But How Should I Vote?

Published on by D. G. Hart

John Piper thinks we should vote as if we are not voting (no holy hedonism at the polls):

1) We should do it. But only as if we were not doing it. Its outcomes do not give us the greatest joy when they go our way, and they do not demoralize us when they don’t. Political life is for making much of Christ whether the world falls apart or holds together.

2) There are losses. We mourn. But not as those who have no hope. We vote and we lose, or we vote and we win. In either case, we win or lose as if we were not winning or losing. Our expectations and frustrations are modest. The best this world can offer is short and small. The worst it can offer has been predicted in the book of Revelation. And no vote will hold it back. In the short run, Christians lose (Revelation 13:7). In the long run, we win (Revelation 21:4).

3) There are joys. The very act of voting is a joyful statement that we are not under a tyrant. And there may be happy victories. But the best government we get is a foreshadowing. Peace and justice are approximated now. They will be perfect when Christ comes. So our joy is modest. Our triumphs are short-lived—and shot through with imperfection. So we vote as though not voting.

4) We do not withdraw. We are involved—but as if not involved. Politics does not have ultimate weight for us. It is one more stage for acting out the truth that Christ, and not politics, is supreme.

5)We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.

I appreciate the involved lack of involvement. It strikes me as a way to capture the exilic status of Christians. But when it comes to doing something that may be good for my community, my city, my county, my state, or my nation, this doesn’t amount to much. If it teaches Sarah Palin’s evangelical followers to be less obsessive about the Republican Party, great. But if it allows evangelicals to ignore important differences among policies and candidates, no thanks.

On the other side of the Christian spectrum comes the counsel of the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops:

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

If only the bishops were that careful about associations with Protestants.

So while Piper counsels nonchalance, the bishops raise the stakes and make voting a matter of conscience. In some matters, it could reach that threshold. But once you start raising the specter of conscience, everyone can claim it and compromise — living together — becomes impossible. As I’ve already typed, no thanks.

Postscript: This just in, a two-kingdom perspective.

How then shall we best love our neighbors outside the church? How shall we preserve and protect those lives that are not directly subject to the moral government of the church?

We have no comparable clarity here. Shall we enact laws against abortion? Christians may, in our wisdom, decide it is best to do so. But neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws must be enacted. She lacks the authority, and the wisdom, to do so. Perhaps such a law will backfire; perhaps it will lead to more abortions, to more deadly abortions. Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just. If she bases her actions on what God’s word teaches, the church must remain agnostic on such questions.

Therefore, the church should be mindful of its members’ dual citizenship, and differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.

Yet while the church is bound and limited in what she may teach, the individual Christian is free. She may engage in politics, may lobby for pro-life causes, may hold civil office. But the church may not compel her to do so.

Yes, thank you.

78 thoughts on “But How Should I Vote?”

  1. I’m content so long as we’re not viewing voting as some kind of “political means of grace” or “civil sacrament”

    Like

  2. Today, I heard a recommendation to buy a lottery ticket on election days, because you’re guaranteed to have a better chance of something positive happening through the lottery than voting. Sounds like wise counsel.

    Like

  3. With Piper, even voting is about emotional hygiene.

    “Catholic moral teaching” – more illusion of uniformity.

    Like

  4. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

    MG, substitute “Catholic” with “Christian,” and there’s that Paradigmers and Worldviewers Together thing.

    Like

  5. hmmm, I consider myself 2K but, really? I’m fine with questions and wiggle room for how we make abortion illegal, but questions of whether or not we should? Isn’t preventing murder just about the only thing governments should do in this age in 2K theology, much less libertarianism or anti-federalism.

    Like

  6. Yet while the church is bound and limited in what she may teach, the individual Christian is free. She may engage in politics, may lobby for pro-life causes, may hold civil office. But the church may not compel her to do so.

    No word on what he is doing. Probably something he’s not supposed to according to her and the church.
    Where’s the PAC/focus group for him?
    He probably wants equal rights right away.
    Oh that was s/he.
    Never mind.

    Like

  7. +1 for Brian’s question. Just finished reading “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” and I’ll have to re-read it – it makes a good case. I too wonder how you get from there to debating whether abortion should be legal or not too.

    What would be the best, reasonable, critique of the 2K theology? I really enjoyed the book but would like to read a good counter to it.

    Like

  8. Brian, I think the point is that the church is to be silent on the political question not only of how an ethic is legislatively embodied but also whether it should be. Those are both political questions and it isn’t clear that the church as a spiritual institution has jurisdiction to answer either political question. It’s also immoral to blaspheme God–should the church be silent on how blasphemy is civilly punished but vocal that it should be? Or is it better to say she should only rule those under her jurisdiction and say whether and how her members who do blaspheme should be disciplined (i.e. yes, by excommunication).

    Like

  9. The following line illustrates the problem:

    Yet while the church is bound and limited in what she may teach, the individual Christian is free. She may engage in politics, may lobby for pro-life causes, may hold civil office. But the church may not compel her to do so.

    It is a problem because it shows the Church to be duplicitous. While its enthusiasm in the disciplining of individuals for personal sins knows no bounds, it hides behind theological models when it comes to reprimanding the sins committed by groups.

    Like

  11. Curt, you’re missing how this helps you. What happens when the church decides that civil rights laws are corporate sin and compels you to agitate politically against said laws on pain of discipline? But doesn’t it sound better to leave your conscience free to agitate for civil rights laws even as another member does so in the other direction, and even as even others abstain altogether?

    Like

  12. Zrim,
    Why not approach corporate evil in the same way that we approach sins of the individual? The point is that the Church must call people who sin to repent. And to do so selectively so that the sins of some are focused on and the sins of others are ignored shows an unbiblical favoritism.

    Finally, why not first determine the principle and then work on the implementation later?

    Like

  13. D. G. Hart: The book “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” made a lot of sense but I’ve been STEEPED in the transformationalist mind-set and wanted to read something that was a properly medicated (reasonable and thoughtful) critique as you mentioned.

    Zrim: Your response to Brian’s question were helpful.

    Like

  14. I think the point is that the church is to be silent on the political question not only of how an ethic is legislatively embodied but also whether it should be. Those are both political questions and it isn’t clear that the church as a spiritual institution has jurisdiction to answer either political question

    Au contraire. Scripture says,  “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Rom. 13:3”
    which was what Brian was getting at.
    It may be political as to how an ethic will be embodied and outside the institutional church’s competence per se, but there is no question that an ethic will be embodied, much more what kind of natural/moral law ethic it should be. Pro abortion ain’t it (and Hippocrates approves this pro life message).

    Like

  15. Curt, I’m not holding my breath, but until you relinquish the category of societal sin you won’t see certain benefits of 2k. And one irony is how you make things safe for the very selectivity you lament. I am both morally and politically opposed to abortion, but when the church allows political petitions in opposition into fellowship hall after the morning service, I howl because it alienates those with a different set of politics. Instead of being selective about what the church backs politically, isn’t better to let me pull the “no” lever and the other guy the “sure, why not” lever come voting day? But for the social gospeler (in either direction), heaven forbid such a thing, right?

    Like

  17. How shall we take John’s agitating of Herod?

    “For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ (Mark 6:18)

    Clearly, Herod was allowed by a temporal authority (Rome) higher than himself to have his brother’s wife and live quite freely. But John’s target was not Rome nor Rome’s lawless policy. His target was the lawlessness of a particular sinner. Thus no man is so highly stationed in the state he is off-limits from the call of repentance and faith. On the other hand, the state is not a man. The state did not have a brother’s wife.

    Like

  20. Since there was an open question about 2K, I have one myself. If a Christian were to be elected dictator, could he make laws restricting blasphemy and Sabbath work without catching 2Kers’ ire? Or do 2kers require pluralism?

    Like

  21. 37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

    Preacher was a-talkin’, there’s a sermon he gave
    He said, “Every mans conscience is vile and depraved
    You cannot depend on it to be your guide
    When it’s you who must keep it satisfied”
    It ain’t easy to swallow, it sticks in the throat-Pope Bob

    Like

  23. John H.
    Posted November 5, 2014 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
    Darryl, I was trying to support a 2k with that comment. My wife says I am too subtle.

    Actually, the answer is: You Should Vote Republican, because the Democrats are enemies of religious freedom. Even your Calvinist Confessions know that.

    The Obama Administration tried to choke off even the freedom of churches to hire people who are in harmony with their beliefs. Fortunately, the godless bastards lost, 9-0.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

    “2K” my ass. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.

    Like

  24. Joel, if you can find a confessional Protestant magistrate who doesn’t bend church matters for public ends, or as long as the dictator (Geneva, Boston) lets the church be the church, fine. 2k’s problem is when magistrates begin to think of their work as spiritual or religious or ushering in the kingdom of grace. Of course, the other problem is with those pietists and neo-Calvinists who argue the civil government is inherently religious.

    Like

  28. GAS-X, what’s wrong with trusting the conscience to judge? It’s just as God-given as eyes (to know things really are there) and legs (to carry me across the room).

    Joel, but if Doug Wilson (watch out, secularists) or the BBs (watch out, gays) gain political power 2kers would encourage submission, even all the way to the 2k gas chamber.

    Like

  29. Zrim,
    You’re beginning to sound like a car salesman. Is that how we should promote theology? Just think of how the kings of Judah and Israel could have appealed to the Old Testament prophets.

    Like

  30. Zrim- Because it’s you who must keep it satisfied. Who enjoys the pain of never ending torture? Jesus said not to trust your eyes in relation to your conscience. Dude, pluck’em out.
    The Romanist would rationalize that with a super added gift one can reason their way to a healthy conscience. Say, for example, your super added gift is so good you can win Ben Stein’s money. If that’s the case you can certainly reason your way to God. You don’t even need the church.
    To be fair, Calvin did employ an antithesis for the conscience before and after justification. A transformed conscience (doh!).

    Like

  31. GAS-X, I’m talking about the conscience for temporal matters, not eternal. The conscience can only convict and never reveal the gospel. And that’s the point–the conscience aligns with creation and the law, so what’s the problem trusting it to chart the temporal life which is constituted for creation and law?

    Like

  32. Quote 1: Just think of how the kings of Judah and Israel could have appealed to the Old Testament prophets.

    Quote 2: Jesus said not to trust your eyes in relation to your conscience. Dude, pluck’em out.

    Trying hard to figure out which is the bigger laugh, considering the sources.

    Like

  33. z- Isn’t the law (love God and neighbor perfectly) the goal? The gospel is necessary because the conscience is incapable. An artificial dichotomy between the temporal and eternal seems to suggest two different laws.

    Like

  35. GAS-X, Belgic 2 says there are two books by which we know God: “First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book…Second, God makes himself known to us more clearly by his holy and divine Word…” Is Belgic making false dichotomies?

    Like

  37. TVD, such a vote is conscionable but it is not a commandment by which I bind the conscience of the flock. On the other hand, being subject with honor to those in authority is an explicit command for the church. Such commands never seem to be even small printed on the bottom of voter guides.

    Like

  38. GAS-X, they do. And if that’s the case then what is written on the conscience is the same one written on the stones (Ro 2), so why second guess the former?

    Like

  39. D.G.,
    But groups do sin whether those groups are corporations, the state, society, or even one’s peer group. And depending on how we respond to those sins, we have varying degrees of responsibility for the sins of the groups we are in.

    We need to realize that making sin just an individual venture is not Scriptural. Remember that punishment for Achan’s sin is on him and his family. In fact, the Lord tells Joshua that Israel sinned in what Achan has done.

    Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 9 states that Israel was being punished for their own sin and the sins of their ancestors.

    We destined for punishment because of Adam’s sin but are save because of Christ’s work.

    But it is also a simple fact that as sinful humans form groups, those groups sin. Isaiah 58 tells us of the sins of God’s people.

    How is it that we have sinned when we personal treat someone else wrongly but are innocent when the group we belong to does the same sin? How is that? How is that Biblical?

    Like

  40. Curt, Amazon.com a family? Never occurred to me.

    You really need to get out of the OT. You’d make a great Curteziah, some prophet to bring Israel to heel. But believe it or not, Israel is history.

    Then again, you are more interesting than the average theonomist.

    Like

  41. Perhaps the relation between personal sins and national sins should be explored. Here is a study by a person who was both a lawyer and preacher… .

    THANKSGIVING SERMON, DECEMBER 1, 1836.
    BY WILLIAM T. DWIGHT. (Yale, 1813).

    II CORINTHIANS, iii. 17.

    “WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS LIBERTY.”

    “Nor should it be less remembered, that Religion, so far as it prevails, destroys those individual and NATIONAL SINS, which are hostile to freedom. These are the same in an individual as in a nation, and they include every violation whatever of the law of God, but peculiarly those of a gross and flagrant character. These are profaneness, sabbath-breaking, lewdness, intemperance, fraud, perjury, falsehood, the idolatrous love of money, and various others; sins, which are not less the foes of true and rational freedom, than they are of public and private morality, and of domestic happiness.

    So far as these iniquities have abounded in other nations, and particularly in those which have been more or less free, they have undermined at the same moment the pillars of law, order, public prosperity and private harmony : such is their necessary and invariable result. Athens and Rome lost not their freedom, until their citizens and rulers had become thus corrupted; such, we have also seen, was the ruin of the Israelites; such has been the ruin of the French republic: such, if we are to lose our freedom and become the last, melancholy sacrifice on the altar of despotism, is to be our ruin But the religion of the Bible can resist even this desolating flood. If it should generally control our citizens, it will not only say “Hitherto shalt thou come but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed :“ but it will dry up the very fountains which feed this burning river.

    The fear of God and the love of Christ, as shed abroad in the heart by the power of the Holy Ghost, are stronger than even the fiends of the bottomless pit:
    they can overcome every vice, and hold selfishness in chains, and purge the inmost recesses of pollution, and render a great nation not less than a single individual moral, peaceful, free and happy.” pp. 14-15.

    Dwight was the son of Yale President Timothy Dwight, and a great grandson of Jonathan Edwards. He first worked as a lawyer. in Philadelphia. About 1831, upon attending the Arch street church in Philadelphia, he came under the conviction of the preaching of Dr. Skinner, and from that, eventually pursued a career in the Ministry as pastor of the First Congregational Church in Portland, Maine until his retirement in 1862.

    Like

  42. z- the conscience subjectively apprehends what is written in creation just as it subjectively apprehends what is written on stone.

    Like

  43. GAS-X, right because it’s part of the total in total depravity. But so are my flat feet and weak eyes, yet I can still trust them to do their designated work.

    Like

  44. Russell, A+ on the history lesson, but so what? It still makes things safe for social and political gospel, plus not even Curt “OT Prophets” Day has told us how nations can repent, be baptized and communicant members of a local church, which makes the category of national sin dubious.

    Like

  46. Z- you just painted yourself into a Romanists corner. A little dash of grace and a semi-functional conscience and you’re good to go.

    Like

  47. “National sin’ seems to be a foggy derivative of a more conclusive extant biblical category: the world, the city of man. We recognize that the city of man is antithetical to the city of God but we do not call that city to repent. It will only be brought to heal on the Day of His appearing. We do, however, call sinners who have sought refuge and salvation in the city of man to repent (‘men of Athens I perceive that in every way you are very religious”) and seek refuge only in the city above.

    As lusty neophiles, the Athenians belong to this present evil age. The only way they become citizens of the age to come is through Christ’s benefits not through a more rigorous application of Moses.

    Like

  49. John,
    The prophets did not call Israel and Judah to repent? Jonah didn’t call Nineveh to repent?

    And one country invading another in order to expand its borders is not sin? A nation kidnapping, buying, and enslaving people based on race is not sin? Ethnically cleansing a land is not sin? I could go on but how is it that people who portray themselves as champions of by faith and grace alone are squeamish recognizing sin in their lives?

    Like

  50. D.G.,
    Then again, you might want to consider the whole counsel of God and answer the questions asked. And you might want to consider whether your emphasis on the individual is more due to Western and American culture than to Scripture.

    And you might want to consider some consistency issues as well. If we are silent about the abortions being performed in our nation, don’t we bear some degree of guilt for these and future abortions? If so, why aren’t we guilty when we are silent when our nation conducts illegal and immoral laws or embraces an economic system based on the love of money?

    Like

  52. Curt, I am thinking that pulpits among the Gentiles are enough to call Nineveh to repent. Running into every public square inch waving policy proposals as if they are sound doctrine is not preaching repentance. Like Jonah, we announce the coming wrath of God and the only place of refuge.

    By the way, won’t we need the keys of the kingdom to confirm that some have indeed repented? See Zrim’s primo post above on baptism, et al.

    Like

  54. John,
    One does not have to provide substitute policies to recognize and preach against the sins of the current policies. And I don’t believe it is gov’t’s job to believe in the Gospel; but they are required to do justice.

    So John, what do you think we should do when government allows abortions and women seek to have them performed? Should we be silent? And if not, should we then be silent about the illegal and immoral wars and the immoral economy for which we have a degree of responsibility because of we live in a democracy?

    Like

  56. “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.”

    Well, as long as your intentions were good.

    And people doubt that the RCC has been captured by liberals?

    Like

  58. Tom – Actually, the answer is: You Should Vote Republican, because the Democrats are enemies of religious freedom. Even your Calvinist Confessions know that.

    Erik – But Tom, our local Democrat State Senator ran an ad in the paper with the names of 1,000 of his supporters in it and I recognized several Roman Catholics. I didn’t recognize any evangelical names.

    How can your friends who have the superior paradigm get politics so wrong?

    Like

  59. David C. Noe – Off topic: the person who goes by SemperReformanda, can you please send me an email? davidcnoe at gmail.com

    thanks

    Erik – To the guy who found my wallet at Buster’s the other night and turned it in – Thanks. Your kindness is much appreciated.

    Since when did we start running Personals?

    Like

  60. Russell – Dwight was the son of Yale President Timothy Dwight, and a great grandson of Jonathan Edwards. He first worked as a lawyer. in Philadelphia. About 1831, upon attending the Arch street church in Philadelphia, he came under the conviction of the preaching of Dr. Skinner, and from that, eventually pursued a career in the Ministry as pastor of the First Congregational Church in Portland, Maine until his retirement in 1862.

    Erik – How has that heritage worked out for Yale?

    Like

  63. Curt has to be a team of kooks gathering on the park bench when they take a smoke break from yelling on street corners (sometimes using a Marshall stack)

    Like

  64. Zrim says: “which makes the category of national sin dubious.”

    I would say, in a nutshell, that in the case of a country like the United States, originally a representative republic, that sin actually can be discerned at the national level by the preponderance of private conscience as that then translates directly into normative public practice.

    That which is considered right and wrong and hence induces either societal praise or condemnation respectively, can indeed be said to be a public conscience. A conscience seared in corruption is one that increasingly promotes and celebrates evil while suppressing and denigrating righteousness.

    Can this then not be said to be “national sin”? This cannot be remedied however by unbiblical cockeyed schemes to enforce saintly behavior upon a populous of sinners.

    Perversions like abortion and gay marriage could not be up for public discussion in a society where the church is free to function as commissioned AND is actually doing so.

    The church’s godly influence in a society is accomplished by the power of her mere presence if she is herself right with her God. Political and or cultural force and or manipulation is a sure symptom of a church that is attempting to cover spiritual anemia with works of the flesh (broadly speaking).

    Like

  65. Dear all this talk suggesting the church being some kind of soul of society: Don’t you know the family (believing or pagan) is the cornerstone of human society?

    Like

  68. @ No-one in particular, especially whose name might start with a letter that rhymes with a letter that stands for Pool:

    Jeremiah 31.29-34. National sin is like, so BC.

    Like

  69. Kent – Curt has to be a team of kooks gathering on the park bench when they take a smoke break from yelling on street corners (sometimes using a Marshall stack)

    Erik – They’re like that hacker group “Anyonymous” except they go by the name “Nocluenonymous”

    Like

  70. T – The church’s godly influence in a society is accomplished by the power of her mere presence if she is herself right with her God.

    Erik – Even the best of churches is generally all over the map in terms of its membership. Some are there regularly, some are under discipline, some haven’t been seen in months, some are shopping around.

    Is that church “right with God” and ready to open up a can on society?

    Like

  73. Erik – How has that heritage worked out for Yale?

    Actually, despite Yale’s founding principles, when Dwight became president in 1795, he found a class of students and professors holding to French atheism, and in the case of the profs…fired them. The students, however, were introduced to consider Theology in Dwight’s discussions and lectures. Dwight’s Theology makes the case… .
    This blog has a concise look:
    http://dschmus.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/timothy-dwight-yale-president/

    To say that any school’s heritage should mean it will follow said heritage in succeeding generations is a false conclusion, as they “Forgot to Remember”. The buildings may be the same, and in the case of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, their libraries have on file the very books, manuscripts and records of these esteemed men, and their bodies in their cemeteries, yet it does not follow that future profs and students carry forward with the same… .

    The temptation for today, is the all too quick jump to slander the life and work of our ancient esteemed worthies because the institutions to which they were attached, no longer embrace their original doctrines.

    Like

  74. Erik asks: – Even the best of churches is generally all over the map in terms of its membership. Some are there regularly, some are under discipline, some haven’t been seen in months, some are shopping around.

    Is that church “right with God” and ready to open up a can on society?

    I was speaking of THE church in general. Not a specific communion or congregation. The pretty consistent conscience of the church at large until the last third or so of the 20th century in the western world. For instance. Even Schleirmacher, Tillich and Bultmann would have been aghast at the thought of publicly proclaimed gay marriage for instance. To say nothing of any even vaguely conservative outfit that dare call itself “Christian” in generations past. In a society like ours, where like it or not, judeo christian morals were the foundation of our freedom, when the church slides, the nation slides with her.

    “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader….No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
    Samuel Adams

    Like

  76. T – I was speaking of THE church in general. Not a specific communion or congregation.

    E – If individual congregations are messed up, why would the aggregate of those individual congregations be any better off?

    Bryan tells us the Catholic church hasn’t slidden an inch and yet we still have gay marriage in America. How can it be?

    And what mechanism is there to revive all of Protestantism?

    Like

  78. Eric: “Russell, I don’t know if Reformed folks are allowed to have “ancient esteemed worthies”.

    Hmmm…Looks like they had them in…Scotland. And Princeton… .

    http://www.wishart.org/scotsworthies.html

    From the web page:
    “The Scots Worthies is a revision by Rev. Andrew Bonar, D.D. of John Howie’s famous Biographia Scoticana : A Brief Historical Account of the Lives, Characters, and Memorable Transactions of the Most Eminent Scots Worthies. John Howie’s book is one of the most important early books on the Covenanting Movement”.

    And from our own “Worthies”. Charles Hodge, concerning Princeton, 1872:

    “Brethren, I said I am an Alumnus. I know the feelings with which you revisit your Alma Mater. Those feelings are very complex, including those with which children return to the home of their childhood, and those with which a man, with uncovered head and unsandaled feet, enters the cemetery of his fathers. Here are the tombs of Dickinson and Burr, of Edwards, of Davies and of their illustrious successors in the presidency of our sister-institution. Here lie the ashes of Archibald Alexander and of Samuel Miller. The memory of these men constitutes the aureola which surrounds the brows of Princeton, a glory which excites no envy, and yet attracts all eyes.” pg. 54.

    “PROCEEDINGS CONNECTED WITH THE SEMI-CENTENNIAL COMMEMORATION OF THE PROFESSORSHIP OF REV. CHARLES ‘HODGE, D.D., LL.D
    IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, N. J., APRIL 24, 1872.”

    https://archive.org/details/proceedingsconne00hodg

    I have also stood at their graves…and handled some of their associate’s original writings. “Worthies” just begins to describe them… .

    Like

Leave a comment

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