with evil because that is the nature of this world.
LikeLike
It just seems more straightforward to me to teach our fellow Christian church members not to have an abortion or not to kill innocent people than to see it as our duty to protest our government doing so. Like it or not our leaders are elected democratically and are ordained by God. My theory is bad leaders (that we elect ourselves) are God’s judgment on us as a city, state, nation, etc. God judges people all the time by giving them exactly what they want — and good and hard at that.
LikeLike
Brian, to my knowledge Machen obeyed the law and was not a drinker, though I do think he tippled while a student in Germany.
I’d need to know a lot of particulars about a business before advising, but my general sense is that Christians should not be looking to make a spectacle of themselves but should try to live quiet and peaceable lives. We all submit to a variety of laws and agencies we don’t care for. I understand abortion is a grave matter. I can think of other ways of protesting.
LikeLike
Richard, so you have the Constitution and it’s legal. What does that prove? Have you considered how self-righteous you might look by going to court? Have you considered giving a black eye to the gospel?
LikeLike
Richard, at least Asian polity promotes humility. But it’s always interesting to me how those so inclined to wave the counter-cultural flag in the name of the faith seem to miss just how cultural they’re being when compared to the virtues described in the NT.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so you have the Constitution and it’s legal. What does that prove?
RS: That others are trampling on the standard of law in our country.
D. G. Hart: Have you considered how self-righteous you might look by going to court?
RS: All Christians are thought of as self-righteous in the eyes of others. Why are we to be concerned with how it looks as opposed to the good that is sought?
D. G. Hart: Have you considered giving a black eye to the gospel?
RS: This is not giving a black eye to the Gospel. Why would you think that this is giving a black eye to the Gospel anymore than any other legal action would?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, at least Asian polity promotes humility. But it’s always interesting to me how those so inclined to wave the counter-cultural flag in the name of the faith seem to miss just how cultural they’re being when compared to the virtues described in the NT.
RS: I am still at a loss how you think that operating legally within a system to right a wrong is somehow opposite of the virtues described in the NT. It may be that liberalism has more people in the US than non-liberals in the US, but suing in this instance is not counter-cultural nor is it really against any biblical virtues (that I can remember at the moment). On the one hand we are to turn the other cheek when we are insulted or provoked by a private person, but this is a whole group of people seeing that the Constitution of our nation is under attack and simply responding in a legal way. Some would even see the actions of Westminster (and many others who have filed for the same issues) as standing up for the weakest in society (abortion) and for society as a whole.
LikeLike
The fact that Peter LIlback is such a prominent political conservative necessary calls into question the political motivation behind WTS’s suit.
DGH’s instincts are astute on this point, me thinks.
LikeLike
Richard, well, show me where the NT props up even legal fighting to right wrongs instead of enduring injustice.
“Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.”
For a Bible man, I would think you’d be aware of just how replete the NT is with this sort of counter-intuitive theme, to say nothing of how barren it is of any notion social or political justice. If it helps, the point isn’t to detract from justice. It is to wonder just where you think the NT props it up as a duty of believers to demand, and to wonder if you can be cognizant of the possibility that the rallying cry owes at least as much to western values as it does to anything in the NT.
LikeLike
Richard, Lutherans are not thought of as self-righteous. This is why a little theology of the cross comes in handy.
LikeLike
Neoz, I’m not sure I’d describe that as political conservative. Political moralist works. But conservatism is not about morality.
LikeLike
We do see Paul affirming his rights as a Roman Citizen.
I still think there is virtue in putting the burden on the government to bring the fight to us vs. us taking it to them. As in the issue of “political preaching” the government doesn’t seem to be anxious to pick fights with churches and Christian organizations (like seminaries), even when churches poke them in the eye.
Maybe the answer lies in Christians forming their own insurance companies/associations, not covering abortion, and putting the burden on the government to stop it.
I due think we need to be careful in joining with unbelievers in lawsuits. A lot of Republican Party politics is just a money-making scam and we need to beware of being dupes and pawns in other people’s schemes.
LikeLike
No blame for Paul claiming his rights as a Roman citizen at that particular moment…
So what do Christian Americans do for the costs of their birth control, pay glumly and privately out of cookie jar savings?
(Sorry if I’m being rash for presuming that even 1% use such measures….)
LikeLike
Erik, careful, Xn insurance companies sound worldview-y.
LikeLike
So instead of explaining how Obama Care will hurt the Seminary, its president, Peter Lillback, uses the podium to protest abortion
This is the Seminary Machen founded?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not particularly thrilled about the healthcare mandate, but this seems more like scoring points for Republican politics than it is about making a statement about the sanctity of human life. I am not even saying that the stance taken by Lillback and the seminary isn’t in some way motivated by conscience. But, here’s why it seems like scoring political points more than valuing human life – abortion, as haneous as it is, seems to serve as a rallying point for political conservatives in America, and gives the impression that the Republicans are the party that values human life. But it could be argued that what is given with one hand is taken by the other. Republicans, while rightly opposing abortion, are also the party that gives the military both moral and budgetary support. But, what about military support for repressive regimes such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia? What about the current drone policy utilized by Bush and escalated by Obama, that kills a disproportionate amount of innocents (including children) for every terrorist targeted? Where are the lawsuits that expose the areas where conservatives are guilty of policies that devalue human life?
This is where I think Westminster East has opened themselves up to the charge of duplicity, not because of the lawsuit per se, but because it is being used to expose abortion under the auspices of the sanctity of life, when there are several areas where our government could be charged with dehumanizing policy. I see a lot of wisdom in what Erik proposes, allow the government to initiate charges if a stand must be made in this manner. But, I am not sure a stand must be made, after all as a private citizen, there are many areas that the government utilizes tax revenues that violate my conscience, yet I still pay taxes, while expressing dissent through either the opinions I express or the candidates I vote for. I am just not convinced this was the right fight to pick, maybe it is, but is this what Westminster, an institution whose primary task is the training ministers,, wishes to be known for publicly? Especially when such stances can accompany many unintended consequences.
LikeLike
Kent: So what do Christian Americans do for the costs of their birth control, pay glumly and privately out of cookie jar savings?
Anonymous: It mostly involves sneaking in and out of KMart. Good thing it’s a ghost town these days…
LikeLike
Jed: I see a lot of wisdom in what Erik proposes
Erik: I’ve said about 10 different things and half of them probably contradict each other. I’m a recovering religious right culture warrior so I am still working through a lot of these issues. I think my latest approach is when I feel a temptation towards activism coming on I go lay down for a nap and hope it passes.
LikeLike
Zrim,
What if I make you a board member with stock options and a cushy per diem?
LikeLike
Thanks anonymous, hopefully not all readers try to pretend they didn’t read my question…
I see _a few_ families at worship that look like a later marriage and 4-6 children of not too distant age between first and last.
LikeLike
Erik, throw in reduced tuition to the Reformed-world-and-life-view laboratory–I mean Christian school–and huzzah.
LikeLike
Neoz: The fact that Peter LIlback is such a prominent political conservative necessary calls into question the political motivation behind WTS’s suit.
DGH’s instincts are astute on this point, me thinks.
RS: Perhaps so, but isn’t that judging the heart? I ahve been told that we cannot do this. We can argue/discuss the action, but shouldn’t we be careful about going to the motives in cases like this?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Lutherans are not thought of as self-righteous. This is why a little theology of the cross comes in handy.
RS: Hmmm, how can you make such a universal statement?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, well, show me where the NT props up even legal fighting to right wrongs instead of enduring injustice.
RS: I have already given two instances of Paul doing that exact thing.
Zrim quoting the Bible: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.”
RS: It sure seems that the text is speaking of slaves to masters rather than citizens to the government.
Zrim: For a Bible man,
RS: Thank you
Zrim: I would think you’d be aware of just how replete the NT is with this sort of counter-intuitive theme, to say nothing of how barren it is of any notion social or political justice. If it helps, the point isn’t to detract from justice. It is to wonder just where you think the NT props it up as a duty of believers to demand, and to wonder if you can be cognizant of the possibility that the rallying cry owes at least as much to western values as it does to anything in the NT.
RS: Perhaps not. Like I said, I have given two instances of Paul appealing to the law to avoid suffering. Where does the Bible address (specifically) how people are to behave in a Republic? If you were given a ticket by a policeman when you were clearly not guilty, would you submit to that or try to use legal means to address it? If a government agency tried to take your house away from you and then only give you half of its value, would you use legal means to recover the rest of the value of the house? Would you really just submit and take what the government said in those instances? Those can be multiplied over and over again. We are one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It is legal to seek justice and God has set out very clearly that He desires justice and hates injustice. If we do not seek for our government to act justly, then we are not in accordance with Scripture nor are we in accordance with our own laws. If we do not seek for the government to act justly according to the laws, then many, many people will sufer injustice.
Isaiah 1:16 “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, 17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. 18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. 19 “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;
Amos 5:24 “But let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?
Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
LikeLike
Richard, excellent work! Your choice of Scriptures are compelling and straight to the heart of the issue. I can’t add anything more of intellectual substance other than to say, Zrim you need a good kick in the butt!
For DGH and the gang to chide *Richard* as “Old lifes” loveable pinata, the man who is always trying to judge the heart, (with maybe a grain of truth to the charge) I see a whole lot of judging “hearts” going on, with Hart’s leading by example. (a hundred fold worse than anything Richard has done.)
Proving my one of my pet theories, “there’s a hypocrite of uncertain size lurking within each and everyone of us.” ( I include myself in my theory.) So all I have to say to DGH and Zrim is: What’s good for the goose, well, you know the rest…..
Zrim, all of Scripture is good for our instruction, correction, and reproof. Not just the new testament, moreover, shouldn’t we live by the full counsel of God’s word? If yes, then let’s not ignore old testament instruction.
LikeLike
Jed, I read your post with fascination, but I have this agaisnt you when you say:
“it could be argued that what is given with one hand is taken by the other.”
Could be? Maybe? That’s not a very solid foundation Jed. Could be? Maybe yes, maybe no? Using this logic, we could never take a stand on anything could we? I could say such and such, and you could say, “are you perfect”? Would that nullify my point? Must the Republican party be perfect before they can take a stand on abortion? Me thinks you are muddying the waters with a drone.
While I enjoy your posts, I would avoid arguements that start with, “it could be said”. Either say it and stand by it, or don’t say it.
Feel free to give me a good counter argument 😉
LikeLike
Erik, I get a kick out of watching you talk to yourself. 🙂
Just don’t answer youself, or so “they” say.
LikeLike
Richard, you claim to know about a person’s affections and now you’re going to complain about an immodest statement?
LikeLike
Hey Guys, this is where a good dose of theonomy is needed. Not all sins/crimes are of equal heinousness in the sight of God. Let’s look at abortion, if there is one abomination that caused God to judge the 7 nations, it was because they sacrificed there children to Moleck along their sexual depravity. God told Moses that he hated that sin, and that was why He was driving them out of the land, and then He solemly warned Israel that if she sacrificed her children to Moleck the land would vomit them out as well. They did, and God did.
I think we need more voices speaking out agaisnt abortion, rather than less. This is a very grievious sin in the eyes of God. Let’s at least all pray that our nation has a change of heart, amen?
LikeLike
Doug, don’t take it personally. You’re still the OL dog. We’ll continue to kick you around.
LikeLike
Lillback’s statement regarding the indisputability of the status of fertilized eggs is problematic in several ways.
First, he implies that the views expressed in Dr. Woolley’s minority report on abortion are now “indisputably” wrong. Woolley was one of the founding faculty members of WTS, and served WTS as a professor of church history for 48 years. A portrait of Woolley hangs on the walls of the seminary. And now his views are demurred as “indisputably” wrong? Is this really the official position of the seminary? Are those who agree with Woolley no longer welcome at WTS? Perhaps Lillback would like to proffer a clarifying statement on this. Maybe he can do this the next time he appears as a featured speaker at a Vision Forum event.
Second, if Lillback’s statement is correct, then why isn’t WTS objecting to its insurer’s coverage or all oral contraceptives. If one avers that protectable human life starts at conception, then oral contraceptives are no less objectionable than the complained-of activities. After all, oral contraceptives function as an abortifacient about 5% of the time. Given the wide use of oral contraceptives among women today, there are far more “abortions” attributable to oral contraceptive use than to anything else. So why carve out oral contraceptives from the complained-of activities? (Maybe because your intellectually inconsistent donors would object?)
Third, the objective facts surrounding this suggest that the move may be motivated more by politics than by anything else. WTS, as a religious institution, has the right to request that its insured students and employees sign an agreement not to have an abortion or to use certain abortifacient drugs. Why does WTS see such measures as insufficient? Does it distrust the integrity of its students and employees, and believe that they are likely to break such vows? Would this not be a better approach to the issue?
As an aside, Lillback’s prominence in the PCA reminds me of the problems with that denominaton. In my view, the PCA has become little more than a denomination committed to the views of D. James Kennedy. In that sense, the ignominious Mr. Frame belongs there, where his soft-core theonomy can find a comfortable home. After all, nothing pays quite like pandering to a populist base.
LikeLike
Richard, again, the point isn’t that there is never a time for legal redress, so I’m not sure what your instances are supposed to prove. Neither am I sure of your hand-waving over Peter by saying the ethic only applies to slaves and not citizens. I guess that means those of us who aren’t slaves but only citizens can ignore that part of Scripture (so much for Doug’s point that all of Scripture is useful), then squeeze more litigiousness out of Paul than is warranted by the text and pushes the limits of reason.
And I know I sound like a broken record, but it’s a favorite OL tune: the way you and Doug use Scripture and think through these things sure sounds social gospel-y. I’m left wondering what the problem was with the liberals, and usually this is the part where the response amounts to the idea that they simply had a the wrong social gospel. And the beat goes on.
LikeLike
You’re wrong D.G. Doug is the official Old Life marmot in our proverbial bathtubs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmot
LikeLike
Bobby: After all, oral contraceptives function as an abortifacient about 5% of the time.
What is your source? When we studied this issue about 10 years ago, the studies on PubMed showed that no studies had been done in humans on this issue, and that an equine study showed about a 1% abortifacient rate.
The state of the question may have changed since then, but I haven’t seen any major headlines.
So I would go with “oral contraceptives might function as abortifacients”, unless you have more up-to-date info. (And actually, that was enough to steer us in another direction).
LikeLike
LikeLike
Zrim, when Paul speaks to women at Corinth, do you take that as personal instruction for you? Do you wear a head covering and zip your lip at church? Do you think you’re a slave to your school Principle?
Zrim, are you capable of reading the Bible in context?
LikeLike
Erik says You’re wrong D.G. Doug is the official Old Life marmot in our proverbial bathtubs.
Haha Erik, excpet that one flew right over my head. I understand getting kicked around like a dog, (no offense taken Darryl) but how am I in your proverbial bathtub?
LikeLike
DGH,
I am new to this debate and have some broader questions about it. If you have the time, maybe you can email me your thoughts? (Or maybe you’re not the one I should be asking?)
I take it the central worry with the Mandate is that it violates religious liberty in requiring Christian business owners to provide insurance that includes abortion and birth control coverage. But don’t some Christians already violate their conscience in paying taxes which are used to fund Medicaid and Planned Parenthood which provide birth control? So how is the Mandate really anything new (and how does it require Christians to violate their conscience in any way they already aren’t violating it?).
Second, I am a bit confused about the nature of the objection that organizations, including WTS, have to the Mandate. Someone could work, say, for Hobby Lobby or WTS and use their paycheck for birth control or abortion services (etc.). This does not violate the conscience of those in the organizations (such as the WTS faculty, say) because it is the individual’s decision to seek those potentially immoral services and the organization does not claim authority over the individual’s use of their compensation so long as it is within legal bounds (perhaps some organizations would like to have more legal authority over the employee’s use of their compensation, but that’s a much broader matter). How is it any different when the insurance provided by those organizations offers birth control and abortion services? So again, wouldn’t the actually consistent position here be one where religious organizations could fire their employees for any use of their compensation that is perceived as immoral by the organization? Either that, or allow that the Mandate doesn’t really violate the conscience of those in religious organizations—at least not in any new and especially objectionable way—right?
LikeLike
pba,
In short, you’re right. There’s nothing particularly novel about the religious liberty issues at stake here. But for those who can’t distinguish the Culture War from the gospel, any battle fought against the policies of the President is perceived as a battle fought on behalf of the gospel.
Actually, I do tend to believe that the exception should be a bit broader than it is. But at this point, the President is getting good political mileage out of it. The sex abuse scandals have pretty well shredded any cultural credibility once possessed by the RCC. The more the RCC speaks out against the “contraceptive mandate,” the better the President looks. He has no reason to back down from the fight. He couldn’t possibly choose a more inane group of self-important hypocrites, many of whom spent decades covering up cases of child sexual abuse.
LikeLike
Doug, cute. But how does it follow that because men aren’t women and therefore there is a distinction between the instructions for both that because some Xns aren’t under certain forms of authority and can therefore spurn the ethics given to those who are? In other words, we’re all under one form or another of provisional authority, so isn’t there something for all under authority to learn from Peter’s admonition to slaves?
But if you want to say that it’s only for slaves to endure unjust treatment instead of rebel against it, that’ll undermine the neo-Cal polemic against the evils of slavery. And since natalists like yourself love to tie the moral agenda of pro-lifery to that of abolitionism then it seems like you’re shooting yourself in the foot with that blunderbuss again.
LikeLike
Doug,
If you can’t answer that you are truly an alien and stranger here. Watch the You Tube video. There is one bad word early on so I apologize for that.
LikeLike
Bobby,
I see that the elevation of Pope Francis hasn’t won you over…
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, again, the point isn’t that there is never a time for legal redress, so I’m not sure what your instances are supposed to prove. Neither am I sure of your hand-waving over Peter by saying the ethic only applies to slaves and not citizens. I guess that means those of us who aren’t slaves but only citizens can ignore that part of Scripture (so much for Doug’s point that all of Scripture is useful), then squeeze more litigiousness out of Paul than is warranted by the text and pushes the limits of reason.
RS: Now, now, read the context again and think about a little of the background. Slaves did not have the legal options that we have now. They were OWNED by their masters and were nothing more than PROPERTY to some of the owners. What legal action could they take? Instead of rebelling against them, Peter would have then submit. Another thing is that Peter would have them seek to do a good job rather than a bad one to honor Christ rather than just try to get back at their master. That is not just waving my hands over it, but instead is trying to take Scripture seriously in its own context.
Zrim: And I know I sound like a broken record,
RS: You have a ways to go before you sound as good as a broken record does.
Zrim: but it’s a favorite OL tune: the way you and Doug use Scripture and think through these things sure sounds social gospel-y.
RS: Maybe, then, rather than a record you are off the track.
Zrim: I’m left wondering what the problem was with the liberals, and usually this is the part where the response amounts to the idea that they simply had a the wrong social gospel. And the beat goes on.
RS: Perhaps the Gospel has more power than you think. The Gospel changes hearts, but as it changes hearts those changed by the Gospel desire to see that change in other places. Those who love Christ want to see His rule in all places and at all times. But again, if what you say is true, then the underlying principle is that no matter what a government agent says or does we are to submit, not question them, and not challenge them according to the law regardling of the situation. I don’t think that is just and will not lead to justice. I also don’t think that you would practice that principle in all cases.
LikeLike
Richard, the underlying principle I’m suggesting has to do with humility and comportment. How that implies abject servility I don’t know. Now you’re sounding feminist.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the underlying principle I’m suggesting has to do with humility and comportment. How that implies abject servility I don’t know. Now you’re sounding feminist.
RS: I have no idea where your response came from. You must be “celebrating: St Pat’s Day today in order to keep the Sabbath tomorrow.
LikeLike
Richard, are you implying Zrim has had too much corned beef and cabbage?
LikeLike
Richard, you said: “…if what you say is true, then the underlying principle is that no matter what a government agent says or does we are to submit, not question them, and not challenge them according to the law regardling of the situation.”
When the point is to emphasize humility and comportment on the part of those under authority, to the point of esteeming the absorption of harshness and mistreatment over resistance, the response from those who emphasize the latter is that it can only lead to abject servility (and despite my repeated point that this doesn’t mean there is never a time for legal redress). This is usually the response of feminists when those under authority are wives. But if you think my sort of emphasis on humility leads to this, I invite you to speak to my wife and daughters who challenge and question me all the ever loving time.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Send me your tunic. Oh, and throw in your cloak while you’re at it.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: Richard, are you implying Zrim has had too much corned beef and cabbage?
RS: Yes, but it was male beef.
Zrim: Richard, you said: “…if what you say is true, then the underlying principle is that no matter what a government agent says or does we are to submit, not question them, and not challenge them according to the law regardling of the situation.”
Zrim: When the point is to emphasize humility and comportment on the part of those under authority, to the point of esteeming the absorption of harshness and mistreatment over resistance, the response from those who emphasize the latter is that it can only lead to abject servility (and despite my repeated point that this doesn’t mean there is never a time for legal redress). This is usually the response of feminists when those under authority are wives. But if you think my sort of emphasis on humility leads to this, I invite you to speak to my wife and daughters who challenge and question me all the ever loving time.
RS: Good for them? From my point of view you brought up the passage to show that we should not legally address situations and rather simply submit to any and all authorities. My response is that unless you take the principle of that passage (the context of our conversation) to mean that we should always submit in all circumstances to all authority then that leads you to another principle of the passage. Since this had to do with slaves and masters, and their historical context was different than ours, we have to consider the background differences. I am not arguing that you would agree that people should never go to law, but that your interpretation of Peter at this point demands that.
Indeed slaves are to act toward their masters in such a way because of Christ, but they are also to act that way because they were slaves and they legal slaves. That was the situation they were in and so they had to learn to deal with it. The situation that we are in (in the US of A) is that the law of the land is supposed to be the Constitution. As long as we are in line with the law of the land I simply don’t see how the passage in Peter instructs us not to go to law. Indeed it instructs us to act humbly, true enough, but I cannot see how it instructs us not to file legal challenges in situations like this.
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t see how the question of legality changes Peter’s point, which is that it is better to endure injustice than to happily serve good authorities (good as that may be). Isn’t this Jesus’ own point in Luke 6 when he asks what credit it is to do good to those who do you good and lend to those who repay? And, as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t see how the point of enduring injustice implies never employing legal redress. If my daughter’s classroom gets mowed down by the glassy-eyed fellow, I’ll have no trouble pressing for the full extent of the law and leave it to the quasi-Anabaptists to garble law and gospel by asking the judge to suspend judgment.
But if neither Jesus nor Peter are very convincing to you, doesn’t general revelation plainly show these principles? Sometimes parents deny their children what they ask for even when they have means and opportunity to do so, because it’s a matter of inculcating self-denial, restraint, and humility.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s cold here. How about I keep those, see your one mile walk and go one or two more?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I don’t see how the question of legality changes Peter’s point, which is that it is better to endure injustice than to happily serve good authorities (good as that may be).
RS: He was speaking to a specific relationship, that of slaves to their masters and even a situation where the slaves were legally owned by their masters. Westminster is not a slave to the government. Instead, in this legal system, the system functions best when people challenge laws that are not just. I don’t see how Peter’s point really applies to Westminster and their legal challenge.
Zrim: Isn’t this Jesus’ own point in Luke 6 when he asks what credit it is to do good to those who do you good and lend to those who repay?
RS: No, I don’t think that is the point.
Zrim: And, as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t see how the point of enduring injustice implies never employing legal redress.
RS: My point is that since Peter is not specifically addressing the Wesminster situation at all, then you have to draw a principle from the text that will apply. If you apply that principle, which is that one should always submit to all authorities over you and never question them, then you have a principle that leaves you no way of legal redress in any situation. Again, that is where your principle leads you.
Zrim: If my daughter’s classroom gets mowed down by the glassy-eyed fellow, I’ll have no trouble pressing for the full extent of the law and leave it to the quasi-Anabaptists to garble law and gospel by asking the judge to suspend judgment.
RS: But why wouldn’t you suffer injustice at this point?
Zrim: But if neither Jesus nor Peter are very convincing to you, doesn’t general revelation plainly show these principles?
RS: But Jesus and Peter are not teaching what you want them to teach.
Zrim: Sometimes parents deny their children what they ask for even when they have means and opportunity to do so, because it’s a matter of inculcating self-denial, restraint, and humility.
RS: Indeed, but if the parents are violating the law in ways that include taking the lives of others and are trying to force the children to help pay for taking the lives of others, then the children should turn their parents in to the law.
LikeLike
The factor that complicates our situation vis-a-viz first century Christians is that we have a government that is “of the people” as opposed to having an emperor (although it was not unheard of for people to take their grievances to the emperor). It’s easier to tell people to submit and obey when they really don’t have much choice. Our leadership is always in flux, however, with power constantly shifting from one party to another and within the two parties. This tends to give us the idea that our obedience is conditional if not optional. Ultimately we always have to obey God rather than man, but what about situations where no one is compelling us to do evil (e.g. making us have an abortion) but rather taking our tax money or insurance premiums in order to facilitate others doing evil? (waging questionable wars, having abortions). The latter situation is where things get tricky and where Christians open themselves up to the charge of “selective outrage” where we tend to strongly object to things that Democrats compel and look the other way at things that Republicans compel. I tend to focus more on my own conduct and the conduct of those I can control (my minor children) and not worry so much about controlling the conduct of others. I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that my tax money (and insurance premium money) is going down a rat hole because of the fallen nature of those controlling that money. It’s what happens when you live in two kingdoms.
LikeLike
Richard, you mean the system functions best when Christians challenge the justice of laws — and it leads to Civil War? That system?
LikeLike
Erik, John Wesley was not all that perplexed about whether or not Christians in the British colonies should submit, emperor or not. (And let it be noted, I rarely go to Wesley for counsel.)
LikeLike
D.G. –
Yet I would bet that 99% of homeschool & Christian school classrooms would say that the American Revolution was justified and was indeed a good (if not providential) thing. These same folks would say that the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917 was a very bad thing. Why? Because one led to religious freedom and the other to religious persecution? Were not the King & the Czar both ordained by God?
Regarding Wesley — Don’t forget that a Methodist is an Episcopalian with a much better marketing scheme.
LikeLike
“But, my brethren, would this be any advantage to you? Can you hope for a more desirable form of government, either in England or America, than that which you now enjoy? After all the vehement cry for liberty, what more liberty can you have? What more religious liberty can you desire, than that which you enjoy already? May not every one among you worship God according to his own conscience? What civil liberty can you desire, which you are not already possessed of? Do not you sit without restraint, every man under his own vine? Do you not, every one, high or low, enjoy the fruit of your labour? This is real, rational liberty, such as is enjoyed by Englishmen alone; and not by any other people in the habitable world. Would the being independent of England make you more free? Far, very far from it. It would hardly be possible for you to steer clear, between anarchy and tyranny. But suppose, after numberless dangers and mischiefs, you should settle into one or more republics: would a republican government give you more liberty, either religious or civil? By no means. No governments under heaven are so despotic as the republican: no subjects are governed in so arbitrary a manner, as those of a commonwealth. If any one doubt of this, let him look at the subjects of Venice, of Genoa, or even of Holland. Should any man talk or write of the Dutch government as every cobler does of the English, he would be laid in irons, before he knew where he was. And then wo be to him! Republics shew no mercy.”
John Wesley
LikeLike
Going to Mall of America this week, which will entail me sitting in a bookstore reading while my family shops. I’m thinking of buying “Westminster Seminary California: A New Old School” for the Kindle for the trip. It will be my first e-book. I would rather have a hard copy, but at $4.99 for the e-book and $19.99 for the hard copy I will probably do both.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you mean the system functions best when Christians challenge the justice of laws — and it leads to Civil War? That system?
RS: You are begging the question and using circular reasoning. Other than that, no.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Erik, John Wesley was not all that perplexed about whether or not Christians in the British colonies should submit, emperor or not. (And let it be noted, I rarely go to Wesley for counsel.)
RS: So you pick those you obtain counsel from depending on whether they agree with you or not. That sounds like free-will counsel. Are you sure you don’t go to Wesley more often?
LikeLike
I’m watching a documentary called “American Grindhouse” about the history of exploitation films in America starting in the 1950s. The bottom line on why these movies got made was they made money. The era basically ended with “Deep Throat” in 1972 and “Jaws” in 1975 when pornography and the era of the summer blockbuster began and “grindhouse values” became mainstream.
The bottom line question in America is “what will make you a buck?” and this goes back to the founding and especially to the Revolution. Some early settlers came over for religious freedom but a lot more (especially the further south you went) came over for economic reasons. Once it became apparent that the King of England was going to be an economic impediment instead of an economic help it was goodbye king.
Even today our arguments between the left and right are primarily arguments less about values than about money. One side has a model where money is made through free enterprise and big business and the other side has a model where money is made by being affiliated with government or unions (or with big business that is affiliated with government). The symptom of being mostly about money is that we have a national debt over $16 trillion dollars. Everyone is going to get theirs, long-term consequences be damned.
It’s a depressing picture, but is still a better picture than many other places in the world — evidence for man’s fallen nature if there ever was.
LikeLike
PBA, I did analysis that is a lot like your thoughts here. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-hhs-mandate-doesnt-make-catholic-employers-sin-proximate-cause-says-so/
As I read the WTS explanation, I don’t actually see them saying it is sin for an employer to comply with Obmacare. It seems to be grounded in legal rights and a desire to have a positive influence in the culture war.
Just a comment on reacting to government enforcement vs. proactive litigation: there are hefty fines for noncompliance with the mandate. Thus, if a business or institution is going to object, it makes sense to do so up front rather than after the accumulation of penalties.
LikeLike
If you have over 50 full-time employees and you decide not to offer insurance I think the fine is $2,000 per employee and $3,000 per employee if the employee receives a subsidy to purchase insurance in a government exchange. Truly unprecedented. Thank John Roberts for upholding this “tax”. The joke is probably on everyone who voted for the politicians that voted for Obamacare, though.
LikeLike
Not everyone agrees there should be legal exemptions for religious beliefs & practices:
http://mag.uchicago.edu/spirit-law
LikeLike
Richard, I’m not saying Peter’s point applies directly to the Westminster situation. I’m saying it applies to those generally on relatively self-righteous soap boxes about keeping authorities in their place and claiming the NT for the cause. The NT is more about enduring injustice than standing up for it. Go ahead and take your stand, but spare us all the odd tactic of using the NT to justify it.
LikeLike
Erik, I’m not on board with vilifying a single member of the SCOTUS for a single decision. It took a majority to uphold Obamacare, and, then, Roberts did author a strong opinion in favor of religious liberties. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/a-time-to-clap-for-the-united-states-supreme-court/
Court-bashing is easy to do, but it’s rarely based on substantial understanding of what courts do.
With that being said, I agree that Obamacare is massive and heavy-handed legislation.
LikeLike
“It took a majority to uphold Obamacare”
Yes – that great herd of independent liberal minds + Roberts.
Sadly I think this one decision will be his legacy. I think he feared the political consequences of shooting it down.
What else will we be forced to buy or pay a tax? Crony capitalists must love that decision.
LikeLike
Dude, your repentance from knee-jerk culture warriorism is not complete. There are decisions to be made about the proper roles and deference of one branch to another and those decisions, in turn, are based on the particulars of the case and prior case law. Roberts decided to be deferential to the legislative branch – a move typically lauded by the anti-court screamers. And with all due respect (not really) to all armchair judicial second-guessers, few non-attorneys know how to adequately read a case.
But, hey, if you want to join Chuck Hurley and Steve Deace on the court-bashing bandwagon, John Roberts will uphold your right to do so.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I’m not saying Peter’s point applies directly to the Westminster situation. I’m saying it applies to those generally on relatively self-righteous soap boxes about keeping authorities in their place and claiming the NT for the cause.
RS: But you have to judge the hearts of the folks at Westminster to assume that they are doing this to be on a self-righteous soap box and that it is all about keeping their authority. Perhaps you have more info on this than the rest of us do, but I thought you were a big proponent of judging the action and words as opposed to the heart.
Zrim: The NT is more about enduring injustice than standing up for it.
RS: Perhaps, but the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. He loves justice and righteousness is both Testaments.
Zrim: Go ahead and take your stand, but spare us all the odd tactic of using the NT to justify it.
RS: Interesting how your hermeneutic works. When the OT is useful you use it, but when it is convenient to use one Testament that is what is used. The Bible is the Bible and God is always the same. He is a God that always desires justice and righteousness, though believers certainly may suffer an injustice for a greater good. But suffering is not always for a greater good and as such it is not wise nor just to suffer it. It is also not an odd tactic to use the NT to say that Paul used his legal rights as a citizen and then to say we can use our rights as citizens as well.
LikeLike
Zrim, your biggest problem, is the you’re always referring to the new testament, “as if it’s a different outlook than the old testament. You need to base your world view of the full counsel of God’s Word. And you need to start questioning the slant you’ve learned from VanDrunen, Gordon, and Hart.
Richard has graciously given you irrefutable biblical evidence that teaches the people of God, it’s perfectly fine to use the law for justice. Only your bazaar 2K slant is prohibiting you from seeing the obvious. I pray for the day the scales fall from your eyes.
LikeLike
M&M, while I’m no lawyer; isn’t Obamacare just more socialism being ramrodded through Congress? No one even read the bill! When I look at Obama, and I see a committed socialist, who thinks the “rich” should foot the bill for the poor. Am I wrong? And wouldn’t even you concur?
LikeLike
I’ll offer a qualified defense of WTS. There is a certain public perception of culpability, the appearance of wrong-doing, that goes along with providing funds.
That perception extends even when the funding is unknowing or unwilling.
So for example, the California teacher’s union discovered last year that its pension fund had invested in Cerberus, who invested in Bushmaster, maker of AR-15s. Sure enough, conservative groups cried “hypocrisy”, and the pension fund ordered a review of its holdings.
Here, if the seminary teaches, even as a private moral position, that abortions are immoral, it is open to the charge of hypocrisy if its employees are able to obtain abortions with school-paid insurance funds.
As a matter of institutional integrity, it makes sense to want to be able to opt out.
LikeLike
M&M; I personally think Robert’s vote was an acknowledgement that our nation has turned into a socialist nation, the constitution be damned. If that’s what we want, that’s what we’re going to get! We’re the fools that voted Obama in office!
Social Security was also un-constitutional, but did that stop FDR? No, he threatened the Supreme Court that he would add more judges until he got a majority to see things his way; and they capitulated like cowards, much like Roberts. Had Roberts voted to uphold the Constitution it wouldn’t have really stopped Obamacare for long. Our nation has turned from God, and this is the fruit of our folly. Everyone wants things for free, screw having to trust God! We seem to say.
Thinking we are wise, we have become fools!
LikeLike
Jeff, California teacher’s union is akin to WTS? One is big, one is tiny. One is in the news, the other isn’t. One doesn’t know its members, one does know its employees. That seems like a stretch.
LikeLike
Doug, maybe so, but the SCOTUS can’t strike down leglislation on the basis that it is dumb or rushed. It may not feel like it, but, insofar as it was passed by the legislative branch, it was the Will of the People.
While I personally like Scalia’s dissent ( http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/the-architecture-of-a-republic-scalias-dissent-from-obamacare/ ) I can feel the weight of what may have been Roberts’ concern as Chief Justice. To entirely strike down such an extensive legislative scheme would tend to give the impression to many that the SCOTUS – including Roberts – is a political player.
One positive out of the Obamacare decision is that the SCOTUS actually found a limit to what can be done using the Commerce Clause as a justification. That’s rare, and that aspect of the decision tends to show that Roberts is not prepared to rubber stamp eveything that comes from the federal legislative branch even if deference is typically appropriate.
LikeLike
Richard, it’s not about the hearts of Westminster. It’s about the rhetoric that springs forth from the culture warriors when they learn their favorite issue is involved, abortion. All of a sudden, stands are to be taken and Presidents are to be poked in the eye. I just don’t see that sort of indignant disposition anywhere propped up for exiles in either the OT or NT. In fact, I see the opposite.
LikeLike
MM: One positive out of the Obamacare decision is that the SCOTUS actually found a limit to what can be done using the Commerce Clause as a justification.
Yes, and even more so: Roberts’ ruling prevents HHS from raising the “tax” beyond the cost of a health insurance policy (else, the penalty would become punitive and no longer a tax). This means that employers will always have a motivation to avoid paying for health care, except as a pure benefit to employees.
This in turn undermines the intent of the law, which was to provide employers with an incentive to join in, and thus dilute the cost of insurance for all. The basic dynamic was supposed to be, Force everyone into the market and thereby lower costs. Roberts’ ruling upends this and encourages people out of the market, thereby raising costs.
For my part, I think Roberts delivered the perfect poison pill to the legislation. Sadly, the short-term effect will be rate increases for everyone; but the long-term effect will probably be to significantly repeal or modify the law at the legislative level, which is the right place for that to happen.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, California teacher’s union is akin to WTS? One is big, one is tiny. One is in the news, the other isn’t. One doesn’t know its members, one does know its employees. That seems like a stretch.
So only big, in the news institutions have to deal with charges of hypocrisy? I’m missing your logic.
LikeLike
MM – Can you cite any other examples of inaction being taxed as opposed to action? How was Roberts not creating something that is new and novel? I thought that’s what liberals did.
LikeLike
Jeff: Force everyone into the market and thereby lower costs
Erik: And exactly how is that going to happen?
“Squeeze Looms for Doctors”:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324096404578356544137516914.html
“The Doctor Won’t See You Now. He’s Clocked Out”:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578346614033833092.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
LikeLike
MM: “There are decisions to be made about the proper roles and deference of one branch to another and those decisions, in turn, are based on the particulars of the case and prior case law.”
Erik: You mean like Roe v. Wade?
LikeLike
MM: “And with all due respect (not really) to all armchair judicial second-guessers, few non-attorneys know how to adequately read a case.”
Erik: That statement makes Bryan Cross look humble.
LikeLike
MM: But, hey, if you want to join Chuck Hurley and Steve Deace on the court-bashing bandwagon
Erik: Pretty low blow, Mitch. I expect better of you. I didn’t attack you personally.
LikeLike
One danger of 2K is that we become useful idiots for the establishment. I am NOT calling anyone here that name, but think for a minute about who we are as Reformed Protestants. We are part of a movement that overthrew an existing order of church and state. In light of that how can we now just uncritically accept what churches and governments serve up to us?
LikeLike
Erik, sorry if I hit a nerve. But briefly, from my phone, there’s a reason why three years of law school and a bar exam are necessary to practice law. Media and activist descriptions of court decisions are painful to read and often grossly unfair to judges.
Roberts might actually have had Roe v. Wade in mind as an example of how the court diminished its stature by usurping legislative issues.
On your other inquiry, Roberts didn’t create the statute. The People did through their elected officials.
LikeLike
Erik observes; One danger of 2K is that we become useful idiots for the establishment.
Bingo! 😉
I *knew* there were sound reasons why I love Erik!
LikeLike
Erik,
Isn’t the 2K pushback from the church militant, at the point of infringement upon the church? And even then, if necessary, martyrdom is in play. As regards being ‘merican, individual citizens and political groups can avail themselves of already established avenues of recourse. There may be appropriate action by, let’s say MM, as an attorney to bring suit(totally spit balling here) against federal infringement upon let’s say a privately owned business because Obamacare causes an undue financial burden(totally making this up). Or the states can push back, like Texas is want to, as regards participation in any number of federal programs. The point being, Christian citizens, like any other citizen, have at their disposal legitimate avenues of recourse which don’t involve and shouldn’t involve the church needing to intervene.
BTW, as regards just accepting what the church is dishing out, I think any number of us, you included, is involved, hopefully charitably and wisely, in ‘pushing’ our churches toward a more faithful expression of reformed piety and practice. Even here, within the church, we have to suffer long and patiently and seek the peace and purity at the same time. Revolution isn’t on the table.
LikeLike
MM,
We’re good!
LikeLike
Sean, first of all, a “spit ball” is an illegal pitch in baseball. It’s putting a foreign object of the ball, something almost never seen anymore. I remember Gaylord Perry who was one of the last guys who would doctor the ball. A spitball is not making up an example and using it as an analogy to make a point.
Second, why is it, that for issues like “gay marriage” the church can’t use the bible as our main defense, and speak with a unified voice? Isn’t there power in numbers? Isnt Queer Nation speaking with a unified voice?
Other than the bible calling sodomy a sin, and something evil in the sight of God, on what basis can you argue against “gay marriage”? As a private citizen with a wild hair up your rear end? As far as I’m concerned, the bible speaks with authority, and that settles the issue, period end of story. And for that reason alone, “gay marriage” should be banned.
If you divorce God’s revelation from the discussion then you haven’t a leg to stand on. Your 2K perspective relegates you to one man with an opinion. Who cares what you think? And why should anyone care what you think? Who cares what I think? If on the other hand, you are speaking the truth of God’s word on the subject, then everyone should listen if they know what’s good for them.
Sean, if you continue to hold to the VanDrunen/Gordon/Hart perspective your opinion is just that, one mans opinion. Yawn, who cares?
LikeLike
Sean, first of all, a “spit ball” is an illegal pitch in baseball. It’s putting a foreign object of the ball, something almost never seen anymore. I remember Gaylord Perry who was one of the last guys who would doctor the ball. A spitball is not making up an example and using it as an analogy to make a point.
Second, why is it, that for issues like “gay marriage” the church can’t use the bible as our main defense, and speak with a unified voice? Isn’t there power in numbers? Isn’t Queer Nation speaking with a unified voice? If you deny God’s word having relevance then you are acting just like a useful idiot as Erik surmised earlier. He wouldn’t call you that, but I will. In love of course 😉
Other than the bible calling sodomy a sin, and something evil in the sight of God, on what basis can you argue against “gay marriage”? As a private citizen with a wild hair up your rear end? As far as I’m concerned, the bible speaks with authority, and that settles the issue, period end of story. And for that reason alone, “gay marriage” should be banned.
If you divorce God’s written revelation from the discussion then you haven’t a leg to stand on. Your 2K perspective relegates you to one man with an opinion. Who cares what you think? And why should anyone care what you think? Who cares what I think? If on the other hand, you are speaking the truth of God’s word on the subject, then everyone should listen if they know what’s good for them.
Sean, if you continue to hold to the VanDrunen/Gordon/Hart perspective your opinion is just that, one mans opinion. Yawn, who cares?
LikeLike
Doug, I’ve already voiced my prefernce for those who cheat in sport. Sport as morality play is weenie, promise keepers, feminization.
As for your fundamentalistic impulses, you’ve never legitimately explained Paul’s dichotomous treatment of Gods direction in 1 cor 5. The RC’s at least own up to an extra canonical tradition, you create your own out of your post millennial chilliastic ingrown hair.
LikeLike
Sean opines; Doug, I’ve already voiced my prefernce for those who cheat in sport. Sport as morality play is weenie, promise keepers, feminization.
Sean, everything we do has a moral component, yes even sports. Paul the man your so fond of quoting out of context said in everything we do, we are to do it for the glory of God! Sean “everything” includes sports; or are you calling the Apostle Paul a weenie?
Oh, that’s right! You still think that liar Lance Armstrong is a hero, right? Is this the same Lance Armstrong who threatened men who got caught, that if they dared tell the truth, he would destroy them? The same Lance who sued men for telling the truth? The same Lance who lied through his teeth to anyone and everyone? The same Lance Armstrong who is being sued for every cent he ever made? Lance has been reduced to a crying baby on Oprah, and even she doesn’t believe his BS story.
I was raised by an unbelieving father who a sportsman, (baseball and basketball) and he had more decency and honesty than you! I say this to your shame! My Dad would never want to win, by cheating! He couldn’t even sleep with himself at night if he did such a revolting cowardly act! And here you a confessing christian celebrate cheating?! May it never be!
Are you really born of God? If you are, then you need to do some soul searching, and repent with sackcloth and ashes. Cheating and bending the rules to win at all costs does not bring glory to God. It brings shame and disgrace just look at Lance Armstrong today and ask him if it was worth it. I sure he would say no. Now whenever normal people view him, they want to throw up!
LikeLike
Sean, with that being said, maybe I was a bit too harsh on you. I do think the time has come for Major league baseball, the NFL, and the NBA to allow men to use PED’s under a doctor’s care. I don’t see anything unethical or immoral about trying to get the most out of your ability. Plus, with the way these designer drugs keep changing, I don’t see how *they* will every stop it.
I realize that every team in the Tour De France was using PED’s. I have friends who cycle, and I knew Lance was dirty back in 99. I believe they were all dirty in cycling. So I can see how you could be slightly sympathetic at first blush. My problem with Armstrong is that he lied, and not just lied, but he tried to destroy other men who did come clean after they got caught. What he did by persecuting these men is reprehensible. He will never live this one down, and he will live in infamy.
LikeLike
Sean retorts: As for your fundamentalistic impulses, you’ve never legitimately explained Paul’s dichotomous treatment of Gods direction in 1 cor 5.
I guess that means 75% of our reformed hero’s couldnt’ fathom 1 Cor 5, eh? You have yet to answer how the same Apostle in 2nd Cor. 6, expicitly forbids christians from being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Paul uses the same Scriptures that seperated Jew from Gentile, and now applies this to believer, unbeliever. This seems to have alluded your consideration. You dare twist 1 Cor. 5 to contradict 2nd Cor 6!
Both letters to the church at Corinth emphasize that *we* are one body in Christ. There is a spiritual connection, and this is what you have missed. So we do need to shun a believer that is walking in sexual perversion, unlike an unbeliever that we are not one body with. This was Paul’s point in chapter 5 and 6 in 1 Cor.
. Paul is not saying that once Christians are given influence and power in government by God’s grace, they must be agnostic in the public square, that would be idiotic, to barrow a phrase from Erik.
Yet, there you are! Stupid is as stupid does. Making the absurd charge that Paul is saying, “now in the new testament we can never expect a time where God’s law will be the standard of justice in any given nation”. Balderdash!
This means, you havent read much history, or you don’t want to admitt the obvious. You jump like a scalded cat, at the notion of God’s law being reveared by a majority of mankind, prior to Christ’s final coming. You mock and ridicule your brethern who are praying for more of God’s kingdom now, when they pray the Lord’s prayer.
And who does Queer Nation applaud? Hart or Bahnsen? VanDrunen or Calvin? Gordan or Bucer? Can you confess to having strange bedfellows? This is why there is more truth to the “useful idiot” comment than Erik may want to admitt. Sean you are doing the bidding of the enemies of the cross of Christ. Queer nation stands up and applauds your world view! You can’t even agree with me that socialism is a fools erand. My eyes shed streams of tears, because people forsake God’s law.
I say this to shake you out of your stupor! Wake up brother!
LikeLike
Doug: Paul is not saying that once Christians are given influence and power in government by God’s grace, they must be agnostic in the public square.
Neither is anyone else. Are you sure that you’ve properly understood the position you’re opposing?
LikeLike
Doug, not to interrupt your nouthetic counseling session, but it’s interesting that you have first hand experience with the nobility of unbelievers (and use it as ammo) and yet rail against the 2k claim that nobody needs faith or the Bible to behave decently, just a conscience. Does your inner theonomist realize that the only one who can explain and laud your father is your inner 2ker?
LikeLike
Doug, you crack me up;
“Are you really born of God? Yet, there you are! Stupid is as stupid does. You mock and ridicule your brethern who are praying for more of God’s kingdom now, Sean you are doing the bidding of the enemies of the cross of Christ.You can’t even agree with me that socialism is a fools erand.”
Sean: What am I supposed to be responding to?
I admit to being a contrarian when it comes to those who use sport to trumpet their moral outrage, but I haven’t had a sports ‘hero’ in a long time. I do have a passing interest and fascination in athletic recovery and physical manipulation.
As regards 1 cor 5, we’ve been here before; “remove the sexually immoral from among you, have nothing to do with such a one who bears the name of brother. Not at ALL meaning the sexually immoral of this world OR the greedy AND swindlers OR idolators. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13 ESV)
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? GOD judges those outside.
You relegate such direction to a pilgrim, minority church. You have yet to prove such an conditioner upon Paul’s direction. You merely assert and bang the table, and accuse me of everything from siding with queer nation to being a socialist. I’m not particularly offended, just unconvinced of your assertion and slightly bemused. BTW, 2 cor 6 further establishes the principle of cultic bounding and separation. I see no argument in 2 Cor 6, that would condition 1 cor 5 as regards application of cultic standards or cultic discipline OUTSIDE the cult, in this life. Outsiders don’t have a spirit of adoption or know God as father, or take to themselves the particular title as ‘temple of the living God’. Cult is privileged, elect status.
LikeLike
Sean, I was reacting to this: “Doug, I’ve already voiced my prefernce for those who cheat in sport. Sport as morality play is weenie, promise keepers, feminization”.
The way I read this, is you”re saying there is no morality in sports, and to say there is, is to be a weenie, and a feninist. It just ticked me off. Maybe I ranted a little too much.
Seans says: You relegate such direction to a pilgrim, minority church. You have yet to prove such an conditioner upon Paul’s direction.
Me: It’s called common sense! I have provided cases in history where the church is in a huge MAJORITY. Remember New England? Hello Sean, is anyone home? That wasnt just me banging my shoe of the table, that is very recent history. A history you ignore because it conflicts with your “always being a pilgram” and “always being in the minority”, mentality. You seem inable to accept the church in the majority role she enjoyed in Geneva and New England, even if she only held her role for a mere 100 years.
I like you, also pray for the last day when we see Jesus face to face, but until then, I pray for more of his kingdom rule everyday to express itself in a whole host of ways. Even our laws! Justice is a good thing! Just look at how Paul used Roman law to his advantage.
LikeLike
Sean, I’m glad I crack you up, laughter is good for the soul. Before you point out that Geneva was not perfect, let me head you off at the pass. No nation will ever be perfect before the last day, I realize that. But praying for justice in the socio political realm is not a bad thing. Yet something you constantly seem to downplay.
LikeLike
Sorry, not interested in turning Fenway Park into a site of mass hanging and execution of those who merely happen to disagree with my theological idiosyncrasies.
LikeLike
Zrim, I am saying its a shame when the unbeliever has more nobility in sports, than a confessing believer. Sean calls anyone who wants to play by the rules a weanie or a feminized dude. My dad was a sinner to be sure, but he was never known as a cheater in sports. Maybe I was a little over emotional since I lost my father recently.
LikeLike
Kent opines: Sorry, not interested in turning Fenway Park into a site of mass hanging and execution of those who merely happen to disagree with my theological idiosyncrasies.
Me: Who does? That was the charge leveled on Greg Bahnsen by Queer Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
LikeLike
Doug, let’s set aside the whole sports bit. It wasn’t particularly directed at you, and I still am not sure of it’s relevance other than I along with a few hundred million other people have an opinion about it.
But you’re beginning to sound like the females in my life (feminization shot) who either start or end every disagreement with: ‘always’, ‘constantly’, ‘every time’, ‘you never’ and any assortment of scorched earth rebuttal. Still, they haven’t ever hit me with the Queer Nation sympathizer, or socialist-commie, but maybe it’s in the offing or under their breath. I’m all for justice but not particularly at the expense of liberty. I’ll take my chances with liberty and pluralism over any moralistic totalitarianism. A government’s lack of bounding, regardless if it’s in the service of morality or safety is a much greater threat than my homosexual neighbor.
I am sorry to hear about losing your dad. You have my sympathy.
LikeLike
But Kent, would you could you hang a Jeter? May you say you would hang an A-Rod?
LikeLike
Mikelmann: I think Jeter will suffer enough out there this season… 😀
In Toronto the media and new bandwagon fans think that 120 wins will be easy target for the Jays this year…
LikeLike
Pls. see my comment, #6/? @ newer post: Defining Morality Up”. Same subject, really, as this “What A Difference A Day Makes”. 150 comments by now? Wow! Much the same as most age-old OLT posts, fan commwents—- “This World Is Not my Home”. A big EITHER/OR, where a BOTH/AND is more Biblical. And all this plugged with little common sense (Common Grace appreciation! DG, How do Larry Arnn and your other buddies @ Hillsdale put up with your posts-peerspectives? Maybe don’t ever read them? 🙂 Bob Morris, WTS 1954
LikeLike
Bob,
I saw it and it’s awesome. You make my sentence structure look like something out of the Chicago Manual of Style. But I object, I countered with liberty at the expense of government intrusion. So, I went both/and I just err to one side over the other.
LikeLike
Doug, it may be a shame, but the point is to wonder if you can see that since the moral law is written on the human heart why you think 2k’s points about natural law are to make the case for autonomy, when in fact it’s about providing the alternative to both autonomy and theonomy.
LikeLike
Okay, I’ll come out and say it…
As a Canadian, under universal coverage for health care, and in full economic and mental understanding of how the US system has come to this quandry…
It is appalling that people in the US are left to die with easily diagnosable and treatable cancer and heart problems because they don’t have insurance, that a country with such riches does not have a safety net for catastrophic coverage of its citizens. Every other developed country in the world can’t believe the US allows this to happen.
And then to bicker over whether there is birth control or abortion on the plan, while ignoring the big issue already mentioned, is a bit much to us non-Americans…
LikeLike
Who let the Canadian in? Love it or leave it. Who asked you? Where is Canada? Don’t tread on me. I can almost see that maple leaf on your mountie hat through my high powered scope. Or is that a floor dee lee. We get accused of bickering?! You have Quebec.
Welcome hoser. Ok sorry Kent, I think most of it is out of my system now, but I make no promises.
LikeLike
Is Old Bob tweeting?
LikeLike
I’m generally not too worried about liberal schemes, it’s whether liberals can actually come up with the money to pay for them that worries me. Few liberals have the balls to raise the taxes to pay for their ideas and few conservatives have the balls to cut government to the level of taxes that they want. Just give me someone with some balls and some common sense and I’m flexible. It’s all this cost-shifting and cluelessness that drives me nuts.
LikeLike
We are moving toward universal health coverage (although I don’t know how good it will be) but who is going to pay the bill for that along with social security for the baby boomers? If we don’t have better economic growth there is no hope that all these bills get paid. Interest rates will rise and we will have inflation because our paper money will be a joke. We all want lots of great things for ourselves and others, but what will our productivity support?
And this ignores all of the unrealistic, underfunded city, state, and federal pension liabilities that are sitting out there.
We’ll all be broke, but at least we can get into see the psychiatrist to get our happy pills!
LikeLike
My wife wants a new bathroom, a trip to Mall of America, braces for a kid, and a wedding for a kid this year. That’s all great, hon, but are you ready for us all to get skinnier next year? How’s rice and beans sounding?
LikeLike
Listening to a really good interview of D.G. by Mark Dever (thanks Gospel Coalition). At one point Dever asks Hart about Wendell Berry and agrarianism. as soon as I can get all those doggone books sold out of my garage I might have to cash out the house and the retirement funds, buy a piece of land in the country, build a simple house, and learn to live like a pioneer farmer.
LikeLike
Doug,
No one is suggesting that God’s revelation be divorced from any discussion of same-sex marriage. To the contrary, we are simply saying that God’s special revelation ought to be divorced from the discussion. Arguments from God’s general revelation are quite germane.
Of course, I’d argue that general revelation, based on what we know today, counsels against withholding the rights of civil marriage (i.e., as a civil property right) from gay persons who have an interest in entering into such a legal arrangement. After all, questions of whether one approves of gay sex are inapposite to the issue of same-sex marriage, unless it can be shown that the availability of same-sex civil marriage has a direct bearing on whether gay people engage in certain sexual conduct or not. I suspect that it does not. I suspect that a gay couple’s sexual activities are largely unaffected by whether their situs is a state that recognizes same-sex civil marriage.
LikeLike
“Sport as morality play is weenie, promise keepers, feminization.”
But, Sean, sports needs to be a morality play. My team is full of men with hearts and courage who overcome adversity in heroic ways. Think of the move “The Natural.” Your team is the Evil Empire, cheap shot artists and dopers. If we don’t have this narrative surrounding sports we’re left with ordinary men throwing a ball around – boring,with no reason to yell at the TV.
To be more precise,sports is part morality play and part mythology. Larry Bird was a man of probably ordinary personal morality with a possibly pathological obsession to win, but when I see the youtube of him dropping 60 on the Atlanta Hawks I get the Chris Matthews tingle. At one level Darryl knows that Dick Allen is just a guy, but there’s a piece in him somewhere that still gives him hero status.
I once corresponded to a sportswriter with the following:
You should be thankful that Boston fans did boo Damon; otherwise you might not have a job covering baseball. Let me explain. Baseball in itself – a bunch of guys hitting a ball and chasing it – has little intrinsic appeal. If fans were entirely rational and courteous in their approach to it, it would be boring. It would not capture the imaginations of little boys, and grown men would not go into depression after a team of men (who have never necessarily lived in their city but represent it) play the game one run worse than another team of men.
But baseball does have a hold on people – millions of them. Why? It is because they transform it into a mythology. Ortiz is not just a guy with a curious aptitude for hitting a ball with a stick, he is a hero. The local team did not just fail to be the best team for decades, it was the victim of a curse. That New York team is not a bunch of guys who are of similar character and/or talent as Our Team, they are the Evil Empire. All those athletic acts which have no inherent virtue or value are deemed virtuous – even glorious – and given value in this mythology which transforms the mundane into the captivating.
So, if Damon is not not a demon, Ortiz is not a hero. If Ortiz is not a hero, baseball players are just the possessors of curious, but ultimately boring skills. And, if the skills are boring, Jackie MacMullan is writing about politics or doing movie reviews. Ergo, you may very well have your job BECAUSE Boston fans booed Damon. It’s part of the mythology, the sine qua non for the popularity of sport.
LikeLike
Erik, ever heard of a journal, or an imaginary friend?
LikeLike
Calogero: ……and Mickey Mantle was like a god to me.
My dad and I would go to Yankee Stadium and see the Yankees win.
Sonny: You must be pretty upset after the Yankees lost.
Calogero: Bill Mazeroski, I hate him. He made Mickey Mantle cry. The papers said the Mick cried.
Sonny: Mickey Mantle? That’s what you’re upset about? Mantle makes $100,000 a year. How much does your father make? If your dad ever can’t pay the rent and needs money, go ask Mickey Mantle. See what happens. Mickey Mantle don’t care about you. Why care about him?
Calogero: After that, I never felt the same way about the Yankees.
LikeLike
“or an imaginary friend?”
What do you think these guys are?
There was that summer I made real friends at camp:
LikeLike
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106489/
DeNiro, Pesci. Smells like Goodfellas. Haven’t seen it.
LikeLike
I can’t get excited about baseball until:
(1) The season is underway
(2) The Cubs are good.
Needless to say whole decades go by without me being excited.
I am coaching tee-ball this year, though.
LikeLike
Sonny is covetous. And he hates baseball, which means he hates America.
Erik, you’re going above and beyond what a Dad should have to do. T-Ball must be the creation of an era in which kids no longer play baseball in their neighborhoods. It’s just a horrible deformity. But it is funny the first time or two a kid makes a “dust angel” at short stop, or looks at a pebble when the ball hops by him.
In full disclosure, I would never boo Damon. After so many years of gut-wrenching losses, I didn’t even allow myself to consider that the Red Sox could beat the Yankees in ’04 until Damon hit that grand slam in game 7. I think I audibly said “they might win!”
Netflix has a 30/30 show on that series and it’s tremendous even if you aren’t a Bosox fan. Dreams, drama, and heros – it’s all there. It starts off with a Boston sportswriter criticizing the Sox to Kevin Millar when they were down 0-3. Millar’s reponse to anyone around the field who would listen was “don’t let us win tonght. We have Pedey next game, Schill in game six, and anything can happen in game seven…don’t let us win tonght…”
LikeLike
I should never post before my 2nd cup of coffee.
LikeLike
Bobby says
Doug,
No one is suggesting that God’s revelation be divorced from any discussion of same-sex marriage. To the contrary, we are simply saying that God’s special revelation ought to be divorced from the discussion. Arguments from God’s general revelation are quite germane.
Bobby, that was Meredith Kline’s unique (take) he laid on the church. There is a huge problem with the “general revelation” theory. It’s unbiblical and illogical. When I press you hard on what general revelation means, no one knows, not even Kline. Everyone has a different opinion on what general revelation teaches us regarding penal sanctions. Hence the term autonomous reasonings. You ask ten different people on what general revelation teaches society on how to punish crime, and you wind up with ten different theories. God said to execute a kidnapper, and you say? Or general revelation says? Is general revelation contradicting sepcical revelation? If no, then let’s go by the more clear revelation, rather than someone’s opinion of what they “think” GR is saying.
Let me put it to you this way Bobby. I have yet to hear, one person explain what GR teaches our society on how to punish a kidnapper. Maybe you could share with everyone at Old Lilfe what general revelation has taught you on the penal sanctions regarding kidnapping?
LikeLike
But, Doug, your unbelieving pops knew what cheating was when he saw it and you point to him approvingly. Are you saying when Paul makes the case for natural law he’s leaning autonomous?
Besides, just as there are various opinions on what general revelation teaches us regarding penal sanctions there are also various takes on what special revelation teaches us regarding justification. Your complaint doesn’t mean much because it doesn’t take into account abiding human sin which distorts the reading of both books. But that distortion doesn’t negate the clarity of what both reveal. I mean, some Xns actually think the Bible teaches theonomy, but that doesn’t mean the Bible isn’t perspicuous–it means some Xns are thoroughly confused.
LikeLike
Or……………………………maybe Sonny isn’t a sucker.
Look I’ve got Flower and Badmotorfinger on an endless loop, been drinking heavy for a year and a half and trying to make a go of it in the PCA. I figure I’ll be soulless within the year anyway. ‘Till then, I want my athletes juiced to the gills and chugging Cristal from the winners cup, cuz I ain’t got no time for losers and winners get to do what they want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSlu2okpqM
LikeLike
C.S. Lewis on theocracy
“I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication,” (From Reflections on the Psalms)
LikeLike
But, C.S., that’s the un-Christian kind of theocracy. The Christian kind is free from those ditches because it’s based on the Bible and orchestrated by those who are more sanctified than sinful. Easy peasy.
PS, are you aware that with each exhale of those pipes you are exorcising the Holy Spirit from you? That might explain your density on this.
LikeLike
I’m going to stick up for Doug a little bit here. Todd has already noted that we don’t “read” general revelation so much as “simply have it”, i.e., in our consciences. But this is problematic for several reasons:
(1) In all endeavors except ethics, we actually take great efforts to read natural revelation correctly. In science, for example, we do not accept naive arguments from “it just looks that way”, but insist instead on proper experimentation, hypotheses, and falsification. History likewise has methodology that needs to be observed.
The argument here has been for a kind of naive or intuitionist ethics, “Whatever seems right IS right.”
Hence Zrim: “Your unbelieving father just KNEW that cheating was bad.”
Well, yeah, but Joe’s believing father just KNEW that cheating in sports wasn’t really cheating, and Southerners just KNEW that interracial marriage was wrong, but busting up marriages of slaves wasn’t.
I for one am not impressed with the track record of intuitionist ethics. It’s about as reliable as intuitionist science or intuitionist history — that is to say, not much at all. It cannot tell the difference between truth, pious opinion, and unpious opinion.
(2) In Reformed theology, near as I can tell, the idea has been that natural revelation and special revelation are complementary, not orthogonal books. On some matters, only natural revelation speaks (2+2 = 4). On others, only special revelation speaks (faith, worship).
But on some matters — ethics, family — there is overlap in the subject matter. And we find, for example, Calvin freely appealing to both in order to establish his position. This is abundantly clear in Inst 4.20.
(3) I cannot understand how there is a complete rejection of special revelation from the discussion of ethics.
We do not completely reject general revelation from the study of theology. Linguistics, historical background, cultural norms, logic — all of these are freely used in hermeneutics.
How then is it reasonable to say, as Bobby does, that “To the contrary, we are simply saying that God’s special revelation ought to be divorced from the discussion”? (sorry Bobby).
(4) What I think actually is going on here is that we are being unaware of an implied assumption: That the Scripture calibrates our consciences to inform us of right and wrong.
Without this assumption, we are in the impossible position of saying, “Whatever your conscience says, must be considered correct, or at least as valid as anyone else’s conscience” — which leads either to relativistic ethics, or more likely democratic ethics.
So while vigorously opposing Doug on the matter of OT penal sanctions, I think he has a point about “general revelation only” ethics.
LikeLike
Jeff, I understand what you’re trying to establish. I’m not sure how special revelation helps when special revelation doesn’t accuse fallen man as lacking information about what the law, 2nd table ethics considered, is, just that he fails to comply. In fact it says he does know and does it anyway. For example, the racial problems in the south weren’t stemming from a lack of SR in the culture of the south. History seems to point more in the direction of C.S. Lewis’ observations about religious totalitarianism than ignorant barbarism.
LikeLike
Zrim, yes my Dad was a man, meaning he had God’s law written on his heart, like all men do. But if you asked him what we should do regarding penal sanctions he was just like anyone else, all over the board. He didnt read the Bible.
Beside, as Jeff so ellequently pointed out, when it comes to “ethics” we should pay attention to what God says is right or wrong. When God makes a judgment who is to stay his hand, and say, why are you saying that?
LikeLike
Sean, what do you make of Rom 1.21?
LikeLike
Todd, I think C.S. was talking about a theocratic king, which I would vigorously oppose as well.
Sean, special revelation helps when it comes to penal sanctions for kidapping, sodomy, rape, stealing, murder, and child molesting. If we come into agreement of those issues, as well as any given nation, it anwers a thousand other questions instantly! It would shut the mouth of Queer Nation, and NAMBLA and the Amercian Teachers Union, YESTERDAY!.
BTW, Sean, I never accused you of being sympathitic to Queer nation. (I know better) Queer Nation loves DGH and by YOU exprapolation. It’s R2K’s harmeutic (the useful idiot part) that opens the door wide open to a whole host of sick perversions and tells christians we can’t use the Bible in the so called “comman realm”. It ties your hands behind your back, before you enter the ring, meaning your going to get the crap beaten out of you. Or in Hart’s case have Queer Nation applaud your work.
Sorry guys, no spell check today.
LikeLike
Jeff, just very quickly, it has reference to their knowledge of God, which the confession argues as well that GR is inadequate and SR is required for particularity. Do you see that differently?
LikeLike
Jeff, it’s also an idolatrous failure that those who did have the Torah, were apt to fall into in spite of having SR.
LikeLike
Sean,
Jeff, it’s also an idolatrous failure that those who did have the Torah, were apt to fall into in spite of having SR.
Agreed. But this failure did not therefore nullify the word of God, did it?
Jeff, just very quickly, [Rom 1.21] has reference to their knowledge of God, which the confession argues as well that GR is inadequate and SR is required for particularity. Do you see that differently?
I do. I see it referring to “all ungodliness and unrighteousness” — which begins with idolatry and ends elsewhere.
LikeLike
Doug: Sean, special revelation helps when it comes to penal sanctions for kidapping, sodomy, rape, stealing, murder, and child molesting.
This won’t do. If you want to claim special revelation, then you must accept the teaching of special revelation. And in contrast to the teaching of Bahnsen, the teaching of special revelation is that the judicial penal sanctions are not obligatory.
You can’t jump up and down about special revelation over here, and then ignore its teaching (or adopt a seriously idiosyncratic interpretation of it) over there.
LikeLike
Jeff, you’ve been around long enough to know that the overlap of the two books isn’t contested. But the problem with saying the Bible needs to calibrate the conscience is that it overlooks, as I’ve been saying, the inherent problem of the reader. It also runs the risk of implying that the law written on the heart is inherently obscured, which seems to impugn its author instead of the reader.
But nobody is saying “whatever your conscience says must be considered correct, or at least as valid as anyone else’s conscience.” The point is that if Paul can say that the unbelievers who do not have the law yet do by nature things required by the law, then it would seem that the Bible really isn’t needed to calibrate conscience. You point to the fact that everyone can come up with different conclusions, but all that shows is that the problem is inherent to people. Again, nothing wrong with breaking out the Bible at any point along the way in sorting out provisional questions, but the idea that it will solve or clarify things is naïve.
LikeLike
Doug, you’re not following me. Just reading the Bible doesn’t solve things, because of human sin. You and I both read the Bible and while you end up theonomic, I end up 2k. Some read it and conclude sola fide is out, some read it and say in. And on it goes. If the Bible doesn’t solve sacred disagreements between those who believe in it, what makes you think it will solve secular questions between those who do and those who don’t?
The problem isn’t the different texts being read for either scared or secular purposes (i.e. Bible for eternal matters, general revelation for provisional). They’re both perfectly clear. The problem resides in the readers, which are totally depraved.
LikeLike
Let me translate Doug for everyone:
What Doug said: BTW, Sean, I never accused you of being sympathitic to Queer nation. (I know better) Queer Nation loves DGH and by YOU exprapolation. It’s R2K’s harmeutic (the useful idiot part) that opens the door wide open to a whole host of sick perversions and tells christians we can’t use the Bible in the so called “comman realm”. It ties your hands behind your back, before you enter the ring, meaning your going to get the crap beaten out of you. Or in Hart’s case have Queer Nation applaud your work.
What Doug meant: By the way Sean, I never accused you of being sympathetic to Queer nation because I know better than to do that. Queer Nation loves DG Hart and would love you also seeing that you have the same views. It is Radical Two Kingdom View’s hermeneutic (the useful idiot part) that opens the door wide open to numerous sick perversions as well as tells Christians that they are not able to use the Bible in the common realm (which is a term I disagree with). This hermeneutic ties the Christian’s hands behind their back thus allowing the opposition to easily defeat them.
End of Translation:
I intentionally left out the redundant last sentence.
I know this is a blog and misspelling and grammatical errors pop up periodically, but if you truly believe that you are arguing for the core of Reformed Theology (as you have claimed previously) then may I suggest that you slow down a bit and make sure your posts are not laced with errors.
I will leave you with something I learned from Randy Snyder that you should take to heart.
Go back and read more carefully because words matter.
LikeLike
Zrim: But the problem with saying the Bible needs to calibrate the conscience is that it overlooks, as I’ve been saying, the inherent problem of the reader.
I wouldn’t say “overlooks”, but “deals with a different issue.” I won’t deny the readership problem.
Zrim: It also runs the risk of implying that the law written on the heart is inherently obscured, which seems to impugn its author instead of the reader.
I hear that. But again, does not Rom 1.21 teach that the law written on the heart is obscured, which impugns sin and not the author of the law?
Zrim: The point is that if Paul can say that the unbelievers who do not have the law yet do by nature things required by the law, then it would seem that the Bible really isn’t needed to calibrate conscience.
No, that doesn’t follow. A flaky instrument might require calibration. A seriously flaky instrument might require calibration frequently.
Zrim: Again, nothing wrong with breaking out the Bible at any point along the way in sorting out provisional questions, but the idea that it will solve or clarify things is naïve.
OK, so explain this process further. I think it would help me as well as Doug, in different ways, to understand how the Bible is used in your life to sort out provisional questions.
LikeLike
Jeff, I do not believe it nullifys the word of God. As far as it goes, I’m willing to concur that idolatry is a fountain head of sin. I just don’t see where SR’s primary thrust was to increase or inform ethical considerations divorced from it’s cultic concerns or considerations. IOW, to read the scriptures acovenantally or in a non RH manner. And if we’re gonna argue the books informing each other, it’s also true that the pentateuch is ‘borrowing’ or trading on some common understandings, particularly 2nd table considered, even 1st table but erroneously, that was already being observed in surrounding cultures and even here you have consideration given for deviation from ethics or moral law edenically considered-divorce/ polygamy. Granted they took on their own particular manifestations in the land, particular to the land even, but the primary and distinct disclosure is Yahweh as over against other cultures expression of cult. So outside the cult, NL is given precedence in application of SR revelation as one would expect. Cultic status is privileged, not presumed. Other nations were jealous after Israel’s God. But even after all that, corruption not information is still the underlying issue.
LikeLike
Totally off topic, are any of you fellow OL degenerates filling out NCAA brackets? I was kicking the idea around of hosting a group over at ESPN or Yahoo. Let me know via e-mail – jed paschall at gmail.
LikeLike
Jeff, my point wasn’t that sinners don’t need calibration. My point was about the means by which they are to be calibrated and for what purpose. If sinners need to be calibrated for provisional purposes, general revelation is sufficient, and if for eternal purposes special revelation.
Re using the Bible to sort out provisional questions, my point was this: some say that when trying to figure out how to order provisional life it gets confusing because there are myriad answers. So what we need to do is consult the Bible for some principles to get matters less cluttered. Fine, go ahead. But introducing the Bible isn’t really going to get things less cluttered because the dimly-lit people reading special revelation are the same ones who are also reading general revelation. It’s as naïve as thinking all we need to do to make prisons less full is give inmates a Bible: “See, it says you can’t be stealing and killing,” as if a collective “Oh!” will arise from the hoosegow.
But as we’ve discussed before, the other wrinkle here is between those of us who assume general revelation alone is sufficient to govern common life and those who assume it isn’t. The latter seem to think this is a way to denigrate the Bible, by saying it’s not necessary for common life. But all the former are saying is that God has authored two books for two different purposes, GR for common life and the Bible for ecclesiastical life. It’s not to denigrate, but in fact to let them do exactly that for which they were ordained (which is the opposite of denigration, exaltation more like).
LikeLike
Sean: I just don’t see where SR’s primary thrust was to increase or inform ethical considerations divorced from it’s cultic concerns or considerations. IOW, to read the scriptures acovenantally or in a non RH manner.
This is a very good way of putting it.
Now let me ask a question of narrow scope: If one is a Christian, does the Scripture have things to say that inform one’s common-grace callings?
In other words, do common-grace callings for the Christian fall within the scope of the covenant?
LikeLike
Zrim: as if a collective “Oh!” will arise from the hoosegow…
Mirriam: hoose·gow
noun ˈhüs-ˌgau̇
Definition of HOOSEGOW
: jail
One learns something every day.
LikeLike
Zrim: Fine, go ahead. But introducing the Bible isn’t really going to get things less cluttered because the dimly-lit people reading special revelation are the same ones who are also reading general revelation.
So why does your argument not also nullify reading the Bible for matters of faith and worship? That is, after all, where Paul begins in Rom 1.
LikeLike
Jeff, my point isn’t to suggest less reading of the Bible because people are dim. It’s to push back on the assumption that the Bible will put things on the fast track to clarity, whether it’s consulted for common or ecclesiastical life.
LikeLike
Jeff, without giving it more reflection at this particular time I tend to agree with DVD’s subjective and objectively considered categories. Though I’m hard-pressed to know how that works out in the moment of doing a task, if that necessarily entails perpetual self-conscious consideration. To do something well(objectively and ethically considered, eg good product/service, fair price-all NL considerations, certainly there is overlap with cultic prescriptive) whether by a christian or non-christian, I would argue, redounds to the glory of God. My point of departure from the equally skilled widget maker is going to be manifested in cultic practice-Lords day, worship.
LikeLike
Zrim: It’s to push back on the assumption that the Bible will put things on the fast track to clarity
Oh, well, yes. “God’s Little Handbook” and all that.
I’m fine there. My point is to push back against a suggestion that a Christian engaged in the common activities might ignore Scripture — I know that you join with me in this rejection, but we sometimes hear things like “…we are simply saying that God’s special revelation ought to be divorced from the discussion. ”
And that seems a bridge too far for me.
LikeLike
Jeff, agreed. It’s not so much a matter of divorce as it is a wife joining her husband’s clan out back for after dinner substances–she’s certainly more than welcome, but, well, you know.
(I hope that’s not too sexist an analogy. Like my Catholics say, there’s at once a fine line and wide difference between a male chauvinist and a male chauvinist pig.)
LikeLike
Jeff,
The point in not bringing SR into discussions is not to say SR doesn’t guide the Christian in all his
activities, which it does, but leaving SR out of areas where GR is to guide is in my mind simply an application of “Do unto others….”
For example, it is not appropriate to say on the one hand that we no longer live in a theocracy, that the commonwealth now belongs to believers and unbelievers alike, and then pull a bait-and- switch by evoking SR to tell the unbeliever what laws should govern our commonwealth, SR we agreed they did not need to accept to be members of the commonwealth.
Another example, to distinguish between the purposes of a business (culture) and a church (cult), but then as a business owner require all my employees to obey SR and attend a church I approve.
Even worse, to preach on Sunday that all unbelievers are already condemned and without the gospel cannot please God and stop his judgment, but then in my geo-political discussions tell the unbelieving magistrates they must govern according to God’s SR laws or the nation will be judged by God. (So which one is it, their works cannot dissuade God’s judgment or they can?)
These are examples of bait-and switch tactics Christians use with unbelievers by evoking SR that are not how we would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot.
LikeLike
Todd,
Right, I can understand this in many ways. So for example, my argument against abortion is purely secular:
“A living, genetically distinct, genetically human organism IS a human being at some stage of development, and we therefore owe that human being to not kill it.”
But in some cases, this doesn’t really work. Why is “marriage” a defined thing rather than a social construct? My answer is, Because God made it that way. I can’t see another answer. Can you?
LikeLike
Jeff, but marriage is a social construct most of the time. As I understand it, Christians were not married according to Roman law in the early church. Rome defined marriage. The state still defines marriage. Doesn’t mean the state’s definition is right. But it’s a fairly small period and section of human history where state laws followed Christian teaching.
My argument for hetero marriage in the civil realm is mainly utlitarian. It works best.
LikeLike
Jed, I’m in. But beware, I’m picking all papist schools.
LikeLike
Odd to hear you making a “God’s ways work best” argument, DGH.
You realize of course that all of the changes in marriage laws since , well, whenever were “best” in somebody’s mind.
LikeLike
Jed
Out. Teaching school encourages “sports curmudgeonry.”
LikeLike
I’m in, Jed, if you still need players. You are on Darryl. I say no papist schools past the first round 🙂
LikeLike
Jeff, best for whom? Society? Or God?
LikeLike
The Old Life NCAA bracket challenge is up over at espn.com. It is a public league, any of you can find it under Old Life League. One bracket per person, I think it will allow late entries, so if you don’t have your bracket up by tip off tomorrow, you can still enter. But, don’t fudge on your late picks, Doug is watching! Cheating on your bracket is like cheating in golf… only acceptable after your 2nd drink.
LikeLike
kent: Okay, I’ll come out and say it…
As a Canadian, under universal coverage for health care, and in full economic and mental understanding of how the US system has come to this quandry…
It is appalling that people in the US are left to die with easily diagnosable and treatable cancer and heart problems because they don’t have insurance, that a country with such riches does not have a safety net for catastrophic coverage of its citizens. Every other developed country in the world can’t believe the US allows this to happen.
RS: And some in the US wonder why so many Canadians come pouring over the border to obtain health care at their own expense because they cannot get it from their own system. The US did have a safety net and no one can be refused treatment. We are also amazed at how many taxes you pay for that and for how much power you have given the government in doing this. I might also add that the US and their system is the one that has been funding more research as well.
Kent: And then to bicker over whether there is birth control or abortion on the plan, while ignoring the big issue already mentioned, is a bit much to us non-Americans…
RS: Abortion is a rather big issue. Does your health care cover euthanasia yet? Perhaps not in so many words, but when the government does not want to pay for the care of the elderly or those who need that catastrophic coverage, do they really get the best care possible?
LikeLike
DGH: My argument for hetero marriage in the civil realm is mainly utlitarian. It works best.
DGH: Jeff, best for whom? Society? Or God?
I don’t know. It was your argument; you tell me. 🙂
LikeLike
…my argument against abortion is purely secular…
Watch what you say, they’ll be calling you a radical (a liberal, fanatical, criminal).
But, Jeff, I don’t quite follow how you think you need to switch gears when it comes to marriage (that dweam wifin a dweam). I am also suspect of letting the culture warriors frame the discussion in terms of definitions–it’s sort of like them framing the abortion discussion not in terms of obligations but in terms of rights (to life or to liberty). After all, God didn’t so much define marriage as ordain it.
LikeLike
Jed, I have a Gonzaga Georgetown championship game. Thank the Lord for Roman Catholic division 1 sports. I may have a chance.
LikeLike
I thought I’d opine about your last comment Dr. Hart. You said,
“As I understand it, Christians were not married according to Roman law in the early church. Rome defined marriage”
You should consult Peter Lampe’s work, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christianity in the First Two Centuries in Rome” pages 119-122 for background info. Lampe says in that section,
“A Christian [Noble]-woman who wished to retain her [nobility] had two options. She could marry a pagan of the same social status and forgo marriage with a socially inferior Christian. Or she could live in concubinage with a socially inferior Christian without being legally married. This second option received the blessings of Callistus in Rome.”
LikeLike
Darryl,
Oddly enough I picked Gonzaga as my winner too… proving that great minds, well you know. Mine was more of a nod to the West Coast than to the Pope, seeing I have such difficulty with my paradigms. I’ve got San Diego St. beating Georgetown – what can I say, I’m a homer.
Gotta hand it to you, I thought you were kidding on picking the Catholics all the way. If only the CtC’ers knew how appreciative of the Great (Basketball) Tradition you really are. They might be lighting candles for you as we speak.
CBS is now on, I’ll be coming up for air Saturday night.
LikeLike
Zrim, good question. One difference is that the fundamental norm is not under discussion. As it turns out, thou shalt not murder has actually *gained* currency since Roman times. So the real question is a scientific one: What is a human being?
In the case of marriage, the norm itself is the debate. Is marriage this, or is it that?
As it turns out, the “this” is a matter of faith, which is why there’s a chapter in the Confession on it.
So I can’t understand how to move from affirming in church that “I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman …
IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties…”
But then arguing in the public square that
“Marriage should be between one man and one woman because it works best that way.”
That feels dishonest to me, as if I were throwing Scripture under the bus.
LikeLike
Aside from the historical complexity of the Christian understanding of marriage (and the state’s role in recognizing said marriage), I think that your utilitarian perspective is strongly shaped by your Christian perspective.
Friends and co-workers who identify as LGBT would be strongly offended at your insistence that your stance against homosexuality was utilitarian. They would throw all sorts of studies and statistics at you that would demonstrate that your utilitarian argument actually works the other way. For example, just today the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement in which they have concluded,
“Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents…A large body of scientific literature demonstrates that children and adolescents who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.”
You can find more information on the article at the AAP website.
Or you can take the headline from the Huffington Post which suggests gay parents are more effective than heterosexual parents (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html).
These two examples are confined to parenting, I understand, but it seems that these studies are continuing to show that sexual orientation isn’t that big of a deal from a utilitarian perspective. I’d be interested in hearing your utilitarian perspective on why homosexuality is not effective or conducive to human flourishing, but I fear that the utilitarian argument is not persuasive and you’ll eventually have to give it up. Maybe you can convince me otherwise, though.
LikeLike
Jeff, I guess my point is that we can just as easily look to creational norms to define marriage (if defining is all the rage). Everybody knows that homosexuality doesn’t compute. Admitting that may be another issue. But that’s what I’ve been saying all along here: nature plainly and clearly reveals that men go with women. Any other answer just proves the inherent deficiency of human beings to read this plain truth.
LikeLike
Jed, and next we’ll see a photo of Pope Francis, up in the last rows of an American arena, eating popcorn with the hoi poloi. Will he be in vestments or collar? Or perhaps a flannel shirt and khakis.
LikeLike
Jeff, for the civil realm, it’s all about maximizing order and stability.
LikeLike
Brandon, and there are studies on the other side as well, not to mention all the flack that some scholars take for going against the flow. And if my utility reflects personal convictions, ahem, are gays neutral?
I’d never said any of this would be convincing. Do you mean to suggest that the Bible is convincing? Why, if we pressed ourselves, we’d also have to admit that the Holy Spirit is not convincing since believers continue to sin.
I do think that most social institutions are plastic and reflect better and worse a created order. For that reason, I am in favor of hetero marriage and also for licensing those who want to have sex. We need background checks on whether the philanderers will provide for their children.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I dunno, if Papa Francis shows for an all-catholic final, and he eschews clerical garb, I kinda hope he comes dressed as a traditional Argentine gaucho, as opposed to looking like a college age hipster.
And so I can avoid being accused of going off topic, I don’t think that we can support the marriage of gay whales, or even grey whales, because NL seems to be so clear on the matter. I don’t think NL is kind to whales in general.
I’ll collect my version of the blog Pulitzer any time now.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, for the civil realm, it’s all about maximizing order and stability.
So the Chinese empire, for example. And Constatinianism, which generated a whole lot of both for much longer than the US has been around.
Come to think of it, the Muslim world was pretty stable except of late.
The United States, meanwhile, seems heck-bent on toppling regimes.
I’m missing something. Order and stability don’t seem to rhyme with liberty of conscience.
LikeLike
MM: “Erik, you’re going above and beyond what a Dad should have to do. T-Ball must be the creation of an era in which kids no longer play baseball in their neighborhoods.”
Erik – I don’t think kids organize any sports on their own anymore. That’s all we did when I was a kid.
I’m thinking about how to teach the boys to play great defense. It will be a challenge, I think.
LikeLike
Is it just me or does Old Life have a bit of a crack house aesthetic once a post gets stale? Theonomy is the drug of choice.
LikeLike
Jed,
I have another entry at ESPN. I’ll see if I can just copy it.
LikeLike
Jeff, order and stability do jive with peaceable and quiet lives.
You mistake me for arguing for a specific political order. I am not. I mainly say that any single political order is not redemptive (except for Old Israel’s).
Then again, there is the old liberty of conscience (early modern) which says that a free conscience is only one that follows the truth. Then along came Roger Williams and John Locke.
LikeLike
DGH says I mainly say that any single political order is not redemptive (except for Old Israel’s).
Pure poppycock! Israel’s moral laws and the general equity of the penal sanctions were not redemptive! What is redemptive about make a thief pay back restitution? What is redemptive about executing a kidnapper? What is redemptive about executing a rapist? What is redemptive about the general equity?
Nothing Darryl! The ceremonial law were redemptive because they pointed to Christ. The general equity of the penal sanctions teach all men how to view sin and crime.
LikeLike
DGH, Israel was in a redemptive covenant, true enough, but with most of them, God was not pleased. Why? Because they lacked faith! If you actually took the time to read the old testament you would realize that for most of Israel’s time in in the promised land, they did not obey God. How many times did righteous kings have to tear down the high places? Pssst, that’s idolatry! They were constantly building shrines to their false gods. Solomon, the wisest man in the world, was the first king to build alters to Moleck. Go figure. And if Solomon could flounder, that should teach us all to fear God.
When Israel *collectively* approached the law in pretence (not of faith) God’s anger burned against there nation. But there were also times in Israel’s history when they collectively approached the law in faith and God blessed them greatly. The same is true today for the local church, see Revelations chapter two and three.. Everything we do, that is not of faith, is sin, period end of story. To trust and obey is still the key to walking in God’s blessings for all the Saints in all times.
LikeLike
Doug, ” Israel’s moral laws and the general equity of the penal sanctions were not redemptive!” You are one twisted theonomist. First Israel welcomed religious diversity. Now, its laws were not redemptive (even though the Confession speaks of Israel as part of the Covenant of Grace). I used to think theonomists wanted the U.S. to be like Israel. Now you’re indicating the aim is to turn OT Israel into the modern U.S.
Sheesh.
LikeLike
Darryl, I never said Israel welcomed false religions. I said unbelievers (strangers and sojourners) were to be treated with kindness, as the Scripture says. You need to wash your brain out with soap, and once for all get the false concept of “religious diversity” out of your head. There is only one true religion period, end of story.
If you had read “Theonomy In Christian Ethics, you would know it was Dr. Greg Bahnsen who pointed out that Israel’s penal sanctions were NOT redemptive. The penal sanctions gave an eye for and eye for socio political justice. When a thief paid back restitution it was to teach him a lesson, so that he would quit stealing. It had nothing to do with redemption.
LikeLike