So I hope the BBs won’t accuse Brian Lee of being a sissy preacher for the way he reacts to the recent news of Houston’s civil magistrates wanting to inspect pastors sermons (don’t you think they are simply doing what Geneva’s city council did to Calvin and the Company of Pastors?):
“The city of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons.” This headline, within hours of being posted on Foxnews.com, was forwarded multiple times to my inbox, with comments such as “unbelievable.”
My response? So what? Sermons are public proclamation, aren’t they?
If a government entity comes to me and demands that I turn over my sermon manuscripts, well… I think I’d be inclined to send them along. And I’d be sure to send each one with a carefully written cover letter explaining exactly how the blood of Christ redeems sinners from death and the grave. (Although good luck deciphering my rough outline, and reading my marginal handwriting. I can send you a link to the audio.)
Sermons aren’t exactly what the legal profession would call “privileged information.” (News reports suggest, however, that other “pastoral communications” might be a part of the subpoena, and insofar as those are private communications of pastors, I would fight their release.)
I grant that there are complex legal issues involved. And, seeing how it has just been a few hours since this story started to bubble up on the Fox News outrage-of-the-week radar, I make no claim to understanding the merits of the legal case.
All I can tell so far is that the city passed a controversial non-discrimination ordinance, which among other things, would allow biological males to use the ladies room, and vice versa. A petition in opposition garnered 50,000 signatures, then was thrown out on a technicality. Next, a lawsuit against the ordinance was filed, to which the city responded with a subpoena for sermons from pastors associated with churches opposed to the ordinance.
And why, I ask, should pastors be unwilling to send their sermons to whoever should request a copy?
Remember, though, that in the world of 2k, we don’t all agree on the secular stuff.
Old Life 
All about me, the Apostle Peter weighs in on my blog:
http://jasitek.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/the-apostle-peter-weighs-in-on-houston/
13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
1 Peter 3:13-17
A good bit of “outrage culture” going on right aboutz nowz.
LikeLike
That being said, the idea of such a law is absolutely idiotic.
The way gov’ts are trying to treat counter-views is getting kind of “rapey.”
No means no.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why this doesn’t get under Pastor Lee’s skin. It looks to me that Houston’s mayor is on a witch hunt to find any kind of hate speech, and considering some churches out there, she could very well find “hate filled” language and conclude that all of Christendom is homophobic and potentially threatening to civic safety (depending how any oversight commitee might interpret). Everyone knows what the RCC’s views are but, they might be a bit skiddish about other “Christian” groups out there. All I know is that it is a threat to religious freedom when the state determines it knows morality better than Christianity.
LikeLike
Susan, you’re in the majority. Hysteria abounds. Some of us don’t understand why you’re so worked up. Have you guys ever considered that the demand to fork over sermons is simply an instance of bad political maneuvering and that the system has a way correcting stupidity? Or is it all the-sky-is-falling-here-they-come-to-eat-our-first-borns all the time?
LikeLike
Susan, don’t just comment — send the KoC down there to bust up the joint. Get with it.
LikeLike
Re-reading Acts and seeing how the apostles engaged (*shudder*) with similar actions would probably be helpful.
But as our resident-unificator pointed out on Twitter: “So 1st century. We’ve moved on.”
LikeLike
Houston wants written transcripts of something you said publicly to 100s if not 1000s of people that anyone could have heard if he had sat down in your pew that particular Sunday morning? Bonehead political move, but hardly worth losing any sleep over. American evangelicals are a pretty soft bunch.
LikeLike
“… Everyone knows what the RCC’s views are but, they might be a bit skiddish [sic] about other “Christian” groups out there …”
While I would agree that other protestant “groups out there” have views that make me nervous, too, I’m not sure I agree that “everyone knows what the RCC’s views are…” As has been discussed on this blog many times, there is a wide disparity not only between what is proclaimed in Rome and what is accepted and practiced in other parts of the world, especially the U.S. As the infamous former Speaker of the House said during a Meet the Depressed interview back in ’08,
“… I think the church can only do what it believes and I respect that. [But] I can’t do anything other than what I believe. . . . I always take Communion when I go to church, and I go to church regularly. . . . God gave us all a free will and a responsibility to be accountable and to live up to our responsibilities, and that’s how I see it. . . . The church sees it another way…”
LikeLike
Lee is correct, per usual.
There is also an element of “when you’re enemy is making a fool of herself, get out of her way.” Turn the sermons over and see what she does with them. Eventually she’s going to get clobbered by the 1st Amendment.
LikeLike
Steve,
No, no hysteria. Trusting our Lord with the future. But since the majority in our democracy don’t necessarily represent the truth, and since men are known to create laws that are contrary to the truth( thinking of legalized abortion now, and the laws that said blacks were subhuman, in the past), I don’t really put much faith in civil magistrates. Where does this mayor derive the right to examine sermons for acceptable language? Why is there no fear of legal repercussions?
LikeLike
But, Susan, Paul had a fair amount of faith in his civil authorities since they are empowered by and minister for God himself. Why so little faith on your part? Are ours different from his? By modern standards, quite the contrary. Sure, men screw up, but they also don’t. Every day you go to Mass without civil molestation is an instance of the latter, you know. The hysterics over Houston sure come off as everything from ingratitude to faux-martyrdom.
LikeLike
Zrim- How badly did Paul sin when he exercised his right to a trial instead of having faith in gov’t?
LikeLike
Houston is asking these pastors to do their work for them.
Here’s the interesting question to the 2k-minded: Which is the governing authority that receives submission? The city? Or the 1st Amendment, *assuming* that you believe sermons to be a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution?
LikeLike
GAS-X, how badly do you grasp that exercising a right to trial is a demonstration of faith in a governmental mechanism?
LikeLike
Jeff- Isn’t the question the rule of law? Let’s suppose the US governing authorities are bound by the rule of law and when they violate that are the 2k minded allowed to call out this violation or just have faith that the ruling authorities will reform themselves. Frankly, I’m not seeing 2k mindedness here but 1k (church) and forget the other k.
LikeLike
Zrim- I see the right to trial as a counter measure against the overreach of governmental authorities. Where was Paul’s faith in the governmental prosecutors? The right to trial is resistance to governmental authority (gasp!)
LikeLike
Jeff,
Churches have a fundamental right to keep sermons secret under the First Amendment?
Secret sermons make evangelism difficult.
As far as “doing their work for them” goes. welcome to the discovery phase of a lawsuit. I once had to compile a spreadsheet of data from 15 years of leases, just because an attorney wanted the information.
LikeLike
Again, Steve, I am personally without any hysteria. Do you think that anytime the public expesses worry, that they are in panic mode? A situation that elicits concern is sometimes a warranted concern, wouldn’t you say? Civil authority ministers for God except when they don’t. And, why was Paul put to death?
George,
I consider myself a conservative. Would you say that I get my religious conservative doctrine from broader evangelicalism, Presbyterian and Reformed, Anglicanism, scripture alone, or Catholic dogma?
LikeLike
Erik: Churches have a fundamental right to keep sermons secret under the First Amendment?…As far as “doing their work for them” goes. welcome to the discovery phase of a lawsuit.
You just answered your own question. It’s not the secrecy, it’s the gearing up for litigation.
LikeLike
GAS-X, and who conducts said trial in in whom should those appealing have faith? The civil powers (gasp!).
LikeLike
Jeff,
So you’re saying not turning over the sermons will prevent litigation? It won’t.
The #1 danger in a culture war is not inaction but overreaching. The lesbian mayor is overreaching. I say let her.
LikeLike
If sermons are secret, that would pose a grand problem for credo-baptists and baptism as “public declaration”.
LikeLike
Steve,
This is a democracy, and that is good and bad, depending on the religious views of our elected officials. The unborn in the womb are represented by the cold hearted majority it seems, even though the minority of us out there that oppose abortion are a very large size. It’s the weight that tips the scale that I worry about, for all involved. This is why civilized culture is always Christian in it’s values. When it ceases to represent Christian values, there is no such thing as rights.
LikeLike
Susan: “It looks to me that Houston’s mayor is on a witch hunt to find any kind of hate speech, and considering some churches out there, she could very well find ‘hate filled’ language and conclude that all of Christendom is homophobic and potentially threatening to civic safety (depending how any oversight commitee might interpret).” Lots of loaded language there. Why not characterize things as simply careless, even old-fashioned stupid?
LikeLike
Susan, if by Christian culture you mean western civilization then what do you make of the fact that it’s framed after a pagan model?
LikeLike
Zrim-wrong, the faith is in the rule of law, the rules of the game, not in institutions or individuals. In your authoritarian schema there would be no appeals because the almighty civil powers must be obeyed relentlessly. Whereas countries ruled by the rule of law respect that and not individual civil authorities or institutions.
LikeLike
Careless old fashioned stupid or with a personal agenda and an ideology antithetical to Christian morality. And such is America where no one is neutral. The worrisome thing is that obviously she is using her political weight, fearlessly. I always have hope that men will chose wisely, but history shows that men do wicked things.
LikeLike
GAS-X, funny, I’ve nothing against appeals and even exercise them at times. But why the pitting of rules against institutions and their agents when Paul doesn’t? Romans must be your epistle of straw.
LikeLike
I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that a group of activists (a large fraction of whom are pastors) is suing the city in an effort to bring a referendum to over turn the law. The city is mounting a defense against the lawsuit and as such is seeking documents from the complainants with which to mount their defense. In principle, this is not a problem and pastors should not expect that their sermon notes cannot be evidence in a trial.
The reason that the subpoenas are newsworthy is because of their scope – they are seeking documents from pastors who are not involved in the lawsuit and incredibly broad documentation. As it turns out, the mayor and city mayor agree that the subpoena is over broad.
LikeLike
Zrim-wrong, have you heard of total depravity? Rules are constructed because governmental agents and institutions are susceptible to wrong-doing and the likelihood is even greater because of the power they wield. US Civics 101.
You just can’t give up your old fundamentalists ways, speaking of straw. How many cults have been formed basing their entire doctrine on one verse of Scripture?
LikeLike
Get Jay Sekulow on a plane and get him down there.
The 21st century Moses, the deliverer of God’s people — the mighty trial lawyer.
LikeLike
Oh, look.
http://t.co/qocXqeJOk6
“UPDATE (3 p.m. EDT): Houston Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman are distancing themselves from the city’s controversial sermon subpoenas. The duo blamed the “overly broad” document requests on their pro bono attorneys at Susman Godfrey L.L.P., city spokeswoman Janice Evans told me in an email.”
LikeLike
The thing about mayors pulling crap like this is that people can vote with their feet. Heard of Detroit?
LikeLike
Susan, do you really think that mayors in the U.S. have power? If so, why are cities so beleaguered?
LikeLike
Susan, pssst. Some of us don’t put much trust in your church. Not like we single out civil magistrates.
LikeLike
Regardless how this turns out, it’s just weird all around. (And stupid).
First of all, they should know there’s no sermon manuscript to turn over in the first place. None of those guys built their megachurches preaching from a manuscript.
Second, why not hit up their website and have a listen?
It’s too bad, though, that this project will be a failure. There was a brief window of opportunity to rid the streets of Houston of those pesky Theonomic ranters.
LikeLike
Bruce – First of all, they should know there’s no sermon manuscript to turn over in the first place. None of those guys built their megachurches preaching from a manuscript.
LOL
Maybe they can just turn over their skinny jeans.
LikeLike
GAS-X, right, the cult of good citizenship, where adherents go around minding their own business, paying taxes, living quietly, working with their hands, taking their lumps. *Shudder* Hide the women and children. Thanks for the civics lesson (duh), but what a dim view of God’s ministers you have. Why do you reject Paul when he says the one in authority is God’s servant for your good?
LikeLike
The BBs have spoken:
LikeLike
Maybe if they collect all those sermons they’ll discover that they were all downloaded from the same website.
LikeLike
The Baylys have gone televangelist on us, using this as an occasion to plug their book. Well played.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting on the memoir from the guy who took the axe to the abortion clinic, with the cover blurb from Tim that he recommends the book while NOT condoning the author’s actions.
LikeLike
Lutheran and Reformed homilies/sermons have a point and are about 20 minutes in length.
Poor gubment people having to listen to 90 minutes of rambling Baptist sermons that include 15 minutes on the pastors recent trip to the zoo or circus and another 50 minutes of filler going nowhere
LikeLike
Kent,
How many minutes of a Bayly sermon are taken up with cackles, squeals, and high-pitched shrieks?
LikeLike
This looks like a plausible explanation. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/houston-not-going-after-conservative-pastors.html
My (all about Muddy disorientation) first reaction was “hmmm…that’s broad, wonder what they were actually after.” Lawyers want to make sure they don’t miss anything and consequently ask for too much too often.
Unfortunately the worldview of the BB-types didn’t allow them to see the simplest explanation. Probably too stoked up over Pulpit Freedom Sunday, which is around this time based on the junk email I’ve been getting.
LikeLike
So let’s get this straight – “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” is all about defying the law and daring the authorities to do anything about it. Then when the authorities do anything about it we flip out and claim persecution?
Jesse Jackson is envious.
LikeLike
Zrim: Why do you reject Paul when he says the one in authority is God’s servant for your good?
Me: I haven’t attended any zrimimperialcult meetings?
LikeLike
Erik, i refuse to believe those three sermons off his website could possibly have been the Bayly who writes like that …
LikeLike
Darryl,
It’s not like she is creating an municiple oridinance against riding bikes in parks on weekdays. She’s a “just a mayor’, but a mayor trying to take on larger political things, like making those who are opposed to the gender identity agenda pay for it. I completely agree with ZRIM that it would be a little crazy to get hysterical over this, but at the same time there is an assault( however large or small that I hear about it all the time) against any traditional understanding of the family and what is male and female. Because these things are much more that merely traditional roles that are able to be redefined as mankind moves into the future, in one sense there is absolutely nothing to be worried about, for there will always be only two sexes, but at the same time people clammor for freedom to define reality and since science can help, they do whatever they want, AND they want everyone else to agree with it.
Anyways, back to this mayor’s attempt to find out what pastor’s teach their congregations…. And that is whether or not a court could consider that the five pastors who opposed HERO from the pulpit were doing politics.
LikeLike
Ahem, in the interest of furthering the umm, debate, we posits the following premises/propositions.
(D)on’t you think they are simply doing what Geneva’s city council did to Calvin and the Company of Pastors?)
This ain’t Geneva and 2Kers believe in the First Amendment, don’t they?
IOW
AmberAnachronism AlertThat being said, the idea of such a law is absolutely idiotic.
Bingo, dingo, ringo.
Everyone knows what the RCC’s views are
Correction, Bryan, Jase and a few others know what the RCC’s views are, but that’s only because they are self appointed spokespersons for the nihil obstat/imprimatur crowd. For the rest of us listening to what the bishops have had to say recently about the family and homosexuality, nyet.
How badly did Paul sin when he exercised his right to a trial instead of having faith in gov’t?
You’re askin the wrong guy. Back in ’09 when parents of 4th graders in the Oakland school district protested the LGBQT#* propaganda, Grim voted for the quietist pietist ticket.
Which is the governing authority that receives submission? The city? Or the 1st Amendment, *assuming* that you believe sermons to be a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution?
Trick question right Jeff, cause the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Right?.. . . .
GAS-X, how badly do you grasp that exercising a right to trial is a demonstration of faith in a governmental mechanism?
Well as long as Visshinsky is not the prosecutor or the defense has a right of cross examination or the jury the right of nullification.
Frankly, I’m not seeing 2k mindedness here but 1k (
churchstate) and forget the other k.Yup.
Churches have a fundamental right to keep sermons secret under the First Amendment?
Nope, but they do have a right not to be harassed by the civil magistrate on a witch hunt to enforce an Orwellian ordinance.
Would you say that I get my religious conservative doctrine from broader evangelicalism, Presbyterian and Reformed, Anglicanism, scripture alone, or Catholic dogma?
We’ll exercise our First Amendment rights to invoke the Fifth Amendment thank you very much please.
“It looks to me that Houston’s mayor is on a witch hunt to find any kind of hate speech . . . . , ” Lots of loaded language there. Why not characterize things as simply careless, even old-fashioned stupid?
Got a book, chapter and verse reference for that last little bon mot? Rom. 1 perhaps?
Susan, if by Christian culture you mean western civilization then what do you make of the fact that it’s framed after a pagan model?
But there’s not a lot of loaded presuppositions there.
In your authoritarian schema there would be no appeals because the almighty civil powers must be obeyed relentlessly.
Bingo, dingo, ringo again buddy. Is Gaz going for a hat trick?
But why the pitting of rules against institutions and their agents when Paul doesn’t?
Because the light of nature ought to tell us that self professed rules for those institutions – such as the Constitution – define the basis for institutions and their agents.
IOW the police officer doesn’t sign off on the building permit and the building inspector doesn’t write parking tickets. (And the commander in chief doesn’t get to declare war.)
You just can’t give up your old fundamentalists ways, speaking of straw.
Technically it’s called kenoticism.
Susan, do you really think that mayors in the U.S. have power? If so, why are cities so beleaguered?
Because they have bought into the same big brother centralization they are trying to foist off on the citizens of Houston. Really, they called it HERO.
Just like they called it the Patriot Act. Obviously somebody doesn’t have the 1984 app for their iPhone.
Second, why not hit up their website and have a listen?
As above, harassment.
Why do you reject Paul when he says the one in authority is God’s servant for your good?
Distinguish between the ideal and the abuse of the same.
Our nation is moving whole-hog into the totalitarianism of those who view tolerance, pluralism, and inclusivity as the only way to hold our nation together.
Ahem, as much as we hate to admit it the BB’s get a ringo, dingo, bingo sticker on their report card.
In the long run, the LBQT&*? thing is just an excuse for the state to conduct war by other means on other loci of authority in society, for one the family.
Leviathan/the beast from the sea can brook no opposition.
So let’s get this straight – “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” is all about defying the law and daring the authorities to do anything about it.
What. Don’t. We. Understand. About. The. First. Amendment?
The Constitution is either the highest law in the land or it’s not.
I am not in favor of pastors registering voters and running petitions, but under our system I don’t see that it’s the government’s job to rein them in per se. Or is it only Jesse, Al and Hillary who get to stump in churches from the pulpit?
Further the sermons should be public knowlege/on the web site/the churches could comply with a massive document dump and further overload the dweebs heroically trying to queer the law.
Like even Pat Buchanan gets it. And quotes Dabney in his conclusion.
The lower courts have overturned the legislatures and popular votes and the Supremes have passed on hearing the appeals.
http://buchanan.org/blog/judicial-dictatorship-7010
But now the bells on my thinking cap are jangling so much I am getting a headache.
cheers
Bub Ess
LikeLike
Couple of things:
1. It is silly for people to get overly worked up about this. Sermons are public proclamations.
2. The immediate answer is to give the authorities transcripts/manuscripts/notes for every sermon ever preached. Let the authorities do the work to “find” what they’re looking for.
3. On a broader scale, there is reason for concern that authorities think they have the right to harass churches, because this is what this is, regardless of the stupidity of the subpoena. The assumption that the 1st Amendment will finally trump all, in my opinion, is incredibly naive. The Supreme Court “finds” all sorts of things in the constitution and have already said that there are certain kinds of speech not protected by the 1st Amendment. What’s to stop them from one day finding that speech calling for repentance is not protected? Yeah, if they do, we preach anyway, but should we be looking for that to happen?
And this brings up the broader point as to how much “radical” 2K can actually deal with the situation. I see a lot of quoting of Rom. 13, which is all well and good, but Paul certainly wasn’t calling for unqualified submission. He didn’t stop preaching the gospel when various authorities told him not to. The question is, what does 2K have to say when the government becomes beastly? The book of Revelation says that it most certainly can, and Scripture is full of examples of believers who defied beastly authorities and were blessed for it.
Now I don’t think our government has become beastly—at least not yet. But I see in some of these responses a lot of “it can’t happen here.”
LikeLike
Susan, if you’re worried about marriage (as you should be) you should also be worried about your church:
LikeLike
GAS-X, but I do draw the line at leash laws (or at least self-appointed sheriffs trying to enforce leash laws upon me).
LikeLike
Robert, keep in mind that Paul penned Romans 13 with what we moderns would consider a beastly magistrate. So the answer to your question about what to do when he becomes beastly would seem to be Paul’s prescription of submission. But it’s not unqualified, as in even if he demands we break God’s clear commands for faith and practice. When he does that, we obey God rather than men.
LikeLike
The BBs have already submitted their sermon. It’s the one where they provoke the civil authorities and promote a thinly veiled affirmation of violence. And yet, no civil molestation visited upon them.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2009/06/sermon-president-and-people-god
LikeLike
Zrim, why try to inject what Jesus or Paul taught in discussions on here? 😀
LikeLike
Bob,
On “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” the entire issue is taxes. Income to churches is not taxable and individuals get tax deductions for their donations. A pastor can say whatever he wants in church, but Caesar has decided he has some say whether or not he wants to subsidize political advocacy from pulpits.
Right now it’s really not enforced against anyone (left or right) so I don’t know why the right wants to poke their finger in Caesar’s eye.
Like most everything else it probably comes down to attracting attention and raising money.
LikeLike
Robert,
I don’t disagree with your analysis, but the grandstanding and chicken little behavior at the slightest provocation by so many Christians gets old and just invites ridicule.
Read “Christian Renewal” each month to get the picture.
And does bitching to each other about alleged slights and persecutions really accomplish anything anyway?
LikeLike
Susan,
Do you have the pastoral courage to accept it if your kids or husband decides to pursue an alternative lifestyle? Maybe shacking up or some same-sex stuff for the kids and a girlfriend on the side for the husband.
Your leaders seem to be acquiring the courage to accept it.
LikeLike
DGH – yeah, that article from The Week is saying pretty much the same thing I said in an earlier post on this thread – while it’s easy to hurl stones at protestants, because they have so many divergent and radically different approaches to the same theology (supposedly), it seems difficult to see the RCC as anything other than one big monolithic structure that hasn’t changed it’s stance in centuries. The article you quoted continues …
“… If this is what Pope Francis is going for, I don’t blame conservatives for beginning to express serious misgivings. It’s a brilliant, clever, supremely Machiavellian strategy — one that promises to produce far-reaching reforms down the road while permitting the present pope both to claim plausible deniability (“I haven’t changed church doctrine!”) and to enjoy nearly constant effusive coverage in the secular press …”
The real question here is, “why?” Sure, this looks to be a clever hat trick that sets up the opportunity for softening the “church’s” stance on gender issues, but what does Rome really have to gain by it? To me, it all comes down to one common denominator. To semi-quote an old TV automobile sales commercial, “… old Frank just needs the money …” and he sees the world changing around him, therefore needs to pave a new path into the future. It’ll backfire, of course, because history seems to indicate that those in the minority with the loudest voices also have the tightest pocket books.
LikeLike
https://oldlife.org/2014/10/love-hopes-things
It’s almost impossible for me to believe the biblically brain dead naivete some of you fanatical 2K guys can display on something as crystal clear as this. I haven’t read all the other comments, (skimmed) but it’s almost certain that somebody with at least minimally functioning actually Christian sensibilities will have already said this.
Of course we don’t mind letting somebody see our sermons. We preach them in public after all and pray that the Lord our God will grace us with has many hearers as He would see fit to bring.
Please pay attention now. This will require prying your face out from in front of your pornographic television shows for a couple minutes. I have confidence you can make it. What we DO mind, is the motivation for such actions AND the inevitable next step. That being the pagan regulation of what we can say in our churches and the civil prohibition of any content said pagan government deems unacceptable.
Our noble constitution LONG ago ceased being the actual law of this land when judicial precedent rather that original intent became the basis for interpreting it. We have found in it the right to murder our unborn children and marry people of the same gender, among many many hundreds of other principles it’s authors would have been aghast at, if even the suggestion that they be considered for normative public practice in their country had been made to them.
I am not necessarily indicting 2K as a belief system here. I am indicting the dangerous and idiotic anti biblical application of it on this, as usual, godless website. Whoever made the correlation to Calvin’s Geneva almost gave me a hernia from laughing so hard. 😀
LikeLike
Did you just see a man falling past the window of our 34th floor office tower?
LikeLike
Robert, I don’t see a problem with doing a motion to quash the subpoena for being overbroad while throwing in a constitutional argument if it fits. That motion would mostly be inspired by the desire to avoid losing so many man-hours to compliance with the subpoena. There’s a good deal of distance between that approach and the Henny Pennyism currently on display.
Anyway, one article suggests they may trim the subpoena back a bit. Depending on how much trimming goes on, the motion to quash could be unnecessary. That is, unless litigation feels like good works that make one’s calling and election sure.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Robert, keep in mind that Paul penned Romans 13 with what we moderns would consider a beastly magistrate. So the answer to your question about what to do when he becomes beastly would seem to be Paul’s prescription of submission. But it’s not unqualified, as in even if he demands we break God’s clear commands for faith and practice. When he does that, we obey God rather than men.
I agree in large measure, though I’d qualify the first part because I’m not sure you could say Rome was beastly when Paul wrote Romans 13. Were they executing Christians or persecuting the church yet? Jewish authorities were involved in this, but Rome. Paul appeals to Rome in Acts and, presumably, was successful if he wrote the Pastorals after being released from house arrest.
I agree the chicken little approach is way off the mark, but figuring out what submission means isn’t that easy, I guess is all I’m saying.
LikeLike
This is long but full of Old Life history so I’m posting it. You learn more here in a week than in a year of sermons:
On Admonition, Rebuke, Holiness, Hypocrisy, and Christian Perfectionism
Walk in Love
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”
Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
(Ephesians 5:1-21 ESV)
Instructions for the Church
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.
(1 Timothy 5:1-2 ESV)
Church Order of the United Reformed Churches in North America, Fourth Edition, 2007:
Article 52
In case anyone errs in doctrine or offends in conduct, as long as the sin is of a private character and does not give public offense, the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matthew 18 shall be followed.
Article 63
The ministers, elders and deacons shall exercise mutual censure regularly, whereby they exhort one another in an edifying manner regarding the discharge of their offices.
Article 65
No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, and no office-bearers shall lord it over other office-bearers.
If Your Brother Sins Against You
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
(Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)
Good sense makes one slow to anger,
and it is his glory to overlook an offense.
(Proverbs 19:11 ESV)
Many years ago when I was a much younger man (18, to be exact) I went away to college to play football. When I was in high school I ran a weekly college football pool in which people would pay $1, pick the winners of that Saturday’s games, and compete to win the pot of money that accumulated. Usually the pot was $15 or so. One of the places I would circulate the entry sheets was at the Friday afternoon pregame sessions in the library where the team would congregate to prepare for the game. It was fun and relatively harmless.
When I arrived at college I decided to replicate the pool and handed out sheets in the locker room. An upperclassman, probably 3 years older to me and at least 100 pounds heavier, came up to me and told me gently that the pool was not a good idea. In previous years there had been some kind of gambling related situation involving football players and something like my pool would be frowned upon by the coaching staff if they got wind of it. I thanked him for telling me, collected up my entry sheets, and that was the end of the situation.
A couple years ago I was interacting online and said some rather harsh things about a former minister who had achieved notoriety as a result of criminal actions committed against his own parishioners. I received an e-mail communication from a man who had personal contact with this minister. He asked if he would give me his phone number so he could call me. I did and the man called me. We had a discussion about my comments and he said that he was working with the man in a church setting and was trying to help him get his life back on track. The phone call was helpful to me and it made me rethink how I might change my methods to be more constructive in the future. The man was direct, but cordial and was willing to listen to what I had to say.
A few years ago I had a situation with an older man in which I was frustrated with what I considered to be addictive, potentially self-harming behavior. I took it upon myself to correct this man, almost taking a parental tone with him. The man responded negatively and the situation escalated far beyond what it needed to. Eventually things were resolved, but not before dragging other people into the situation and causing at least temporary harm to the relationship.
Admonishing, rebuking, and correcting others and accepting others doing the same to us has to be one of the most difficult aspects of the Christian life. Why is it so hard? Primarily because we are all, every last one of us, proud people. For the most part we are well aware of our own shortcomings and sins, but we really don’t like to have them pointed out by others. Why is that? Well, for one, the truth hurts. Second, because we often see sins in others and want to say “what right does he have to get on me about X when he’s doing Y”. It’s a perfectly natural response to criticism. Additionally, we may feel like the other person doesn’t fully understand our situation, is shortsighted, or doesn’t have all the necessary information to pass judgment. So where does this leave us?
Let’s start by saying that there is value in having other people be concerned about us and our behavior. We are sinful people and we all have blind spots. Sin can hurt us and, if people are genuinely concerned for our physical, emotional, and spiritual safety we should be thankful for our concern. Some people, however, especially those who don’t know us personally, seem more interested in correcting us for their own purposes. This especially seems to be true online, where people can make harsh criticisms while remaining anonymous.
I had a situation recently where someone I know personally corrected me for an off-color comment that I passed on in a blog comment section. The people I left the comment for (one of whom was not a Christian) thought the comment was funny and were not offended by it. It was inappropriate, though, and, after receiving correction, I asked that the comment be removed. The blogger acceded to my wish and removed the comment.
I had a problem, however, with how I was corrected. My friend wrote:
“I have to say, not sure what you were thinking with that post on **********. How do you square that kind of talk with Ephesians 5:1-9?”
It was written in an e-mail with an impatient tone. It was not communicated to me in person or over the phone.
I was irritated so I responded:
“I admit that was on the edge. It was relayed to me and I passed it on as a joke.
How do you square watching R rated movies with (being a Christian) if you really want to go there?
Just don’t answer an e-mail vs. giving a lecture. Talk to me personally if you have a lecture.”
This led to a debate on whether watching R-Rated movies is sinful (more on that later) and we really didn’t solve our dispute.
Now I’m not saying that my friend isn’t right, but when it comes to admonition, rebuke, holding people accountable, etc. I would argue that the means by which it is done and the posture of the one doing the admonishing or rebuking determines 90% of the outcome and the subject of the rebuke determines 10%. It is absolutely critical if our goal is to help the person as opposed to communicating our own sense of moral outrage.
In the stories I shared at the beginning the first two people did it absolutely right. They accomplished what they set out to accomplish, but did it without humiliating me or coming off as self-righteous. They really helped me. The first guy could have absolutely crushed me — physically and emotionally if he had chosen to. He didn’t at all, though. He was gentle but matter-of-fact and the matter was resolved immediately. I am sure he would have absolutely no recollection of the interaction, but I remember it vividly 26 years later.
The second guy could have laid into me publicly online, raising my defenses immediately. He chose to take the matter seriously, though, because he really wanted to solve a problem, so he called me. It was a fabulous response by an elder in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and a great lesson to me.
I’ll share another story because I think it has great relevance to all of us who have to negotiate social media. Eight months ago I was involved in an epic battle (or a tempest in a teapot) over the issue of Christians watching movies with sinful content:
https://oldlife.org/2014/02/need-strategy-dining-sweetbreads/
I found myself debating a man who we have come to call “Greg the Terrible”. He’s quite a character and the biggest point he tried to make (in his relentlessly bombastic way) is that Christians willingly watching television shows and movies that include sexual content is inherently sinful because the actors, in making the program, really do take off their clothes and touch each other in inappropriate ways. At the time I fought against him but, upon further reflection, I have to conclude that he is right.
Now in the midst of this debate another man who I know personally (as in I’ve seen him in his flesh & blood state) got into the fray and, from my way of seeing things, attempted to “split the difference”. He didn’t agree with how Greg conducted himself, but he thought that my arguments were flawed at the same time. I took great offense at this. Why? Because I felt like someone that I knew personally should not come to the aid of my “online enemy”, he should come to me privately. I saw him as showing me up online and it was an assault to my pride. In retrospect I overreacted against him. It does show the perilous nature of trying to have real-life relationships with local people while at the same time having “cyber relationships” with them. My nature is to defer to anyone online that I have a real life relationship with. There are several guys that I interact with online in public forums who I also e-mail with privately. I won’t take these guys to task publicly beyond a gentle nudge because I value the real life relationships with them too much at this point. Not everyone else necessarily takes the same view, though, and I’ve learned from this “Sweetbreads” debacle that I need to have a thicker skin if I’m going to operate in that world, which I do enjoy doing very much.
Now back to my interaction with my admonishing friend.
When I challenged him on watching R-rated movies he replied:
“Really, I’d be happy to talk more about this in person. But since it could hardly need a lecture, let me simply give you something to think about.
If you really believe I should not watch R-rated movies based on Scripture, you may and should tell me so. My hope is that brothers and sisters in the body of Christ would love their Lord and one another enough to admonish each other like that. We all need it a lot more often than it is done. If and when we get that sort of admonition, if it is founded on God’s Word (not on the purity and consistency of the life of the person bringing it), we should each be thankful for that loving correction, not try to evade it.
But since you did challenge the consistency of my behavior, I will at least venture what I think is a satisfactory answer. It’s one thing to watch a piece of art that portrays sinful activity (within reasonable parameters), while not condoning or practicing that sinful activity myself. Most Christian people have to do this on a daily basis with respect to watching the evening news, as well as dealing with the sinful crap that happens in their own families! Isn’t it the case that we all have to do this to some degree as we live in a fallen world where sin is constantly being practiced boldly all around us? But it’s another thing altogether to practice the sinful behavior that I see others practice. Yes, sometimes I do it, but I am not going to excuse it.
I don’t really think you want a Christian who would excuse sinful behavior — not in himself or in anyone else.”
To which I responded:
“My point is, you don’t get to be (a legalistic guy we know) and a Christian who watches R-rated movies, goes to rock concerts, and drinks. I would rather you were the latter than the former, but you really don’t get to be both. People watch you and they see right through it.
Serious sin – adultery, violence, an OWI, merits comment (probably comment from a church Consistory). I would just ignore the small stuff or you’re going to be awfully busy.
And watching R rated movies is sinful, listening to Steely Dan (my favorite rock group) is sinful. I’m not going to kid myself and you shouldn’t either. It’s in trying to justify it that we kid ourselves and look like hypocrites. All I can say is that I live in a sinful world and I join in to some extent.
When we watch a sex scene we are seeing a real woman’s body who is not our wife. It’s not a fake body, it’s a real woman.
We tolerate our own sins every day, but that’s life in the body.”
Not a tremendously edifying interaction, but valuable.
So what do I take from all this?
Back when I served as an elder in a Reformed Church it was suggested at one elder meeting that we needed to spend time at a future meeting engaging in “mutual admonition”, something which is indeed suggested in the URCNA Church Order that I quote above. We never actually followed through and did it, and I’m actually quite glad. Do I really want to spend time examining another man’s life, looking for his sins and pointing them out to him? I really don’t. Why? Because if I look, I’ll find them, then he’ll naturally look back at me and he’ll find just as many.
At the same time, however, we do realize that people do fall into serious sin, sin requiring the attention of Consistories, sin that sometimes leads to people being denied the Lord’s Supper and even being excommunicated from the church.
So how do we help people correct small sins before they become large sins?
I can’t say that I know for sure, but here are a few ideas:
(1) Do it personally. With a phone call, better yet with an in-person conversation. It takes time and effort but will always come off better than an e-mail, a text, or all of the other crappy electronic ways that we communicate each other these days.
(2) Do it patiently and with great humility and humor (if appropriate). If the person being admonished feels like you’re angry, impatient, or just trying to check something off of your list for the day it’s not going to go over well.
(3) Do it privately if you’re serious about getting results. Greg the Terrible got me to change my way of thinking (although I still watch R rated movies) but his methods and his bluster got in the way of his logic. If he had been gentle and private I might have come around way sooner.
(4) Do examine your own life and be ready for pushback. If you demand perfection from the person you are admonishing, be prepared to have perfection demanded of you. I personally have decided to forego addressing what I consider to be “smaller” sins with others who aren’t my minor children. If a person is truly holy and has no trace of hypocrisy, though, I’m willing to give them a fair hearing.
(5) Be ready to bear with others and take a long view. Sanctification (becoming more Christ-Like) us a life long event. If you care about someone, hang in their with them, be their friend, and be optimistic that they will come around with the passage of time. “Just not lest ye be judged” has become cliché, but there’s a lot of truth to it. Give people a break and hope for the best for them. They’ll sense that you truly care about them, not their short-term performance and this could pay dividends throughout the course of their life. By all means don’t be a nag, a one-hit wonder, or an impersonator of the Holy Spirit.
(6) Be authentic and consistent — don’t be a hypocrite. Be the same person at home, in church, at work, and at play. Even if this person has flaws, that’s who you are at this point. If you’re trying to be one person in one setting and a different person in another setting, it’s going to catch up with you. Even if you are not where you should be, be honest about it. “Own it”, as they say.
LikeLike
@ Erik:
Thanks for that. It helps me to have some more personal understanding of people so that I know how to interpret what they say.
Oh, and … you just took my record for longest post. Punk.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Unless we get 1,000 comments on it you’re still the king.
Plus, my post contained no math.
LikeLike
Robert, Nero was Paul’s magistrate-executioner. He used us for candles to light up his midnight garden. The historical record has him as the first state sponsor of Xian persecution. Your point about the complexities involved in sorting out submission is well taken–my own concern is how simplistic the hysterical crowd makes it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero
LikeLike
Thanks Erik.
I sat at an indy baptist church for two decades and never once heard Eph 5:3-7 or anything close to it.
Then you get Reformed and finally read the Bible and find this kind of thing is on most pages of the Epistles.
LikeLike
Erik, you counted to (6)!
LikeLike
Jeff,
Algebra or below doesn’t count.
LikeLike
the mayor and city attorney have both gone on record saying that the request made by the pro-bono lawyers helping out with response to this lawsuit was over broad and inappropriate. . .
LikeLike
@ sdb: I have Less than 50% confidence in the truthfulness of the mayor’s statement. She blamed it on the lawyer.
A real apology looks like: We blew it by asking for these documents. We are working with our lawyer to make sure that all documemt requests will be appropriate.
Anything short of that means, We got caught.
LikeLike
A reminder to readers: comments in response to Tiribulus will be deleted, though Tiribulus has free reign.
LikeLike
sdb and Jeff, right. So does the hysteria crowd ever feel embarrassed that they were led around by the nose by sensationalism?
“Mayor Parker agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastor’s sermons. The subpoenas were issued by pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the petition to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) in January. Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday. Both agree the original documents were overly broad. The city will move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing. Feldman says the focus should be only on communications related to the HERO petition process.”
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/14/houston-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-equal-rights-ordinance-case-prompting-outcry/
LikeLike
ERIK. I am asking you, hat in hand, with all of the positive constructive sincerity there is. Please respond to the email I’m about to send you. Please? I will not make you sorry. You have my word, in front of all these people.
LikeLike
The yahoo account from before. Please check it and respond.
LikeLike
diggy, kudos. Whatever else one might say about OL it is an interesting sociological snapshot of fundamentalists turned Reformed; the deprogrammed, the semi-deprogrammed, and the still afflicted.
LikeLike
Plus, my post contained no math.
Corrected in this very comment!
LikeLike
@ Zrim: that moves the needle up, thanks.
LikeLike
iggy, so you’re down with fibbing about the past, what some call the Noble Lie.
LikeLike
Mayors don’t draft subpoenas. Normally an official has enforcement goals and legal staff work out the details. Abnormally, an official could say “…and put them through the wringer while you’re at it.” Whether you believe the mayor gave harassment orders will likely depend on your disposition rather than any evidence. There’s probably an 85% correlation between your standard news sources and what you believe on this.
LikeLike
diggy, I was complimenting you on your free speech policy. Noble lie? No. I’m satisfied with the rule of law.
LikeLike
iggy, roger.
LikeLike
No need to be pen pals. You have the floor here.
LikeLike
The reporting on this strikes me as a bit dishonest. Several things should be noted.
First, the city is not requesting copies of the sermons in a governmental capacity. Rather, it is requesting copies of the sermons as a defendant in a civil lawsuit and doing so via duly issued civil subpoenas. The issuance of subpoenas to third parties by litigants is quite common in civil litigation.
Second, the city is a defendant in a lawsuit. Who’s suing the city, you might ask? An organization formed for the purpose of furthering the political goals of the churches that received the subpoenas. Because the recipients of the subpoenas had intimate involvement with the organization that sued the city, it is fairly likely that they have relevant evidence in their possession, custody, or control. If these bozos didn’t want to be served with subpoenas, then they shouldn’t have sued the city!
Third, the principle that the pastors are advocating is utterly unprecedented. In essence, they are claiming that the First Amendment grants churches blanket immunity from legal process, even when they are directly or indirectly parties to a lawsuit. Under their vision, churches and church property would be treated as a kind of sovereign nation where the US federal courts have no jurisdiction. Pastors could commit murder on church property with immunity. Child molesters could molest kids to their hearts’ content and have no fear of prosecution.
Fourth, this episode again demonstrates why most members of the cognitive elite view evangelical leaders as charlatans and evangelical churchgoers as dupes. This issue has no merit! It amounts to little more than manufactured alarmism whose end is to get well-meaning (but gullible) people to send more money to those who are protecting religious liberty from this and other imaginary attacks.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I apologize but A real apology looks like: We blew it by” ODing bigtime on the zeitgeist and having the unmigitated gall, never mind brass, to pen such a stupid [as well as sinful] ordinance like HERO which egregiously denies “equal rights” to heterosexuals. That because they don’t buy into the koolaid that we get to make things up as we go along out of whole cloth; for instance that one’s identity as a man or a woman is a social construct that can be denied at will and therefore men can use the women’s restroom – but not women the men’s? – because they either believe in or are taking advantage of a very popular PC delusion foisted upon us religiously by the so called cognitive – never mind coercive – elite.
Erik,
Matt. 18 and all that. Generally the arena or forum in which the offence occurs is the same in which it is rebuked or admonished. Why? Well maybe “equal protection”, that old bugaboo for all those who have been, let say, duped by somebody’s false teaching or offended by their sinful comments in that forum. Not only restoration, but restitution is a concern of Scripture. Not only your feelings/sensibilities, but others also.
A reminder to readers: comments in response to Tiribulus will be deleted, though Tiribulus has free reign.
DG
Why not deleting comments in response to T on a case by case basis?
FTM it looks like T’s objective was accomplished with Erik anyway so any by T would be
an instance of republicationredundant, no?(Hey, just responding to Erik’s post (who is responding to T?) so we’re off the hook right? Right? )
cheers
LikeLike
Bobby, keep bringing facts and reason like that and you’ll break the internet. Careful.
LikeLike
What Bobby said. Earlier in the thread I linked Eugene Volokh’s commentary on this issue. I think they are worth reading…
On whether it is in principle constitutional to subpoena sermons (short answer is yes):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/is-it-constitutional-for-a-court-to-enforce-a-subpoena-of-ministers-sermons/
A link to the Mayor and city attorney’s response to news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/houston-mayor-criticizes-city-lawyers-subpoenas-of-sermons/
And commentary on the Texas attorney general’s response:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/16/texas-attorney-general-sends-letter-to-houston-city-attorney-condemning-the-sermon-subpoenas/
The bottom line is that the kind of reaction we’ve seen from conservative Christians on this issue (not all evangelicals) destroys their credibility. It brings to mind Augustine’s comments on interpreting scripture:
LikeLike
Game, set, match, Bobby.
LikeLike
JAS, um, Billie Jean won that match. Sexist.
LikeLike
Bobby – “Under their vision, churches and church property would be treated as a kind of sovereign nation where the US federal courts have no jurisdiction.”
Pope envy.
LikeLike
Bob S.,
I’m not absolutely sure what you’re talking about with Matthew 18, but if I am understanding you right I would say this: If you have a personal relationship with someone and they offend you with something they do in another media (online, in print, in a podcast, etc.) I would still talk to them personally because that option is available to you and it’s almost always more effective.
The guy I was referring to is local so it’s no big deal for him to do that. He’s free to rebuke me by e-mail, but I’m just saying it’s not very effective, because I can tell he put little thought or effort into the rebuke. It looked like he just felt like unloading on me.
Additionally, he was not someone I offended, he just witnessed something I wrote to someone else that was crude (the person I wrote it to thought it was funny) and took it upon himself to police me.
Now when we all give each other a hard time online here that’s another matter. Most of us don’t know each other and expect that kind of rough, impersonal treatment because it’s the nature of the forum.
LikeLike
On T, know this about D.G. Hart. He’s a fair man and a very patient man. When his patience with someone runs out though, it’s a fearful thing. It’s like Hef issuing a lifetime ban from the Mansion.
LikeLike
Erik, excellent comment yesterday on admonition. I would add (as a parent, wife, friend), one of the hardest parts of rebuking sin is discerning whether the sinner needs forgiveness and the Gospel or is still persistent in a sin. I imagine that is even harder to discern over email or a blog comment section.
LikeLike
Maybe the sinner needs to hear the Gospel more clearly and accurately taught and less admonition and exhortation. For those of us who are addicted to sin (and Paul seems to include the whole human race in this category- some sins are more obvious than others) the law, admonition and exhortation may be a deterrent but it will never solve the problem. When does admonition and exhortation turn into inquisition, ie. recant (or change) or more discipline, punishment or perhaps even torture? Can fallen man ever really be trusted to administer that properly? We can try but we often fail. I cringe from past experiences regarding this whole issue. It is an art to know when to use the Law and when to use the Gospel. I lean towards more use of the Gospel (when it is accurately taught)- especially when overuse of the Law is doing no good, ie. just driving the sin into further suppression. Regardless, a difficult subject to deal with.
LikeLike
“It is an art to know when to use the Law and when to use the Gospel”
It’s extremely hard. I agree that those Christians caught in habitual sins are often living in constant sorrow and repentance and need to hear the Gospel often. But I don’t think that means they need the Law less (perhaps the way the Law is presented?), since we all are prone to developing a callousness toward the Gospel and becoming comfortable in our sins. Sins are comforting, in a perverse way. They are all mixed up with our personalities and familiar ways.
Cue Romans 7
Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law.
LikeLike
I don’t have time to comment further right now. I will say this, the power of God for salvation is the Gospel. The Law increases sin. Go figure!!
LikeLike
Thanks, Katy. You were more impressed than the Mrs.:
Wife: I read your blog post
Erik: What did you think?
Wife: It was really wordy.
Me: (Maybe I need to get a good dog?)
The number of years our wives spends unimpressed with us after they say “I do” is certainly measured in decades.
LikeLike
This is wonderful news for the Des Moines PCA. Can TKNY be far behind?
From The Des Moines Business Record:
National Journal: Des Moines is hipster haven
Add National Journal to the string of national publications telling the world that Des Moines is the place to be. Under the headline “Do the Most Hipster Thing Possible: Move to Des Moines,” the publication details the tech and music scenes, stops by the Des Moines Social Club, takes a spin through the East Village, and basically says people who think Des Moines is some cultural wasteland are sadly mistaken. The subhead suggests: “Ditch Brooklyn, millennials. The real place to be is Des Moines, a city with a blossoming culture scene, thriving startups and urban beauty.”
LikeLike
Long story short Volkh Conspiracy vs. Legal Insurrection.
Or the homosexuals can do no wrong vs. Israel can do no wrong.
(The product pictured is for advertising purposes only.)
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/houston-mayor-uses-lawfare-against-local-churches/
Can the civil magistrate subpoena sermons? Yeah.
Should this case be thrown out on its ear? Yeah.
Forest for the trees.
Erik, my comment was that if something happens, there’s shouldn’t be a problem dealing with it in the realm it happened. If private, private, if public, public. On the innurnet, on the innernut.
LikeLike
Bob,
You’re still not getting it. If I insult you with a megaphone do you have to go find your own megaphone to rebuke me with?
Oh well…
LikeLike
Huh? Can’t hear you, Erik. What was that you were trying to say?
No republication of your previous please.
Yeah, don’t be a jerk when rebuking a brother and fall into sin yourself, but what’s done in public can and many times should be admonished in public. If you want to take the brother aside privately, fine, but let’s that’s not necessarily a hard and fast rule.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Regarding the article that you provided a portion of and linked me too, I wasn’t impressed with it. It had the feel of tabloid sensationalism and lots of opining. Pretty disappointed coming from someone who writes for First Things.
LikeLike
Susan, consider this. The folks who write for First Things, who may get out more than you do, are disappointed that you are so gullible.
LikeLike
Susan,
Are you sure you weren’t reading “Called to Communion”?
If the word “paradigm” appeared more than 7 times per article, you were.
LikeLike
Darryl,
How exactly have I been gullible? You linked an article written by Damon Linker who used to write for First Things( and Mr Linker isn’t a fan of what he calls “Theocons”), and since he puts Catholics in this category , I don’t think the people at First Things would think I am being gullible by the nonsense that Mr. Linker is trying to pawn off. Since I , in the past, have trusted that you were fair minded about where you got the pieces that you so readily appeal to, I am surprised that you would use that terrible piece of so-called journalism.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Con-man-2472
LikeLike
@Erik
I’ve got a hankering to visit Des Moines now. I once represented a client who was sued in federal court in Des Moines. The suit settled the day before I was supposed to fly there from DC. I’m now a corporate attorney at a biotech company in the Chicago suburbs. I should venture west someday and check out the Hawkeye State.
I love road cycling, and Iowa would be perfect for that. The heavy traffic in the Chicago area relegates me to hours spent on a spinning bike watching old episodes of South Park on Hulu.
Iowa, like Florida, has an unlimited homestead exemption. So, no matter how big of a house you have in Iowa, your creditors can’t touch it (absent a perfected security interest in the property). OJ’s life may have turned out much differently if he’d settled on Des Moines, Dubuque, or Orange City, instead of in south Florida. Oh well.
LikeLike
Bobby – open invitation. Bring your bike out here to Des Moines and I’ll show you some bike trails. Erik’s a freakin’ Cyclone in Ames, Moo-U.
I live in the western burbs. The commute to downtown Des Moines? 17 minutes.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted October 17, 2014 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
How exactly have I been gullible? You linked an article written by Damon Linker who used to write for First Things( and Mr Linker isn’t a fan of what he calls “Theocons”), and since he puts Catholics in this category , I don’t think the people at First Things would think I am being gullible by the nonsense that Mr. Linker is trying to pawn off. Since I , in the past, have trusted that you were fair minded about where you got the pieces that you so readily appeal to, I am surprised that you would use that terrible piece of so-called journalism.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Con-man-2472
No surprise.
LikeLike
Susan, you’re gullible because Linker has a point. You’re not uncomfortable with what transpired the last 2 weeks in Rome? You haven’t read any of the conservative RC sites that have been raising holy hades? And all you choose to do is question Linker’s character. That’s gullible. “The church I chose must always be right, damn it.”
Here‘s a little more to turn you into a serpent:
Or this:
If you’re going to go in on all that audacity of papal supremacy, you can’t hedge your bets. Or can you?
LikeLike
Erik says: “No need to be pen pals. You have the floor here.”
Come on Erik. 😦 (Please hear a conciliatory pleading tone) Will you please give me a chance? I don’t want the floor here. I only want to talk to you. I do hereby declare that anything I say is fair public game. You can copy and paste it anywhere you wish. Nobody even has to know. I will NOT come back over here and repeat anything or even say that we’ve talked at all unless you do. I’m on record for all this now. I’m not looking for a fight man or to gloat or ANYting negative in any way. I just want to talk. Please? http://tiribulus.net/pix/pix2/shake.jpg
LikeLike
Come on, Erik, cut him some slack for the rest of our sakes. He’s beginning to sound like Old Alexian Bob…
LikeLike
Why can’t we be friends
Why can’t we be friends
Why can’t we be friends
Why can’t we be frehhhhhnds…
LikeLike
Susie V. – Since I , in the past, have trusted that you were fair minded about where you got the pieces that you so readily appeal to, I am surprised that you would use that terrible piece of so-called journalism.
No more “Mad Magazine” links, D.G.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Muddy’s the rider, but I could meet you guys to smoke and drink on his back deck after your ride.
If we can get Darryl back to Des Moines you definitely need to make the trip.
LikeLike
T,
Things get creepy with you one and one. I prefer to keep it all public. Kind of like meeting the kidnappers at McDonalds to hand over the ransom money.
LikeLike
Erik,
I missed that it was originally a blog post; in that case, I’m with Mrs. Erik on the wordiness, since my standard for blog posts are a little higher than my standard for blog comments. But the content is still good.
You should thank your helpmate for her presumably free proofreading services and uncensored opinion
LikeLike
To give an historical example of how difficult it is for even simul iestus et peccator Christians to administer the Law, here is what Luther himself said. He, with great vigor, passed the buck to the State:
Martin Luther: “I will not oppose a ruler who, even though be does not tolerate the Gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without offering to submit the case to judgement. For he is
within his rights, since the peasants are not contending any longer for the Gospel but have become faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious murderers, robbers, and blasphemers,
whom even heathen rulers have the right and power to punish….
If he can punish and does not, then he is guilty of all the murder and all the evil which these fellows commit, because, by willful neglect of the divine command, he permits them to practice their wickedness, though he can prevent it, and is in duty bound to do so. Here, then, there is no time for sleeping; no place for patience or mercy. It is the time of the sword, not the day of grace.
Therefore will I punish and smite as long as my heart bears. Thou wilt judge and make things right.’ Thus it may be that one who is killed fighting on the ruler’s side may be a true martyr in the eyes of God…On the other hand, one who perishes on the peasants’ side is an eternal brand of hell…”
Click to access Martin%20Luther%20-%20Against%20the%20Robbing%20and%20Murdering%20Hordes%20of%20Peasants%20(1525).pdf
LikeLike
The source does not post- try again:
Click to access Martin%20Luther%20-%20Against%20the%20Robbing%20and%20Murdering%20Hordes%20of%20Peasants%20(1525).pdf
LikeLike
John Y – the source may not be posting correctly because the “.pdf” is being left off of the hyperlink you included.
LikeLike
Thanks George, that does format the text differently. I’m not sure I can correct that. I think I got it this time.
Click to access Martin%20Luther%20-%20Against%20the%20Robbing%20and%20Murdering%20Hordes%20of%20Peasants%20(1525).pdf
LikeLike
It is underlining the pdf when I copy it, but when I paste, it is taking it off for some reason. Maybe this will work:
umdrive.memphis.edu
The source is from Luther’s essay, “Against the Robbing and Murdering horde of Peasants,” written in 1525. From:
E.G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery, Martin Luther, Documents of Modern History (London:
Edward Arnold, 1970), 121-6.
LikeLike
You can find the entire essay at google if anyone is interested. I cannot get it to copy right.
LikeLike
Let’s see if this works:
Click to access Martin%20Luther%20-%20Against%20the%20Robbing%20and%20Murdering%20Hordes%20of%20Peasants%20(1525).pdf
LikeLike
Nope. Doesn’t like that .pdf extension for some reason. Maybe the web (blog) host software doesn’t like it. DGH- sorry for using our site for a test bed.
LikeLike
I second George’s apology.
LikeLike
Katy,
Getting her uncensored opinion has never been an issue. 22nd anniversary last week.
LikeLike
The ongoing issue with T:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DsnCjI4RmA
LikeLike
Is this tech support hotline?
LikeLike
Erik’s going to ruffle to wrong peasants feathers one day. Tongue-in-cheek, Erik. It won’t be me.
LikeLike
Just testing your sense of humor, Erik. I meant the wrong peasant, not to wrong peasant- obviously.
LikeLike
John,
If you and T show up together at my front door I’m running out the back door.
LikeLike
Erik,
I lean towards anarchist pacifist, so you don’ t have to worry about me. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.
LikeLike
Erik, my wife states the universal: “you’re always right,” but then multiplies the concrete particulars “uh, no.” I don’t know how she synthesizes Plato and Aristotle like that but it’s made me go to poetry in lieu of philosophy.
Life is so complicated.
LikeLike
Muddy,
They do love us to pieces, at least until the kids leave home and the pension is vested.
LikeLike
“It was a sense of continuity which inspired the saying, ‘The king is dead; long live the king.’ A similar sense would justify the statement, ‘The Council is over; the Council has just begun.'”
“The Documents of Vatican II – With Notes and Comments by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Authorities”, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., General Editor, 1966, Guild Press.
LikeLike
“… my wife states the universal: ‘you’re always right,’ but then multiplies the concrete particulars ‘uh, no’ …”
Gee, and I always thought I was the only one who had to face that conundrum. Instead of trying to synthesize the Plato vs. Aristotle over it, though, I’ve turned to Updike’s unique dialectical vision of his Kierkegaarian vs. Barthian paradox of “either/or” vs. “yes/but” (no/but) in his Rabbit tetralogy. It still makes me nuts, but as least I feel like I have a reason to be.
LikeLike
Interview with Laura Lippman (Mrs. David Simon) from earlier this year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/books/review/laura-lippman-by-the-book.html?_r=0
LikeLike
Erik,
Is there no bounds to your brown-nosing?
LikeLike
John,
Yeah — with you.
LikeLike
Erik: “The ongoing issue with T:
Make Love Stay ~ Dan Fogelberg”
I’m not sure how to interpret that Erik, so I will just leave it alone for now. You have me all wrong. Always did. I have never intended ill upon you, Dr. Hart (he knows that) or anybody here, or anywhere else.
All I want to do is talk to you. In fact I really want YOU to talk to ME. I’m all ears.
LikeLike
Bob S. says: “DG
Why not deleting comments in response to T on a case by case basis?
FTM it looks like T’s objective was accomplished with Erik anyway so any by T would be an instance of republication redundant, no?
(Hey, just responding to Erik’s post (who is responding to T?) so we’re off the hook right? Right? )
cheers”
Thank you Bob. (I think 🙂 )
LikeLike
I said the following on the first page of this discussion thread:
“It’s almost impossible for me to believe the biblically brain dead naivete some of you fanatical 2K guys can display on something as crystal clear as this. I haven’t read all the other comments, (skimmed) but it’s almost certain that somebody with at least minimally functioning actually Christian sensibilities will have already said this.
Of course we don’t mind letting somebody see our sermons. We preach them in public after all and pray that the Lord our God will grace us with has many hearers as He would see fit to bring.
Please pay attention now. This will require prying your face out from in front of your pornographic television shows for a couple minutes. I have confidence you can make it. What we DO mind, is the motivation for such actions AND the inevitable next step. That being the pagan regulation of what we can say in our churches and the civil prohibition of any content said pagan government deems unacceptable.
Our noble constitution LONG ago ceased being the actual law of this land when judicial precedent rather that original intent became the basis for interpreting it. We have found in it the right to murder our unborn children and marry people of the same gender, among many many hundreds of other principles it’s authors would have been aghast at, if even the suggestion that they be considered for normative public practice in their country had been made to them.
I am not necessarily indicting 2K as a belief system here. I am indicting the dangerous and idiotic anti biblical application of it on this, as usual, godless website. Whoever made the correlation to Calvin’s Geneva almost gave me a hernia from laughing so hard. 😀
I do hereby apologize for the sweep and tone of this comment. I don’t know that I have a wise way to clarify any further at this time.
LikeLike
In light of Houston’s HERO – or Alice In Wonderland transgendered into Alex In The Women’s Washroom – more ephemeral samizdat under the reign of Google, with all the requisite apologies to Buchanan’s latest on judicial tyranny.
The New Unanimous Declaration of Insubordination by the thirteen Federal Appellate Courts of the United Socialist States of America . . .
. . .We hold these truths to be self-evident to the Self Righteous
and CoerciveCognitive Elite,That all Victims, both men and womyn, are created unto and guaranteed of equal results, outcomes and pay (incomes).
That they are endowed by the Big Bang with certain unalienable and Irresponsible Rights,
That among these are Free Birth Control and Abortions, along with the pursuit of Happy Homosexual Marriages.
That to secure these Big Bang given rights, Federal Appellate Courts are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the assumed consent of the governed by Those Who Know What’s Best For Them . . .
cheers
LikeLike
Bob S says: “assumed consent of the governed”
We are certainly on the same side here Bob, but is this consent really only assumed? We did give this buncha hippified, tie dyed communists a second term after all.
LikeLike
“… We did give this buncha hippified, tie dyed communists a second term after all …”
Greg, to quote the perpetrator in that scene in the diner from the 1983 film Dirty Harry flick, “Sudden Impact” (where he and a bunch of other hoods are holding the place up), “Who’s we?
As I noted in a blog thread quite a while ago, according to exit polls, the profile of the electorate who placed the current Leftist in office in 2008 consisted of a college educated white Roman catholic female between the ages of 18 – 44 who lives in the suburbs of a metropolitan area. The 2012 results were similar.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
That ain’t most of us here, so please don’t generalize.
LikeLike
George says “That ain’t most of us here, so please don’t generalize.”
Certainly I would have burned myself at the stake before voting for this crew George. The point is that a sufficient enough number of our present populous gave sufficient enough assent to put this man and all that that would mean into our highest elected office. Twice.
As I said her some months ago. We are a divided nation and that in such a stark and foundational manner as never before. A morally divided nation is both ungovernable AND incapable of meaningful freedom as one man’s liberty is another man’s license.
The bottom line is that barring a sovereign supernatural work of the Holy Spirit of truly historic proportions, this country is over. It was a nice run, but we are through. One million Tim Kellers and Andy Crouches and all the other “let’s Christianize the pagans and redeem culture” types among us, are worse than useless. They are wasting Gods’ time and resources on a mission that is entirely their own and defiling and debauching their young in the process.
This does not however mean that we should curl up and whimper as we promise not to offend anybody with our preaching. Which is the clear goal of these tyrants in Houston. A biblical impossibility as the cross of Christ is itself, by definition rightly proclaimed, the most intolerably offensive communication ever to fall from the lips of man.
Make no mistake George. While there is a still a sizable contingent not on board, the trajectory of assent is clearly zooming in the leftists direction. My only point was, this nation as a whole is getting what she wants, which absolutely IS the judgement of Romans 1.
LikeLike
A reminder to readers, interactions with Greg will be deleted but Greg’s comments will not.
LikeLike
DGH – sorry, lost my head.
LikeLike
Which seems to suggest the demand for sermons wasn’t quite as persecutorial as portrayed. After all, who glibly provokes persecution? Political silliness, sure, but persecution? Those with martyr complexes may be giving themselves away.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/10/pastors-launch-offensive-strike-flood-houston-lesbian-mayors-office-bibles-sermons/
LikeLike