From "The Wire" to Ferguson

David Simon, the creator of The Wire (say that in hushed tones), wrote this before Missouri authorities revealed the identity of the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown. It reinforces the point that police and law enforcement professionals bear an enormous responsibility for the health of race relations in the U.S. But Simon also displays a healthy regard for the work of police, the burdens they bear, and the value to a democratic society. For the full letter go here (which is the most recent of three missives — thanks to our Hillsdale correspondent):

Understand that I am someone with a high regard for good police work. I covered a large municipal department for a dozen years and spent that time writing in detail on extraordinary efforts by professional detectives and officers, and, too, on systemic and individual failures within that same agency. I am not unsympathetic to the complex truths of practical policing.

To that effect, I’m offering no judgment as to the legitimacy of the police action in the death of Mr. Brown, nor am I critiquing your department’s militarized performance with regard to the resulting civil disturbances in your municipality. I leave the former for the more careful assessments of prosecutors and, presumably, a grand jury; the latter, I am sure, will be a subject of continued discussion within your community, in Missouri as a whole, and elsewhere in the country.

But for now, let’s simply focus on the notion that you, as head of a police department accountable to the citizens of your jurisdiction, actually seem to believe — along with local prosecutors — that it is plausible for a sworn and armed officer to kill a citizen and do so in anonymity.

Regrettably, I know that you are not alone in this astonishing breach of trust. More than a decade ago, some of our most authoritative federal agencies began a tragic retreat from basic accountability, shielding their agents from any scrutiny for their use of the most signficant power that a law officer can possess — the taking of a human life as an act of personal deliberation. Following the lead of the FBI, other large urban departments have since followed suit, or attempted to do so at points.

But the cost to our society is not abstract — and the currency in which that cost is paid is trust. Your department has shown that you do not trust the public with the basic information about who specifically has, in the performance of his or her duties, been required to take a human life in Ferguson. And that same public is now in the street demonstrating that they do not believe that Ferguson law enforcement can therefore be relied upon for anything remotely resembling justice. How could it be otherwise?

If you cannot see the contempt inherent in your policy, then you, sir, may need to reconsider both your own role and the premise of law enforcement in a democratic society. You may need to yield your position to someone who retains the basic notion that your officers, armed with the extraordinary authority of using state-sanctioned lethal force on fellow citizens, are equally burdened by a responsibility for standing by their actions in full. You, your department, and the prosecutors in your jurisdiction are now running from that responsibility. In doing so, you lose the trust and respect of your citizens, your state and the nation.

121 thoughts on “From "The Wire" to Ferguson

  1. Some of the citizens whom Simon wants the chief to trust are not only rioting in the streets, calling for the officer’s head (figuratively and literally), but putting his home on television and making death threats against him. Not revealing his name seems reasonable under those circumstances, does it not?

    Like

  2. Scott, now it doesn’t but what if they gave the name early on? And do you not think the police could protect this guy? Just have him leave town.

    Like

  3. I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for Simon’s complaint. It’s not as if the media doesn’t hide behind ‘it’s service to the public to keep government honest’ as a thinly veiled convenience to foment controversy and incite discord to sell newspapers and make a profit. I’m not buying Simon’s moral high ground.

    Like

  4. Since he was acting in his capacity of a police officer and not as an individual I don’t see a problem with keeping his identity secret for now. If he is found guilty of wrongdoing, then his name would be made public. These people don’t make a lot of money and put their lives on the line to protect the public. The public should in turn be willing to protect them at times when they are in potential danger from an unruly mob.

    Like

  5. The public reaction to the killing of Michael Brown is an accumulative reaction, not one from a single incident. Because of that, and because since the Patriot Act, government on all levels is acting more and more in an authoritarian manner with less accountability, So is the solution to the current problems, including releasing the name of the officer involved in the killing of Michael Brown, best served by maintaining the status quo or by changing directions?

    D.G.,
    This post from The Wire is an excellent one to share. Thank you.

    Like

  6. I have no sympathy with the argument after teaching at an HBCU for ten years. Releasing his name is akin to putting him on a hit list. When I saw the news media broadcasting his picture, I thought, “It doesn’t matter, the merits of the case. He is now a marked man.” Protect him from the agitated black community nationwide. No way.

    Like

  7. Curt,

    I’ve found that when I obey the law, the government pretty much leaves me alone like they always have. Kind of like the Apostle Paul said it should work.

    Like

  8. Erik,
    And so because your experience is that of everybody else’s, we know what happened with Michael Brown and what has been and is happening in Ferguson.

    Like

  9. I am in agreement with Simon. There has to be some level of accountability and credibility of the police especially when they use force and take a life.

    The whole “officer safety” meme has grown quite tired and old. “Officer safety” is basically used to justify any abuse of force by police and then the subsequent cover up.

    Why did the cops beat a schizophrenic man to death? — “officer safety”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/kelly-thomas-beating-video_n_1499771.html

    Why did the cops put 103 bullets into an elderly woman’s truck who was delivering newspapers? — “officer safety”

    http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/

    Why did the cops throw a stun grenade into a babies crib? — “officer safety”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid/

    Why did the cop shoot a Weimaraner who was in his owner’s backyard? — “officer safety”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/29/salt-lake-police-shooting-sparks-large-protest-for-victim-dog-named-geist/

    A Weimaraner…. in his own back yard. I’ll just leave it at that.

    Maybe you haven’t been directly impacted, Erik Charter, but a lot of people have.

    Like

  10. Curt Day
    Posted August 23, 2014 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
    Erik,
    And so because your experience is that of everybody else’s, we know what happened with Michael Brown and what has been and is happening in Ferguson.

    CD, you actually wrote this on August 23, when it’s clear that “what happened” to Michael Brown was totally under his own control and he would be alive at this moment had he not made some very wrong choices?

    Yes, there’s God’s Will. Sometimes a piano drops out of a 4th-story window on you.

    But that was not this. The passive voice is inappropriate here. Michael Brown made his death “happen.”
    _________
    Erik Charter
    Posted August 23, 2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
    Curt,

    I’ve found that when I obey the law, the government pretty much leaves me alone like they always have. Kind of like the Apostle Paul said it should work.

    Like

  11. TVD,
    breaking my policy of not responding to you here, I was being sarcastic with Erik because Erik’s point was to overgeneralize what happen to him. And think about it because we can imply from Erik’s statement that statisticians only need Erik as their sample for studies on the police and how they treat the public.Your point is that we can already go beyond the assumption of innocence for the police officers involved to the firm conclusion of innocence which negates the need for the FBI investigation.

    Like

  12. Curt,

    You make this site better each day just like a stack of rough sandpaper makes a rural outhouse better.

    Keep on keepin’ on, my communist brother from another mother!

    Like

  13. Now that Pete Seeger has passed, people who look back on Stalinism fondly are getting hard to find. We might have to put Curt on display in a museum in Madison, Ann Arbor, or Iowa City so his greying, leftist contemporaries can enjoy him for the time he has left. Viva la revolucion!

    Like

  14. Lewis,

    We have a local kid who was gunned down by the police — after he got mad at his father for refusing to buy him smokes, took off in his father’s truck, drove wildly throughout town, refused to obey police commands to pull over, and eventually rammed a police car. I’m sure his family will sue.

    If you don’t want to get shot, don’t screw around with people who have guns. If wrongful deaths occur, that’s why we have plaintiffs’ lawyers and courts. Most of the time these people who are shot by cops are far from innocent bystanders, though. If they were, plaintiffs’ lawyers would be getting even richer than they are.

    Like

  15. Those who adhere to Reformation theology and a confessional take on cultural issues (if that is really possible) should try reading some other reputable theologians who interpret Romans 13 differently than Luther or Calvin. Luther and Calvin ran into deep problems when their thinking justified the killing of Anabaptists and Catholics, etc. Read how Hauerwas, Yoder, Moltmann, or Barth interpret Romans chapter 13.

    I side with DGH, CD and Lewis on this one- not only from reading the various interpretations of Romans 13 but also from personal experience of watching the modus operendi of cops while I have been living on the street for the last two years.

    Here’s Hauerwas on Romans 13: http://www.jesusradicals.com/theology/stanley-hauerwas/

    Like

  16. Local homeless people in Des Moines are getting “evicted” from an area by the river. Brutal when you don’t have a home and you are still getting evicted. That may be the definition of hitting bottom.

    We all have to count the cost, though. If it’s me I’m saying the hell with this, getting a job at a carwash or a fast food joint, working as many hours as I can get, and getting the cheapest apartment I can find. I’m buying a mattress, a pillow, a blanket, some toiletries. I’m putting no drugs or alcohol in my body whatsoever. Once I have shelter and some form of work I can build on that.

    At some point you just have to embrace the suck and press on to have as decent a life as possible under difficult circumstances.

    Like

  17. John, it’s probably not so much disagreeing with Darryl, or even Simon’s sentiment. It’s the idea that the unelected, uncommissioned media are our(public) altruistic bulwark against injustice and government tyranny. The media, aren’t by proxy, of the people, for the people-though they like to position themselves otherwise. Particularly when the 24/7 news cycle and proliferation of mediums has come to mean that the media, more and more, are part of the story, even creating the story they are covering.

    I have a hard time buying Hauerwas’ Rom 12 link up, particularly when we know the history of Roman interaction with the church and Paul’s recommended posture toward divinely chartered institutions and the motif of a pilgrim church. 2k and all.

    Like

  18. When I was younger and more idealistic we had a homeless guy who was passing through town visit our church. The very day he showed up I arranged for housing for him and a job at one of my boss’s companies. It wasn’t a great job, but it was steady and provided shelter and some money for the guy (he was staying at a local shelter). A week went by and he was doing good work. He asked the manager if he could get a ride the 25 minutes to Des Moines so he could go to Wal-Mart to get groceries. The manager gave him a ride and the guy said he would hitch a ride back. We never saw him again. We mailed his last paycheck to the address he gave us, but it came back.

    The moral of the story — there are very few people we can truly help. The rare ones we can help are the ones who truly want to help themselves.

    One guy I was able to help was an Iraninan immigrant who I hired when I helped manage a Jiffy Lube. That guy was a success story. Came here with very little, worked really hard, accepted responsibility, and eventually moved on for better things.

    Human Capital is an amazing thing.

    Like

  19. John,

    If you’re going to play the homeless card here you need to be able to take some pushback. If you don’t want pushback, just post and leave your personal circumstances out of it.

    Like

  20. The all-wise Erik speaks:

    Local homeless people in Des Moines are getting “evicted” from an area by the river. Brutal when you don’t have a home and you are still getting evicted. That may be the definition of hitting bottom.

    We all have to count the cost, though. If it’s me I’m saying the hell with this, getting a job at a carwash or a fast food joint, working as many hours as I can get, and getting the cheapest apartment I can find. I’m buying a mattress, a pillow, a blanket, some toiletries. I’m putting no drugs or alcohol in my body whatsoever. Once I have shelter and some form of work I can build on that.

    At some point you just have to embrace the suck and press on to have as decent a life as possible under difficult circumstances.

    John Y: You know not what you speak and still don’t get it at all- who are you drawing from? – Sowell, Ann Rand, read more widely than your favorite point of view.

    Like

  21. Erik,

    Aren’t you special Erik for helping those poor homeless folk- I find your condescending, bordering self-sufficient and self-righteous tone obnoxious. You can’t relate to us because you really don’t think you are one of us. Therein lies the problem- in my opinion anyways. But I might be wrong so carry on. I will bring my personal experience into the discussion if I find it to be relevant. Again, na, na, na, na, na.

    Like

  22. Sean,

    This is a complicated issue and I can appreciate and respect your comment. What drives me crazy is the “take responsibility” like me and other responsible citizens comments. I just intuitively respond negatively to that. But like I said, I might be wrong. However, I don’t think I am and am gaining momentum and confidence and assurance.

    Like

  23. John,

    So are you a victim or are you responsible for your circumstances?

    If you’re a victim, who do you suggest has wronged you?

    If you’re responsible, why should I feel sorry for you?

    If this is just about you emoting, emote away, I guess.

    Like

  24. John Y., I’m not as convinced as you, Simon and Darryl, but I actually think your own experience could serve as a way to persuade. In 200-ish words, why do you think knowing the identity of a rogue cop matters in all this?

    Like

  25. E, feels more like the Research Library each day on here.

    I stand in line to obtain microfiched financial data, yay, and ahead of me are 12 men who are going to take 15 minutes each with the poor librarian and tell her about how Reagan and Marx and Fanon are to blame for the aliens ruining their lives. And they apparently all have three books ready to publish if the capitalist system wasn’t such a liar.

    Curt is like the guy who takes the most time in front of me.

    Like

  26. Erik,

    These are a handful of stories I selected. There are many many more. This isn’t “anecdotal” evidence from my uncles friends cousin. These are documented cases.

    You seem to think that if you aren’t involved in crime you won’t be hurt by the cops. None of the people injured or killed had committed any crimes OR were threatening police. A baby, a dog, a mentally ill man, an old woman, etc. They were all minding their own business, going about their business and they were the victims of an over use of force by the police.

    Like

  27. Erik says: So are you a victim or are you responsible for your circumstances?

    If you’re a victim, who do you suggest has wronged you?

    If you’re responsible, why should I feel sorry for you?

    If this is just about you emoting, emote away, I guess.

    John Y: I am going to respond off the cuff and not quote any noteworthy authorities. I just got back from attending the local LCMS church in town and asked as many as I thought I could sucker out of some money for some handouts. Last Sunday I went to the local PCA church in town and did the same. Who do you think I got more money from? I actually did not do that but I thought I would start off with some humor to lighten up the atmosphere.

    I am in awe of your Karl Pilkington reference- we all know you are well read Erik. Just because you are well read does not mean your point of view is correct. I think I am both responsible and a victim of my circumstances. You begin being responsible but as things get worse you become a victim. That is a long argument that would take a book to tackle and deal with properly. Once you become a victim it is very difficult to get yourself out of the predicated you have gotten yourself into. And you don’t get much understanding or sympathy from those who think like I think you are thinking. That’s the short version to your questions.

    Zrim,

    Again, off the cuff, because I have spent time seeing cops operate in a wide variety of situations and environments. I have talked to a lot of them about the training they have received. I have seen how they frequently lie on police reports to cover their butts. You can ask any lawyer about that one- lawyers and cops typically have zero respect for each other. There is lots of pressure to find loop holes in standard operating procedures about how to handle a wide variety of circumstances. It is easy to buck the operating procedures when you carry a gun and then have all the other cops and those in the system covering you too. That’s how the game works.

    I really don’t won’t to bring in my personal experiences in this regard except that I have watched cops beat the pulp out of some people on three different occasions. I also have talked and seen the results in many other cases. And I don’t think any of them were really justified.

    Like

  28. John, I don’t doubt any of it. But my question was how disclosing the identity of the cops involved helps. As others have said here, disclosure seems apt at some point, but what purpose does it serve while still sorting things out, especially when it’s so high profile and in the context of so much turmoil?

    Like

  29. John,

    My goal isn’t to harass you, but surely you realize that identifying yourself as a Reformed homeless guy on here is like walking naked into a Reformed Church and expecting no one to notice or say anything. At some point we (Reformed people) just tell people to get their s**t together and get on with life. That’s what separates us from the UCC, The Methodists, and every other group of theological liberals out there.

    The fact that you are only about the 5th most disturbing character on here of late makes me think that my frustration is becoming a me problem and not a you problem, though, so I’m probably the one who just needs to bow out of these comments.

    Like

  30. Sean, JohnnY, EC et al, as much as I may seem to be anti-cop, I am with Simon on the value of police and have great respect for the incredibly hard work they do to keep me and others safe. I think one of the points that Simon is making is that in these situations good guys and bad guys are very hard to identify. Sort of like the OT.

    Like

  31. Erik,

    I have to admit that I laughed at your first paragraph. I think it has something to do with the views of sanctification and perseverance that are all over the Reformed confessions and that the Reformed imbibe on. That is why I have the boldness to stand naked here. Plus my brother has dealt with my situation like I think a lot of Reformed churches would too. I have an axe to grind and I think there are some problems theologically that are causing all this. Plus I have already lost everything and have nothing more to lose. I still have hope that things are going to change one day though. That is why I keep flapping my jaws.

    Like

  32. I am with DGH here (and Simon), if we grant peace officers the executive power over who lives and dies, then they also need accountability. We have legal mechanisms to protect the officer who shot Mr. Brown. The fact that George Zimmerman is still alive is proof positive.

    I realize this case involves a lot more than Brown’s death, but the precedent of not insisting that police stand behind their use of lethal force is more dangerous than the insistence on their privacy. The act of killing a citizen in the name of the law is by definition a public act, and the public has a right to know and scrutinize officers who use lethal force. The fact of the matter is US police related shootings dwarf that of every other developed nation on a factor that should shock us all.

    The Chart US Police Forces Don’t Want You To See

    Like

  33. Darryl, and it’s a good point. It just isn’t clear how identifying the individual helps in sorting matters out. His name is Darren Wilson. He may not be shot down but are things any better sorted? Killer and victim have really white names. So what?

    Like

  34. Jed, I might have “the right to know and scrutinize officers who use lethal force,” but as a civilian who knows nothing about police work, is it wrong to think it best for those who do to do the scrutinizing? Don’t get me wrong, transparency of public actors is a good thing, etc., but so is leaving scrutiny to those who’ve done this once or twice.

    Like

  35. Zrim, it helps if the authorities are trying to play fair since that is their job. Granted, they have a vested interest in preserving their own fairness, which is what makes shows like The Wire so darned exhilarating. But I don’t see the harm in giving up the name, especially now that it’s done and Mr. Wilson seems to be okay (from 700 miles away).

    Like

  36. Zrim,

    Yes, I think you have the right of scrutiny, as you would for any public position. After all we have the right as citizens to know who our D.A.’s are, who our education officials are, et.al. In the interest of the public good, those who serve on behalf of the public are/should be up for public scrutiny, especially if our tax dollars pay their salaries. This has nothing to do with your expertise. You’ve done jury duty right? They don’t usually ask what kind of legal credentials you have before they ask you to serve.

    Like

  37. It seems to me that the people who should feel heat if the public is not pleased are elected representatives. They in turn put heat on the police commissioner who in turn puts heat on his or her officers. To go directly from citizens to cops via the media doesn’t make sense.

    Do you demand to know the name of the guy who reads your water meter?

    If someone comes to your church with a beef do you hand them the church rolls?

    I’ve had complaints about teachers in the past and the principal tells me to call the teacher directly. It seems to me like managing the faculty is his job, not mine. If he disagrees with my complaint, just tell me.

    Like

  38. Do you demand to know the name of the guy who reads your water meter?

    Last time I checked meter-readers don’t have authorization to use lethal force – though it might cut down on late payments if they did.

    If someone comes to your church with a beef do you hand them the church rolls?

    Kind of violates the public/private distinction. Churches are voluntary associations that aren’t subject to the state or the voting public. Police are public officers.

    Like

  39. Erik-

    Over here people coming to read your meter have identity cards so people know they are who they say they are. After all you’re letting a stranger into your home. I wanna know more than their name!

    Church member rolls aren’t exactly private things either.

    Furthermore I’m quite shocked at how unconcerned you are by police abuse of power. Someone steals a car and their executed?! Like, do you “hear” yourself? But it’s ok, you have plaintiffs’ courts to right these wrongs: I wasn’t aware they had the ability to resurrect the dead.

    Like

  40. Alexander is shocked, but — to be fair — his threshold for shockdom is roughly that of a 75-year-old baptist church lady. But good job finding something about which to be scandalized. (Golf clap)

    Like

  41. Jed, as I said, transparency and scrutiny of public actors is a good thing. My point is that the flip side to this is how those who have expertise may well have good reasons for withholding identity during a certain window of time, and it seems a tad cynical to assume that doing so indicates some kind of corruption. It might, but haven’t you ever been in charge of something you understand from long experience only to have someone who wasn’t suggest something that might sound good to his ears but you know just isn’t the thing to do at the moment?

    ss I’m not sure how jury duty makes your point. That’s to scrutinize a fellow citizen’s legal guilt or innocence after having been at least basically schooled by legal experts. What we’re talking about is non-experts telling experts how to do their jobs.

    Like

  42. Zrim,

    What we’re talking about is non-experts telling experts how to do their jobs.

    As a general rule, I’d agree. But, when the power to take life is in question, another layer of public responsibility is in order. The costs for a lapse in judgement when pulling the trigger, or even for not exhausting all other alternatives is just too high. Nobody is forced into police-work, they volunteer, and as such should be responsible for all that being a officer of the law entails – including public scrutiny.

    Like

  43. Jed, there are avenues available to joe citizen to lawfully exercise both his opinion and shape course. Besides serving someone’s self-indignation, I frankly fail to see the actionable, useful, accountability brought to bear upon an officer who has discharged his weapon in the line of duty that results in the death of a citizen. The police, are in fact, already policed. From internal investigations, to public officials with direct oversight, to citizen committees and those are necessary, helpful, shapers of policy. Putting an officer’s name out into the general public for additional scrutiny and ignorant harassment and opining in the name full disclosure is likely to do little more than deter trained, qualified, professional officers from engaging a lawful calling. I’d tell all you guys to KMA, you come do it. But I’m just ornery that way.

    Like

  44. Erik, you could make a birthday wish and have five other past Old Lifers return and make it a memorable last quarter of 2014.

    Blow out the candles, Laura….

    Like

  45. Putting out a name when there are active riots seems beyond foolish. It seems unlikely that doing so would have caused the agitators to pack up and go home. The locals might appreciate it, but most reports say that out-of-towners, professionals, and Curt’s buddies made up the lion’s share of hardcore protesters in Fergie.

    Like

  46. Erik,

    Just checked back in. My good friend McMark often sends me stuff about forgiveness. He has helped me deal with a lot of the issues I have had to deal with- kind of like what a sponsor does in AA. We who have been shown great forgiveness and mercy need to be bountiful in our forgiveness towards others and should be more than willing to extend it. That we still find it difficult shows how “troubled” (read: fallen) we still are. So, I heartily agree with your list of the 5 most troubled on this site. A sampling of an article about forgiveness from McMark:

    http://www.mbird.com/2014/08/when-forgiveness-also-says-i-never-want-to-see-you-or-speak-to-you-again/

    Like

  47. Alexander,

    Take it up with Paul. He said that the Magistrate bears the sword and that’s a good thing. Sorry they don’t carry cap guns and feather dusters.

    The kid who was shot “for stealing a car” also used that car (truck, actually) to ram the police car. Bad decision.

    Like

  48. It’s interesting to see Calvinists who believe in total depravity all of the sudden assuming the innocence and good intentions of the citizenry — especially the citizenry who happens to be robbing stores, stealing vehicles, and under the influence of drugs.

    There is a fine line between law & order and anarchy and the police are the ones who straddle that line on our behalf on a daily basis.

    Like

  49. Jed – Last time I checked meter-readers don’t have authorization to use lethal force – though it might cut down on late payments if they did.

    LOL

    Do foreign nations have the right to go to the United Nations and demand that we turn over the names of our drone operators? The Special Forces soldiers who killed Bin Laden? Or is it enough that they know who our President and Congressmen are?

    Like

  50. Should the police and the media make public those who are (alleged) victims of rape? If they’re accusing someone, should the public not have a right to know their identity?

    How about the identity of kids who make accusations of pedophilia against adults? Shouldn’t we have the ability to contact them and cross examine them?

    If a policeman kills someone in the line of duty and is guilty of no wrongdoing (sometimes that’s what we pay them for — to kill bad guys), what’s the difference between them, the rape victim, and the child who has been violated?

    Is it just that they get paid via taxes?

    Should we know the identity of every CIA agent? We pay their salaries.

    Like

  51. Speaking of unpleasant things – front page NYT story yesterday about Papa’s ambassador to the Dominican Republic being recalled to the Vatican because of credible accusations of pedophilia. Paying underage shoeshine boys to masturbate in front of him and such. If this guy was a Methodist Bishop, good luck getting diplomatic immunity to get out of the country. Because it’s Papa and Papa is the head of a (very small) sovereign nation state, Papa gets to bring him home to punish him — tough luck Dominican Republic.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/whisked-away-vatican-ambassador-accused-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors.html?_r=0

    Like

  52. Some of my best friends are policemen (really, one of my life long friends is a police chief) and I’d let my daughters marry one but I confess to being leery and borderline afraid when I see The Blue.

    It probably stems from the many times I was jammed up by the police — for absolutely no reason — when I was between the ages of 15 and 30. I saw my friends get smacks around, too. I don’t have a record and I’m still alive because of God’s providence and a mother that taught me not to turn bad encounters with armed authorities into lethal encounters.

    I don’t know what happened in Ferguson but the fact that seemingly routine interaction between the police and young black males can end in death (for either side) has troubled me greatly my entire adult life. In the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, absolutely the police should have named the officer and absolutely the police should have cracked the heads of those repugnant looters but it seems we live in a time that can’t accept both actions.

    Like

  53. Erik-

    Bearing the sword doesn’t mean swinging it for every little thing. And oh yes I forgot he slammed the police car, well then string him up and burn him at the stake. Your suburban soccer mom fear mentality is all too obvious.

    Like

  54. I thought Karl Pilkington was some philosopher who thought he had solved the problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility or who was working on the issue of whether addiction was a disease or a moral choice. Instead I find out he is this guy:

    Unfortunately, I guess, I found that I kind of liked the guy and almost fell off my chair laughing so loud.

    Like

  55. Erik Charter
    Posted August 25, 2014 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
    At what point are we making Tom Van Dyke’s lame “We are the Magistrate” argument? Sorry Tom.

    Glad someone noticed. It’s not lame atall. It’s Darryl who’s stumbling all over it lately.

    If you don’t accept the argument in toto, we cannot deny that the law is subsuming the sphere of “society” and there’s a legitimate concern for that area of overlap.

    Like

  56. Alexander – Your suburban soccer mom fear mentality is all too obvious.

    Erik – Romans 13 – “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”

    No fear at all, because I’m in not a wrongdoer in the civil realm.

    Like

  57. Late to this thread, but the comments about not having a right to know the names of meter readers or CIA agents misses the point. Part of the reason we (sometimes grudgingly) cede authority to bureaucrats is that they operate in accordance with an established regular order. Around here, if there is an officer involved shooting, the officer is named in the initial incident report. If the morning paper is printed before that report is available, you can rest assured that the noon TV news will have it and disclose the name. I can’t imagine that Missouri practice is any different. Certainly the custom was the same in the two other jurisdictions where I have lived as an adult. I attend a luncheon most weeks at my downtown church that draws a number of people in local law enforcement. I spoke wit one of the Lt.’s in the Sheriff’s office last week who was shocked that they even tried this stunt.

    People think they are entitled to things they are used to getting in regular order. Would it have made a difference here? Can’t say, but it might have helped if what we presently know about the officer (an unblemished record, no allegations of brutality or complaints of racism) had come out earlier.

    Like

  58. Rain on the party? Indeed yes I shall. FOIA says officers must tell.

    Good to see Talley checking in. Just don’t talk about something really controversial like the NBA and things should go just fine.

    Like

  59. Erik, I know one Old Bob. He lives in MD. Made his living in DC. Ran NCNE. Is that the one you’re referring to?

    Mr. Gravel, I’m keeping my powder dry. Like Len Bias should have done. Sorry. Too soon, too soon, I know.

    Like

  60. Dan
    Posted August 25, 2014 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
    Late to this thread, but the comments about not having a right to know the names of meter readers or CIA agents misses the point. Part of the reason we (sometimes grudgingly) cede authority to bureaucrats is that they operate in accordance with an established regular order. Around here, if there is an officer involved shooting, the officer is named in the initial incident report. If the morning paper is printed before that report is available, you can rest assured that the noon TV news will have it and disclose the name.

    Ah, but it’s a different day, Dan. The life of anyone named Darren Wilson for a 100-mile radius would have been in danger.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375951/Preacher-called-George-Zimmermann-gets-death-threats-meant-Trayvon-Martin-killer.html

    Like

  61. Erik,
    going back to your statement:

    No fear at all, because I’m in not a wrongdoer in the civil realm.

    Are you saying that no one has suffered who isn’t a wrongdoer in the civil realm?

    Like

  62. Tom, it may be a different day, but it’s the same s***. A county near me has kind of a Deliverance air about it. Back when I was a teenager, the locals decided that there wasn’t going to be any criminal court the next term and threatened that any of the state prosecutors (one of whom was my high school Sunday School teacher) who showed up wouldn’t leave the county alive. They all showed up, with six car loads of state troopers. Court was held.
    There are threats against people involved in the criminal justice system every day. It is actually a real problem particularly where witness intimidation is concerned. All you can do is deal with the threat and move on.

    Like

  63. Erik, we need a set of Old Life hall of shame trading cards.

    On the back the stats could be

    Length of the sad appearance(s),

    number of times shunned,

    number of times full contrition and sincere repentance were violated in the blink of an eye

    Their most egregious posts (censored) when they went totally cuckoo on here again

    Number of posts over 1,000 words that went absolutely nowhere

    Nicknames foisted on them by Chortles and other obviously unregenerate degenerates who hang around here

    Level of continuous hate thrown at DGH for no apparent reason at all

    Most letters and numbers placed as a prefix to 2K to show they really really don’t buy Republication and how witty they are

    Best combo of uneducated obliviousness while wearing strange and latently suspect headgear

    Highest levels of prissines or strange infatuation in acting like a 90 year old lady when they are a man under the age of 40

    Like

  64. Curt – Are you saying that no one has suffered who isn’t a wrongdoer in the civil realm?

    Erik – How would you interpret Paul in Romans 13?

    Some have suffered wrongly, but it is interesting to view how people of past eras behaved in contrast to how we behave. One of the more interesting parts of “The Tudors” is how much respect the men and women that Henry VIII put to death showed him even though they were getting a raw deal. They took what Paul said seriously — Henry was God’s minister in the civil realm and they respected him as such.

    We have lost a sense of this today — especially Christians in the age of Obama.

    Like

  65. For the most part, Christians today view their political leaders as either a savior (George W. Bush, Ron Paul) or as the anti-Christ (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama), when in reality they are neither.

    Lots of money in that game, though.

    Like

  66. Erik,
    I don’t interpret Romans 13 as an observation or promise. Rather, I see it as a description of government in terms of what it is designed to do. After all, weren’t most of the apostles martyred or exiled? What wrong did they do?

    As for losing the Paul’s perspective, I think it needed modification for modern times because the context between Paul’s day and ours is so much different that we could lose the general intent for following the particulars. Martin Luther King Jr synthesized both Romans 13 and the need to oppose unrighteous laws.

    Also, regarding how Christians view political leaders. We need to remember that every 4 years, each party trots out his presidential nominee as next hero/messiah. And that is why the emphasis is on selling the nominees rather than examining the issues.

    Like

  67. Erik, why would I know that guy? I don’t come here often and have only commented one other time. I feel like there’s an inside joke I’m missing.

    Like

  68. “the need to oppose unrighteous laws.”

    Yup. Easy to admonish those disobedient rebellious sinners from the comfort and shelter of America and all its benefits and freedoms. But yeah just shut up and obey.

    Like

  69. Erik – You’re referencing “The Tudors” to make an historical argument? Are you joking? This is a joke, right? You know that’s not a documentary, right?

    And if you think that people in America even a couple of generations ago would have accepted what you’re arguing for then you’re, well, wrong. The “the innocent have nothing to fear” argument is not credible. You know, not every black guy walking down the street- or even having stolen a car- deserves to be murdered.

    Like

  70. Sometimes it comes down to what you’ve been through. If you’ve never been hassled, or fallen off a ladder, or fallen down the stairs, or lit your shirt on fire, or got your car stuck in the middle of a cornfield, or hallucinated with a weapon in your hand or.

    I lost my train of thought.

    Like

  71. Alexander, you’re credible on The Tudors — it is very bad. One of the worst moves was to turn the great composer Thomas Tallis into a homosexual, purely on a whim.

    You are less credible on American cultural history and the experience of black people in America. Fix Glasgow then get back to us.

    Like

  72. Curt, it may tangentially be a “description of government in terms of what it is designed to do.” but how does anyone read Romans 13 plainly and not get that it is a prescription for believers who live under authority? Talk about missing forests for trees. And when you resistance theorists say things like MLK “synthesized both Romans 13 and the need to oppose unrighteous laws,” one still wonders what you do with something like 1 Peter 2:

    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.

    So when you say synthesize I think you mean syncretize, because nothing in the NT condones any kind of civil disobedience.

    Like

  73. Zrim,

    So if you or your family are unjustly targeted or treated by an employer or school or government official/institution or church officials or any other entity that you’re subject to, you’re just going to man up and roll with it right? I mean if you fight it, aren’t you shirking your responsibility to be subject to the unjust with all respect and suffer for it?

    “because nothing in the NT condones any kind of civil disobedience.”

    “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
    Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    That’s why Christians (well, most I guess) don’t admonish Jews or Christians who helped them for resisting Nazis.

    Like

  74. CvD, wrong. The Bible doesn’t forbid taking advantage of due process or rule of law–in fact it encourages doing things in an orderly way. But my point is where does it condone disobedience or as Curt puts it (and you cheer) “the need to oppose unrighteous laws”? No where. In fact, it encourages enduring injustice. The point isn’t to be Pollyanna about human suffering, it’s to do a little more serious engaging of holy writ than is typical in the resistance peanut galleries.

    Like

  75. Zrim,

    Okay so we can oppose unrighteous laws only if we take advantage of due process or rule of law. Now is it possible some laws/policies available to us now to be taken advantage of were put in place in part because of the very civil disobedience you decry? Does that matter to you?

    Secondly, as I said above, this is all very nice to talk about from the comfort and shelter of 21st century American suburbia. You said, “In fact, it encourages enduring injustice.” – but if you’re lucky enough to live in a society with laws/policies that enable you to fight those injustices, go all out and more power to you, otherwise switch to “it encourages enduring injustice” mode and stop whining and suck it up. You said, the point isn’t to be Pollyanna about human suffering. Now are you going to admonish German Jews or the Christians who helped them for resisting Nazis or not?

    Like

  76. Zrim,
    First, King was a practitioner as well as a theorist regarding Romans 13.

    Second, we have to realize the different historical contexts but the common concern. The common concern is bringing honor to the Gospel. Do we bring honor to the Gospel when we are complicit with evil, in this case it would be the evil practiced by the government? In fact, if you read what precedes your quote from I Peter 2 and the same point could be drawn from what comes before Romans 13. Honoring the Gospel is the main concern.

    One of the historical contexts that is different now from Paul and Peter’s time is that Christianity is an established religion rather than a new one. And as an established religion, especially with its ties to Western Civilization, we need to examine the associations made between governments and the Gospel. And where those associations are negative, we need to introduce new associations. So as merely submitting and saying nothing meant complicity with evil, such as slavery and Jim Crow in our country and say Nazism in Germany of the 1930s and ’40s, aren’t we now called to resist evil that is practiced by the government lest the Gospel is blasphemed because of our complicity? This was not a problem in Paul and Peter’s time because of the newness of the Gospel. In addition, the impetus was put on spreading the Gospel message. But even then, when the Apostles were ordered not to preach the Gospel, the answer came back that we must obey God first. Is the preaching of the Gospel the only time when there is a conflict between our consciences and the demands of those in authority?

    Third, we have to realize that the demands placed on Christians in order to bring honor to the Gospel is not the same as the demands placed on nonChristians for being “righteous” members of society

    Fourth, if we literally obey what is said in Romans 13 and I Peter 2 in order to keep our own noses clean while those around us unjustly suffer from those in authority, are we loving our neighbor? And if we are not loving our neighbor by making sure we are dotting our i’s and crossing our t’s, then how is it following Christ when He commands us to love our neighbor?

    Like

  77. CvD, or maybe your problem is with Peter who said credit goes to him who endures injustice. I’m not sure what you’re looking for here, but I do wonder what you think Peter’s point is if injustice is only and ever to be anything but endured.

    Like

  78. Curt, first, who’s being complicit with evil? But contrary with what moderns think, there are are such things as bad questions and silence doesn’t always mean approval–sometimes it means this isn’t any of our business. Second, if it’s historical context that matters, consider that that of the apostles was the kind that would make the hair of any modern stand on end–and yet, only calls to obedience and none to revolution. Third, the wedge you pace between the early church and the contemporary church renders much of the NT pretty irrelevant.

    Like

  79. Zrim,

    Injustice can still persist despite resistance – that’s true both for efforts at peaceful/lawful change (which you agree with) or a step up with disobedience. No one is advocating anarchy – in general and by default we should be obedient and submissive, just as we should be with spiritual authorities such as your pastor; disobedience should come after the exhaustion of alternate means of resistance (if those are even available in a particular society – again no American rose-colored glasses). Peter’s words can be words of encouragement to those who come to be or remain helpless in their oppression.

    Peter said some other things as well such as:
    “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” and “We must obey God rather than men” which we can also see in examples from the OT of approved people disobeying their rulers.

    And he also says concerning submission before your quote “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution…For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.”
    By doing right you silence the ignorance of foolish men. One does not silence the ignorance of foolish men by admonishing – based on “biblical principles” and hard-line legalistic letter of the law interpretation – German Jews and Christians who resisted the Nazis – one just brings shame and disrepute to Christianity in doing such. Nor does one do so when using such a hard-line approach in advocating lawful resistance and remaining indifferent that some of the very laws/policies that might be utilized in such resistance were borne out from civil disobedience – it’s just more warmed-over legalism.

    Like

  80. CvD, you say that “disobedience should come after the exhaustion of alternate means of resistance.” Again, sounds good to the modern ear but what is the biblical case for “if you can’t get your way then resort to disobeying”? And when in Acts Peter delivers the “obey God rather than men” line, you may find it trifling but it’s still framed in the language of obedience. Plus, the point is to witness to the gospel, not address any particular social or political issue.

    “Warmed over legalism”? Cute. You resistance guys love to bring up the Nazis. But does it ever occur to you that what finally stopped them wasn’t pious citizens and platitudes about “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” but militarized states? I mean, if you’re really serious about stomping out embodied evil you have to a helluva lot more than march in streets or hide people in attics–you have to pick up a sword and wield it.

    Like

  81. Zrim,
    Anyone who knows that evil is happening but remains silent, that is the person who is complicit. And yes, loving our neighbor is our business. That isn’t just me, the OT prophets tell us that multiple times.

    What I like about 2K is that, formally speaking, they are not looking for Christian privilege in society unlike the Transformers. But what is lacking is this inner-driven piety that neglects to help those who are vulnerable and oppressed. Such opposes the God’s Word.

    Like

  82. Zrim,
    I am putting no wedge between the church then and the church now. I am just saying that the contexts are different and that we should adjust, using what was written back then, accordingly. It does mean that there are places where we use more abstraction than those who do not account for the different contexts.

    Like

  83. What I like about 2K is that, formally speaking, they are not looking for Christian privilege in society unlike the Transformers. But what is lacking is this inner-driven piety that neglects to help those who are vulnerable and oppressed. Such opposes the God’s Word.

    Curt, generalize, overstate, slander and judge much? Is this some Saul Alinsky tactic? Das vi danya.

    Like

  84. Curt, before you indict 2k as impious you might take another look at WCF which makes a point about the church not intermeddling with civil affairs. I know that never satisfies the interventionists of whatever stripe, but the point isn’t to avoid helping the weak and vulnerable. The point is to keep the church’s mission simple and clear. You make the point about honoring the gospel. Despite what you seem to think, that’s precisely what 2k wants to do—keep the gospel of reconciliation from getting hampered from all the clutter of one social mission or another so that it can shine as brightly as possible. I know, the gospel to you includes social mission, which is why 2k sees its critics as yet another form of gospel syncretism.

    Like

  85. Zrim,
    Why the defensiveness? I haven’t indicted 2k of being impious. Like every other group, they have strengths and weaknesses. In fact, didn’t I list a strength of 2k above? If not, you can see my comment on Aug 27, 10:39PM.

    And so now you are going defend your position by pulling the WCF card. The question is does the WCF position, in our time and context, cause us to neglect loving our neighbor? And does its position prevent us from preaching repentance to those in authority?

    I think how we relate to society is more nuanced than what you are representing. Like 2kers, I disgree with the delusions of grandeur which dance in the heads of the transformers’ goals–we should note that their tactics make their bark worse than their bite. But at the same time, the Church should call all to repentance including those with civil authority. So in terms of relating to society, IMO, the Church should be like Mikey from the Life cereal commercials. Remember him, the other kids gave him Life cereal to try because he won’t like it, he hates everything. The Church should be able to cite sins of all systems with necessarily having to come up with a comprehensive solution. After all, each system is created by sinful people.

    Like

  86. Zrim,
    Correction in the 2nd to last sentence, it should read:

    The Church should be able to cite sins of all systems without necessarily having to come up with a comprehensive solution

    Like

  87. Curt, you mean this: “But what is lacking is this inner-driven piety that neglects to help those who are vulnerable and oppressed. Such opposes the God’s Word.” Put on my 2k shoes and see if that doesn’t feel indict-ish. For a guy who wants everyone to feel others’ pain, you sure have a way of missing how your own words come off.

    But how are you getting the idea that 2k doesn’t want to call all, including those in authority, to repentance? Maybe it’s because 2k distinguishes between sinners and persons and their office, between people and institutions. 2k calls both the governor and home maker to personal repentance, but makes no judgment on how the former governs or the later makes. But if you want the church to make those respective judgments then what happens to Christian liberty to govern and make the way each person’s conscience dictates? And, wow, really, the church gets to have the benefit of citing everyone’s sins without the duty to figure out the solutions? Talk about having your Life cereal and eating it, too. Little wonder the world finds all-of-life Christians so annoying.

    Like

  88. Zrim,
    Let me ask you, how you would get my point across without offending you?

    BTW, what are institutions but groups of people. And offices can be wrong carried out sinfully. And for a long time I’ve noticed no complaints when churches point out the sins of governments like the Soviet Union or Red China. I hear no protests from 2kers or transformers when such criticisms are made.

    finally, what happens to Christian liberty when we tell someone that sex outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage is sin? Let me ask, what is Isaiah complaining about in chapters 58-59? Isn’t he convicting his fellow Israelis regarding their exploitation of others and neglect to help those who are oppressed?

    Like

  89. Curt, I’m not offended, and you have to do your own work around here.

    If you’re going to conflate institutions and persons then how do you make China a member of the church? See, that’s the litmus test in all of this–if your subject cannot actually repent and be made a member of the church, chances are pretty good you’re off in left field.

    Liberty pertains to things not addressed by the Bible and thus indifferent, like governing and homemaking, not to things on which revelation is explicit and clear, like sex and marriage.

    Like

  90. Zrim,

    “CvD, you say that “disobedience should come after the exhaustion of alternate means of resistance.” Again, sounds good to the modern ear but what is the biblical case for “if you can’t get your way then resort to disobeying”?”

    I already cited Matthew – you seem to subject the 2GC to your legalistic view rather than the other way around as Matthew states. Peter didn’t have that problem – 2GC took priority over obedience to rulers/authorities.

    “And when in Acts Peter delivers the “obey God rather than men” line, you may find it trifling but it’s still framed in the language of obedience.”

    Uh yeah we obey God over men. Sometimes there’s an insurmountable conflict, sometimes not. Not news as to which should get priority (well, could be to you).

    “Plus, the point is to witness to the gospel, not address any particular social or political issue.”

    Okay, so now we can actually disobey rulers (guess your hard-line now has exceptions), but only when we need to witness to the gospel, that’s it. Also witnessing to the gospel does not include acts that might love our oppressed neighbor while also disobeying rulers, but just preaching words and handing out bibles I guess. Again, more letter-of-the-law legalism.

    “You resistance guys love to bring up the Nazis.”

    Yeah, sometimes it’s difficult when theory meets reality. And the Nazis are just one of countless examples. Interesting how you never have once disputed that you would admonish German Jews or Christians for resisting, but you haven’t explicitly replied so I’ll ask again. Would you, or would you not? This is similar to arguing with atheists about objective morality and asking if raping babies is objectively wrong or not – getting to extremes is a quick way to understand the other’s position – some atheists just bite the bullet and claim moral nihilism and so answer negatively. Hopefully you don’t bite the bullet but I’m 50/50 on that.

    “But does it ever occur to you that what finally stopped them wasn’t pious citizens and platitudes about “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” but militarized states?”

    Uh, yeah – whoever said resistance was limited to words? James 2:16. Kinda hard to resist an oppressive country bent on world domination without a military response. You know what helped countless Jews survive though besides a military response? People, Christians included, resisting the state to protect/save them.

    “I mean, if you’re really serious about stomping out embodied evil you have to a helluva lot more than march in streets or hide people in attics–you have to pick up a sword and wield it.”

    Sure, so did all the Protestants in the Revolution also deserve rebuke and admonishment, while those on the British side deserve praise and accolades? If so, shouldn’t you not be taking advantage of all the due process and laws in this country to effect change/resistance since they were rooted in violations of your standards?

    What about disobeying other rulers than our own? Are Christians permitted or to be praised when committing or supporting acts of disobedience in other countries?

    Like

  91. CvD, what’s 2GC have to do with anything? No, we can never disobey rulers, only obey God when they clash. What I’m saying is that there is a clear biblical case for witnessing to the gospel even when men say don’t. You keep begging the question when it comes to disobeying for any other reason. What’s the biblical case? You can’t just blurt out 2GC as if that settles it.

    And don’t be so wooden about the American Revolution. The point isn’t to dole out rebuke and praises, to say nothing of something so asinine about refusing to participate in due process. The point is to say that there simply is no biblical warrant for disobedience of any kind. You could just claim cognitive dissonance, admit there is no biblical case but affirm it anyway. What’s the big deal, it’s not as if you’re Protestant.

    Like

  92. Zrim,

    “what’s 2GC have to do with anything?”

    Oh I dunno – everything hangs on it – I guess not much. And I wonder why the OT records, favorably, instances of disobedience to rulers.

    “And don’t be so wooden”

    I’ll let the irony sink in. This coming from someone espousing the following:
    – We can only possibly disobey rulers when talking about the gospel and handing out bibles/tracts. We can’t disobey them to love our neighbor in any other way – in those cases, we’re only as good as the laws let us be so if we end up being reduced to saying “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed”, that’s cool and God-honoring.
    – German Jews and Christians resisting the Nazis deserve admonishment and were sinfully rebelling.
    – We can only resist rulers using established laws/policies, but if those very laws/policies emerged from disobedience I decry, that’s irrelevant.
    – We may or may not be justified in disobeying or inciting disobedience to other rulers that do not rule over us – given how woodenly you’ve interpreted those verses on submission, they seem to be addressed only to rulers over us, not other rulers, so I fail to see how that would not be permissible in your scheme.

    Like

  93. Where are you, Erik? It’s time to resurrect your old line (wish I could find it) about Zrim and Pol Pot!

    Like

  94. CvD, I’ve never espoused handing out tracts, nor have I said “German Jews and Christians resisting the Nazis deserve admonishment and were sinfully rebelling.” Why should I continue with someone who misrepresents what I’ve espoused? But like I just told Petros, my point has to do with those who on the one hand want Christian lives to be about biblical ethics but on the other affirm an ethic no where to be found in the Bible.

    Like

  95. Zrim,

    “I’ve never espoused handing out tracts”

    You’ve espoused witnessing. What does witnessing precisely entail – presumably now you’ll also admonish any missionaries passing out tracts in disobedience to ruling laws, but if they preach words, then it’s fine. No wooden legalism here.

    “nor have I said “German Jews and Christians resisting the Nazis deserve admonishment and were sinfully rebelling.””

    I asked you twice explicitly and took your silence as agreement since I also only heard stuff about militarized states in response to try to bolster your perspective. So I assumed, but if I’m wrong, apologies. If I am wrong, please explain then why you would not admonish them or view them as in sinful rebellion given your position.

    “my point has to do with those who on the one hand want Christian lives to be about biblical ethics but on the other affirm an ethic no where to be found in the Bible.”

    Well when you dismiss the 2GC and all the attendant ethics springing from that throughout Scripture, I guess yeah, then it would be nowhere to be found in Scripture.

    Like

  96. From our PA correspondent:

    Ossorio approached the officers when they arrived and refused the commands of the officers to drop the weapon. They first deployed a Taser weapon, but it was ineffective. Ossorio continued to confront officers with the knife and that’s when they opened fired, killing Ossorio.
    Police Officer First Class Russell DiAngelo, 25, a member of HCPD for four years, and Officer Susannah Raff, 22, who joined the department last year, were the officers who shot Ossorio.

    Family members advised police that he had been recently talking about suicide. One other family member was in the home at the time of the incident and was unharmed. Both officers have been placed on administrative leave during a routine internal investigation.

    Look mom, names revealed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.