A Look at Dr. David Wright’s and IWU’s Surrender to the LGBT Religion — Part II

I conclude my fisking of Indian Wesleyan University’s President’s Dr. David Wright’s Testimony in favor of taking away civil rights from many Christian business owners in exchange for IWU’s being allowed to be a marginally “Christian” University.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

They (the LGBT activists) are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness.   Our love for them means we cannot affirm a pathway that we sincerely believe is mistaken, but neither do we want them to be denied the basic human rights that are their due as fellow citizens.

Rev. McAtee responds,

1.) What does Dr. Wright mean when he says that “they (LGBT activists) are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?” This is such a circumlocution. This could be said of any criminal class.

a.)  Necrophiliacs are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness.

b.)  Pedophiliacs and Pederasts are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

c.) Bestialics  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

d.) Kidnappers  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

e.) Rapists  are men and women just like us who are doing their best to find their pathway to well-being and happiness?

The fact that Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University, can speak like this proves that he has accepted the LGBT lifestyle as normative for the public square. He would never utter the counter examples above as an attempt of rational speech and yet here he is trying to make his listeners have sympathy for those involved in the kind of behavior that the men of Christendom have made illegal as  being vile and criminal for thousands of years.

2.) Wright insists he does not desire the “basic human rights” of perverts, which are their due, to be denied. And yet Dr. David Wright has no problem denying the basic human rights of “Freedom of Association,” to Biblical Christians.  Biblical Christians must forgo the basic human right of expecting their daughters to go into public bathrooms that don’t have perverted men dressed as women in those same bathrooms.  IWU President David Wright’s testimony desires the Biblical Christian’s basic human right of being able to honor God in their business denied so that the LGBT can honor their God by forcing Christians to give legitimacy to the God of self that informs the LGBT movement.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

We believe all of us who live together as law-abiding citizens of this state must enjoy the basic protections of the law.  To deny one person the protections of law is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all persons the protection of law.

Rev. McAtee responds,

1.) Here Dr. Wright assumes what he has not, and cannot prove and that is that those involved in the LGBT lifestyle are “law abiding citizens.” For millennial LGBT behavior has been criminalized.  Back in 1977- 1982 when I attended Marion College, if it were found out that a student was a sodomite they would have been tossed out of school. So, what has happened between 1982 and 2016 that has changed wherein this behavior has gone from criminal to “law abiding?What has happened wherein we have gone from throwing students out of Marion college who were LGBT to now having a Indiana Wesleyan President now categorize them as “Law abiding citizens?”

2.) Wright, by favoring special rights in the public square for LGBT people has surrendered the basic protections of the law for those who favor “Freedom of Association,” and for those who desire to honor God in their public square business.  What David Wright is actually saying here is that “to deny one criminal LBGT person the protection of their criminal behavior is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all law abiding persons the protection of law.” Wright fails to realize that those who are criminals do not deserve the protection of the law. What Wright should have said, were he operating as a Biblical Christian, is, “To deny one Christian the protection of law is ultimately to lay the groundwork for denying all Christians the protection of law.” This is what Wright is doing. Via Wright’s testimony Wright is denying Biblical Christians the protection of the law in favor of providing the color of law’s protection to the LGBT community. Law here, can either protect the Biblical Christian’s Freedom of Association, or it can protect the LGBT in forcing Christians to affirm the LBGT lifestyle by doing business with them. Shame on Dr. David Wright.

Dr. David Wright, President of Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Indiana,

In summary, then, we believe that our laws must honor the fundamental rights of freedom of religion, of conscience, and of peaceful coexistence granted us in the constitutions of our state and our nation.  If we abandon or curtail the right to sincerely held religious convictions, peaceably pursued among fellow citizens, we will in time deny all other rights as well.

Rev. McAtee responds,

But David, you’re not honoring the fundamental rights of freedom of religion as it pertains to freedom of association. David, you’re not honoring the fundamental rights of freedom of conscience for those Biblical Christian’s in the public square whose consciences are being violated in being forced to do business with the LGBT community. President Wright, there can be no peaceful coexistence between the God of the Christian and the God of the LGBT movement. You are kidding yourself Dr. Wright and dishonoring Christ at the same time.

Dr. Wright, you seem to think that we can arrive at some kind of social order neutrality between Biblical Christians and pagans and their Gods. You seem to think that a peaceful co-existence can be attained whereby those who are lovers of Christ and those who are haters of Christ can both pursue their diametrically opposed religions in the public square.  What’s more you seem to think this while you yourself are testifying so as to curtail the civil rights of Biblical Christians in the public square. That you can not see that this is what you are doing is astounding.

By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are saying that the desire of Biblical Christians to live out their faith in peace and liberty is radical. By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are saying that it is Biblical Christians who are the problem in the public square and that they need to be reigned in.  By you testimony Dr. Wright you are countenancing men in public bathrooms that our daughters may be using.  By you testimony Dr. Wright you are giving cover for those who are pushing legislation that is, in essence, bigoted against Biblical Christian in the public square.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned Dr. Wright. What you have done is far worse. You have helped set the fire to Rome.

A Look at Dr. David Wright’s and IWU’s Surrender to the LGBT Religion — Part I

The President of my alma mater on 27 January 2016 testified before the Indiana State Assembly in favor of legislation that would extend special rights to the LGBT community.

Below is the link of Dr. Wright’s testimony,

http://www.iwupresident.com/my-testimony/

I will spend some time fisking this testimony but before we get to that let me provide just a little background. The legislation that Dr. Wright is supporting has, as its intent, according to reports, the elevating of protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Hoosiers, while still protecting religious freedom and other rights cherished by conservatives.  The legislation here that Dr. Wright is supporting would mean, in part, that a Christian campus like Indiana Wesleyan University would remain a kind of safe “ghetto zone,” for now, where Christians could still ply their Christianity, such as it is. The trade off that Wright is surrendering in order to secure that safe campus ghetto zone would be his support of elevating protections for LGBT people. Keep in mind that the elevating that we are talking about means that Christians outside the safe ghetto zones, that the legislation creates, will be forced to treat LGBT’ism as normative for the culture and social order. Wright prioritizes his precious campus at the price of surrendering up individual Christians outside the campus ghetto safe zones, some of whom who have been trained at IWU, to the maws of LGBT political correctness. This looks a great deal like Wright throwing someone else out of the lifeboat so he can save himself and his own interests.

Of course the LGBT true believers are outraged with this bill. They don’t want campus ghetto safe zones to be created. They want to infiltrate and conquer everything before them. Wright believes that his position is compromise and that by it he gains half a loaf. The problem here is that everyone with half a brain in their head  knows that once the LGBT community consolidates their gains they’ll come back for the campus Christian ghetto safe zones.  Does Wright really believe that once LGBT’ism is completely normative in the broader culture that they will tolerate his precious campus to be historically Christian?

Well, therein lies the background to Dr. David Wright’s testimony and capitulation before the Indiana state assembly. Now for fisking Wright’s testimony itself.

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

IWU is a Christ-centered university that pursues the best traditions of academic inquiry and teaching while remaining grounded in the rich intellectual and spiritual tradition of the historic Christian faith.  For 95 years our university has served the public good of our state and region by graduating exceptional citizens who serve as some of our region’s best teachers, nurses, counselors, business people, pastors, and scientists.

Rev. McAtee responds,

Dr. Wright you say that IWU is grounded in the rich intellectual and spiritual tradition of the historic Christian faith.

Can you name one notable Theologian from Church History prior to 1950 or so that testified in favor or elevating LGBT protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Hoosiers?

Surely if your grounded in such a rich intellectual and spiritual tradition that is the Christian faith you can find a few Theological heavy weights from that tradition that spoke like this?

Augustine? Anselm? Bonaveture? Grotius? Luther? Wesley? Asbury? St. John of the Cross? Meister Eckhart?

I didn’t think so.

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

We do not exist for the purpose of proselytizing people to our denomination though we are happy when our students find their faith strengthened and made more meaningful in their lives as a result of studying with us.  Instead we exist to serve the public good.

Rev. McAtee responds,

Note the last sentence above. Wright offers as the reason for IWU’s existence is to serve the public good. I would have thought that a Christian man who is President of a Christian University would say that, “we exist to serve the God of the Bible and His Lord Christ.” Already out of the gate, in this testimony, the careful eye notes that Wright is man centered in his thinking. He posits that the University exists to serve the public good.

Secondly, how can Wright make the case that it is for the public’s good that LGBT’ism protections are elevated? Is it the public’s good that the public square be paganized even more? Is it the public’s good that Wright send his trained “world changers” into a public square where the law requires them to shut up regarding right and wrong, and good and bad, in terms of sodomy?

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

Here is our mission:  Indiana Wesleyan University is a Christ-centered academic community committed to changing the world by developing students in character, scholarship, and leadership.

Rev. McAtee responds,

1.) Committed to changing the world while at the same time committed that the world should be allowed to legislate against the world being changed by the students of IWU. How can IWU’s students change the World for Christ when it’s own President is advancing a position that will not allow the world to be changed in terms of a sexuality that reflects Christian doctrine?

2.) Are we to look for the same character of IWU graduates that we are finding in its President? A character that seeks to protect its own at the expense of the expansion of Christianity in the public square? If this is the kind of character we can expect from IWU students then I find myself hoping I don’t encounter IWU graduates.

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

So I come today to offer you reflections on the current intersection of civil rights, public and private moral values, and religious freedom from the perspective of a deeply religious, conservative, yet irenic and hospitable university community.

Rev. McAtee responds,

There is not a thing conservative about what Wright is offering. However, it is most certainly “deeply religious.” Unfortunately, it is not religious in a Christian sense.  And this is not so much irenic as it is surrender.

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

“Second, I wish to commend those of you who, under exceedingly difficult and contentious circumstances, are seeking ways to wisely balance the civil rights of all of Indiana’s citizens, while also safeguarding the religious freedoms we enjoy as Americans.”

Rev. McAtee responds,

I wonder … if LGBT people have civil rights that need to be balanced then why don’t necrophiliacs have civil rights to be balanced or pedophiles have civil rights to be balanced or bestialiacs have civil rights to be balanced? If we are going to extend civil rights to one perverted form of sexuality why not extend civil rights to all perverted forms of sexuality? I fear, Dr. Wright, that you are a hater not wanting to treat all perverts with the respect they deserve.

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

“I am struck with how often fear and anger are the subtexts of the conversations. Fear and anger are present on all sides of these debates. “

Bret responds,

Can you show me from Scripture where anger is universally sin? Maybe this is a time for anger Dave? Maybe you should be angry?

In this testimony, you speak about the rich Christian tradition from which you speak out of Dr. Wright. Well, allow me to quote someone from the rich Christian tradition who had something to say about anger,

“He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.”

John Chrysostom, c. 349, Archbishop of Constantinople

Next you mention fear?

Well, fear is an act of worship and so belongs only to God but if I were to fear my fear would be of sell outs like you who think you’re doing the Lord Christ a favor by testifying to elevate LGBT protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Hoosiers.

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

If we are intent on following the metaphor of warfare to its conclusion, this means we will be locked in combat until one side dominates or destroys the other by force.

But I ask you, how can we embrace a trajectory of warfare that leads us to seek the destruction of our enemies when our enemies are our neighbors?

Rev. McAtee responds,

What a terrible thing that Christ and His people would have dominion over the enemies of Christ.  God the Father speaks to His Son in Psalm 2,

Thou shalt break them (God’s enemies) with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

But Dr. Wright says, “We dare not think about having dominion over God’s enemies.”

Psalm 2 teaches the Christ hater to,

12 Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way,

But Dr. Wright says,

“We just want to live in peace and harmony with you. We would never want to have Godly dominion.”

Then Dr. Wright moves to the whole trajectory language. Here we see that Wright would rather seek the destruction of Biblical Christians by forcing them to create a social order in keeping with the religion of LGBT’ism than the end of a LGBT religion that imprisons and destroys people.

Dr. Wright, isn’t the whole goal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to destroy the enemies of the Gospel through conversion?

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly saying,

“By the same token, our religious convictions also call upon us to honor the dignity and worth of our fellow citizens who, for their own good reasons, disagree with and choose to live in ways contrary to our convictions. In fact, in this intensely conflicted debate about sexual orientation and gender identity, most of us who hold the religious convictions I have described know, care for, serve, and associate with persons who are either uncertain about their sexual orientation or have come to the settled conviction that their personal happiness lies in the pursuit of a life different from the one we would choose.”

Rev. McAtee responds,

Dave, you can not have a stable social order and culture by trying to combine people who have diametrically opposite worldviews. This is what you are championing. The way worldviews work is that they favor those who embrace them and disfavor those who do not.

We have come to the point where the ability to honor the dignity and worth of LGBT folks is not possible because they have come out of the closet and will not be satisfied until Christians are shoved back into the closet they escaped from, and here you are helping the LGBT crowd push Christians back into the closet in the public square.

The expansion of LGBT civil rights will, by necessity, mean the diminution of the civil rights of those who are Biblical Christians. You seem to think that it is possible to have these two religions co-exist in one social order but that is not possible. We have that truth before us every day. Our children are being recruited for the LGBT agenda. Our Churches and Universities are collapsing in the face of this onslaught. And yet here you are thinking that these polar opposite religions can live in harmony with one another.

President David Wright of Indiana Wesleyan University testified before the Indiana State Assembly

“What do we want for these friends and neighbors of ours? We are not at war with them. We are in conflict with their understanding of the pathway to personal and social well-being. But we do not view them as enemies to be ridiculed, bullied, punished, or persecuted. They are the neighbors whom Jesus has called us to love as we love ourselves.”

Rev. McAtee responds,

We are in conflict with their understanding of the pathway to personal and social well-being but we are not at war with them?

Really?

They desire to build a different social order and culture than what we envision. They intend to recruit our children and grandchildren to their cause, religion, and lifestyle. They intend to change legislation so that we are forced to associate and do commerce with them, and yet, you want to insist that we are not at war with them? What is war if it is not that?

Your whole Testimony Dave, was nothing but surrender wrapped in phrases that weren’t even all that high sounding. Further, your whole testimony Dave, sounds a good deal like a treaty that communicates friendship with the world which is warfare against God (James 4:4).

Biblical Christians are the ones being ridiculed, bullied, punished, and persecuted and yet here you are worried about the privileges of the enemies of Christ who are doing all that ridiculing, bullying, punishing and persecuting.

If the Church in the West is met with the Sunset of its existence, when the record is written, if it is written, it will be written that it was Church-men like you and your advisers who were the Judas-goats who betrayed the cause of Christ with your feckless testimonies and ubiquitous surrenders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Wheaton Imbroglio and “Worshiping the Same God.”

The Protestant way of discussing the issue of God and His nature and worship starts with the Bible as determinative in all matters.  Thus biblical theology always trumps philosophical analysis.  Said succinctly and simply put, God and Allah are not the same.  Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.

Rev. Bassam Madnay 
Pioneer of Arabic radio missions over a period from 1958 to 1994

Developer of a Bible-based ministry, which emphasizes the centrality of the Word of God in missions to Muslims.

Author of several books in Arabic for the follow-up ministry that was used in his work for use among Arabic-speaking people.

Wheaton College continues to struggle with what to do with  professor Larycia Hawkins who said that  Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Of course this is all complicated by the racial dynamics as  professor Larycia Hawkins is one of only a few African American professors at Wheaton. Doubtless, were Wheaton to fire  professor Larycia Hawkins, there would be cries of racism and so it is easy to see how wanting to avoid those potential cries of “racism,” might become part of the decision making matrix in this case. To put it bluntly, Wheaton may well be tempted to not stand by its Christian confession so that it can avoid being seen as intolerant, bigoted, and racist by firing  professor Larycia Hawkins.

This debate is muddled up by imprecise thinking.

First, as there is only one God, religions which assert contradictory truths about that one God, as revealed in the OT and NT alone, are therefore not serving any God at all, but a fiction of their imagination. Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God since the “god” Muslims and Jews worship is a no god. The “god” of Jews and Muslims has no being or existence and so cannot be aligned with the the God who has being and existence.

Second, as the essence of Christianity is to affirm, with the Scriptures, that God is plurality in Monotheism,  we see contradiction to the false religions of Judaism and Islam, who worship a god without being or existence, who, nonetheless affirm that their no gods are unitary monotheistic gods who have no plurality.  How can it be the case that Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all worship the same God when the true God of Christianity and the false no gods of Judaism and Islam can’t even agree on the nature of God?

Third, the Christian faith affirms that there is no worship of God apart from the Son; The Lord Christ (John 14:6). In contrast Judaism denigrates Christ as can be seen by the Talmud’s affirmation that Christ is in hell boiling in hot semen. In contrast Islam, while esteeming Christ as a great prophet, still denigrates him by refusing to identify Christ as being very God of very God. The fact that Christianity affirms the centrality of Christ in order for worship of God to be possible as contrasted with Islam and Judaism which denigrate Christ proves again that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do not and cannot worship the same God.

Fourth, this muddled headed thinking doesn’t understand that words find their meaning dependent upon the plausibility structure wherein they rest. The word “God,” then, like all words, is filled with meaning only as consistent with the paradigmatic contextual web wherein the word exists. It is true that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all use the word “God,” but when that word and concept is conditioned by all the rest of their respective contradictory worldviews the end results is a shared word with meaning and referent that has nothing in common except the lexical form and auditory pronunciation.

As we explore this idea that “Christians and Muslims,” worship the same God we butt up against some other difficulties.

Ask yourself whether or not if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God does that mean they all hate the same devil? It would seem to be the case that if the former holds the latter must hold as well. If we all worship the same God then how could we all not hate the same devil since God and the devil are polar opposites. A commitment to worshiping the same God would commit us to agreeing on hating the same devil.

 

Next we might inquire that if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God and they all hate the same devil would that not mean that they all believe that the same God delivers men from the same devil via the same salvation? Here we get perilously close to what I believe the real project of this linguistic subterfuge is all about and that is the collapsing of these contradictory faith systems into one ecumenical miasma.

There are those who serve on the mission field who will insist that saying that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God makes evangelism easier as a place of commonality can be agreed upon so as to facilitate further conversation on the character of this God. However, if we begin in our discussions presupposing a shared God it is hard to envision that we will not end our conversations Islamifying our Christianity or Judaizing our Christianity to one degree or another when all is said and done.

Honestly, this attempt at insisting that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same God is just another example of the postmodernism worm eating away at all meta-narratives in favor of its own meta-narrative which teaches that all is social construct and is in favor of a kind of tortured monism.

In all this we must keep in mind that God is not a generic and abstracted philosophic construct that can be divorced from a concrete context. To suggest that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all serve the same God completely eviscerates the Christian religion as Scripturally revealed and as Historically practiced by those who have taken God’s revelation seriously through the centuries.

That Wheaton might ignore all this in order to align themselves with the demands of multiculturalism and political correctness in its demand to protect an errant minority professor is a sad testimony to where Christianity has descended. That this has even become a question that needs to be discussed and debated demonstrates the heights from which muscular Christianity has fallen.

 

Trying to Explain the Trump Phenomenon Among Christians

“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” 

Donald J. Trump
Interview with Esquire, 1991

In this piece I’m seeking to explain the popularity of Trump among otherwise conservative Christians. One would think quotes, like the one above, would be enough to be off-putting to biblical Christians in terms of voting for Trump, not to mention the chameleon like character of Trump that finds Trump saying just about every thing imaginable under the sun regardless of how contradictory it all is to what he is saying now. However, Trump’s record, flowery quotes, and ethic of a Tomcat are irrelevant now to many Christians who insist that God may use Trump like God did Cyrus of the Old Testament to accomplish His purposes to change the trajectory of America in a more God pleasing direction.

That there is little evidence to believe that is quite out of the question for those Christians who have arrived at the point of admitting that they don’t care what policies Trump may or may not pursue as long as he keeps making the right people angry.

So what is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man who is currently married to a former porn magazine centerfold, and who was married twice before this current marriage? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for building casinos where risque entertainment for men  (Strip clubs) is provided? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for boasting about his sexual conquests? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for saying “I don’t think I’ve ever asked God for forgiveness”? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for saying he has no problem with sodomites in the Military and who is on record as resigning himself to the fact  that sodomite marriage is the law of the land?

What I offer below is an attempt to explain why it is that otherwise good Christian people continue to support Trump despite the fact that Trump is the antithesis of everything they say they believe. Just so everyone understands …. this is intended as an explanation of why otherwise good people support Trump. It is not an endorsement of Trump or of thinking in this manner. Personally, I think such “thinking” that ends up supporting Trump is, at best, anti-rational.

1.) Trump has become symbol.

Trump, for many many people, has Transcended being merely human, and has now become the incarnation of a symbol of resistance and defiance. Trump hit a never with his anti immigration talking points and his anti political correctness stance. Symbols don’t have to be rational or consistent. They don’t have to explain or justify themselves in light of past utterances. Symbols are intuitive to people. When people want to identify with their symbols it is stupid for someone to expect an explanation. Symbols are trans-rational (which is different from irrational). Now that Trump has articulated an anti immigration stance it no longer matters that he chastised Republican during the Romney 2012 campaign for being too “mean spirited” concerning immigrants. Now that Trump has articulated an anti immigration stance it no longer matters that Trump has as recent as July of 2015 supported a form of amnesty. Trump is a symbol and one simply does not try to ratiocinate with those who are symbol minded.

So, much as Obama and Palin became symbols in 08, so Trump has become a symbol in 16. It isn’t rational and it’s idiotic of people, like me, to expect it to be rational. People are looking at Trump the same way that patriotic Americans look at Old Glory. It is an emblem of something that moves them deeply in their psyche and emotions. Trump has become intuitive for people and as intuitive the facts no longer matter.

2.) Trump as become hope for the hopeless.

Other Trump supporters who are Christians do not fall into the “Trump as symbol” category, but are those who are seeking to grasp any slim ray of hope they can find. They know that Trump has been all over the map in his rhetoric and in his positions. They know of Trump’s unseemly and sometimes even slimy character but out of desperation they are putting all their chips on Trump to keep his word.

For these folks I often use the old Charles Schulz comic strip “Charlie Brown,” as analogy. In Schulz’ series Schulz would return periodically to a theme where Lucy promises to hold the football for Charlie Brown to kick. The problem was that every time that Charlie Brown approached the ball to kick it, Lucy would pull it away at the last second, resulting in Charlie Brown falling on his backside. Over and over again, through Schulz’s series, Lucy would promise that “I’ll really hold the ball for you this time Charlie Brown, and, after some initial skepticism on Charlie Brown’s part, Charlie Brown would try again, only to have Lucy, despite her varied promises, pull the ball away yet again. It didn’t matter how many times Lucy had played Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown was all about the hope of one day kicking that ball out of the cosmos.

Those who insist that Trump is a real hope are like Charlie Brown. Despite all the evidence of past disappointments with lying politicians … despite all the evidence, as seen in his plethora of contradictory positions, that Trump is not the man who is really going to deliver … despite all the pulled footballs of the past the “Trump as hope for the hopeless” supporters still cannot bring themselves to reality. They seem to not have the capacity to realize that, any reason for hope regarding Trump’s current position on anything must have as a presupposition that he is a man of character who will actually do what he says.

The problem is here though that beyond Trump’s constantly changing positions, this presupposition is most obviously false to anyone who looks at even the most recent history of the man. This praise of Trump by people who should know better that he’s an opportunistic charlatan is perhaps what should be expected from people who need the illusion of hope.

3.) Trump as the anti-Obama

David Axelrod, in a recent New York Times piece, put forth the idea that Trump is attractive to people because he is the antithesis of the departing man who has been serving with the title of “President.” Whereas Obama is creepily detached and lacks passion, Trump is just the opposite full of vim and vinegar. Whereas Obama is seeking to destroy America by his immigration policies, and his policies with Iran and his policies to push America into a Internationalist order, Trump desires to “Make America Great Again,” desires to build a wall on the Mexican border, and desires to let the International order go pound sand in order to concentrate on America’s needs.  Trump is the anti-Obama.

Like #1 above this is more of a psychological point than a rational point. (Yes, I consider Psychology “irrational.”) The idea here is that just as people get tired of the feel of an old car and can’t wait to get a new one that is different than the one they are “finally getting rid of,” so voters, on a psychological level, get weary with old Presidents and desire, when switching, to upgrade to another model that has a feel that is very different from what they are getting rid of.

4.) Trump as pragmatism

Many Christians will insist on voting Trump, despite knowing his checkered past and despite agreeing that he has been all over the map regarding his positions because they affirm that “at least he’s saying the right things and so you take the coin toss, if for no other reason than to advance the position itself.”  This is pure pragmatism where the end (the hope of a restored America) justifies the means (voting for a man who himself has said, in the past, that he is a Democrat). That Trump’s past character is what it is and that Trump has repeatedly articulated a progressive worldview is irrelevant as long as there is a hope (see #2) that, against all odds, Trump will advance anti-Internationalist agenda. In my estimation this is voting for wickedness that good might come, merely because the one with the known wicked track record has, only recently, begun warbling a different tune. In my estimation this is like voting for Hugh Hefner to restore family values, merely because in the last 5 years or so he has begun to talk about the importance of family. In the Christian faith, pragmatism of this variety is eschewed and the Christian does what is right and leaves the consequences with God. Can it really be right to vote for a man who has taken positions so contrary to Biblical Christianity just on the pragmatic basis that it could end up well after all?

5.) Trump and R2K

There are those in the Christian community who will suggest that as the 2016 general election lies in the common realm therefore we are not bound to apply a Christian moral template to these matters.  For these folks we are to live with the fact that there is no such thing as Christian voting or Christian politics and so we may vote for just about anyone.

Others will arrive at this position by noting that “we are voting for a President, and not a Pastor,” as if we are relieved of having Christian standards for a President. These people forget that the only other position, besides the position of Elders, which are referred to as God’s servants in the New Testament, are magistrates. In Romans 13 the magistrate is  “not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Now, if the Magistrate as God’s servant (“The Magistrate is the minister of God” — Romans 13:4)  is not to be a terror to good works then should we not be voting for men who have demonstrated themselves to be workers of good works?

R2K, whether of the Lutheran or Reformed variety, is a sure recipe for doing the devil’s work when it comes to election cycles.

6.) Trump as the bulwark against illegal immigration

Actually, this is the one that almost pushes me into the Trump camp. I agree with many experts who contend that if we lose on immigration we lose on everything. One this issue I  have become a “one issue voter.” I am convinced that the International Money interest has determined, in pursuit of a New World Order and in the pursuit of eliminating biblical Christianity that America’s historic Christian and ethnic character must be destroyed. I am convinced that mass immigration is being done to the end of leveling America’s ability to resist the control of the International Money interest. I am convinced that the program of mass third world immigration into the West is pursued to the end of creating a have vs. have not Marxist social order. If I really believed that Trump was going to be a bulwark against this, I might consider voting for him. Alas, I am convinced that Trump is not to be trusted.

I can only adjudicate a man’s intent to keep promises based on his past ability to keep promises. Trump’s failed promises in his previous two marriages suggest to me that I have no reason to believe he will keep his promises to us now. If a man cannot keep his vows as taken publicly before God and man how can I trust him to keep his vows to a nation?

Next on this point, Trump has said, as recently as July of 2015 that his plan to clean up America’s illegal aliens problem is to send them all back so that they can come back legally. Now, Trump wouldn’t let them all return. He has made it clear that the criminal class will not be allowed back. Still, any plan that allows huge numbers to return to America remains an amnesty plan. Such a plan does not answer the intention of the International Money interest plans to assimilate the globe into a New World Order.

I wish Trump were a bulwark to oppose immigration. I do not believe his record or words demonstrate that he is.

7.) Trump as Punishment to the GOP

Of the all the previous one’s I’ve mentioned this one comes the closest to making sense. The GOP, has not, for decades now, represented its conservative base. The likes of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, George H. W. and George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, FOX News, National Review, Red State, Talk Radio, Hillsdale College, the Claremont Institute, Cato Institute, David Frum, Glen Beck, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer etc. (what is commonly referred to as “Conservative Inc.) have been the recipients of conservative largess all the while hijacking the Conservative movement and being traitors to Conservatism original intent of regionalism, limited and diffuse Government, and respect for common law and the age old traditions of Biblical Christianity. These Trotskyite neo-cons have slipped the blade to the older conservatism and have successfully reshaped conservatism into their image. They are a loathsome brood of spiders and snakes and if anyone group ever deserved the rise of Donald Trump these people do.  This is why, if Trump is elected, there will remain a part of me that rejoices that these people have been anguished.

These people, who are really Fabian progressives, have never been conservative in any meaningful sense. They are Conservative the way that Marilyn Monroe is conservative when compared with Miley Cyrus. They are the Montagnards to the Girondists of the French Revolution. Their only goal has been to retain power. They have never intended to break up the Jacobin worldview predominating in Washington.

Of course, Trump just doesn’t solve this. I suspect that Trump will end up being just another form of dictator that will serve just another expression of the left.

The hatred of genuinely Christian conservative people for Conservative Inc. is understandable and to be applauded but voting for Trump, while burning down Conservative Inc. will not rebuild the fortunes of America.
The only thing that can do that is Reformation and a return to Christ in our families, our Churches, and our Civil realm.

 

God’s Schadenfreude and Ours

Schadenfreude

[shahd-n-froi-duh]

 

noun

1.

satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else’s misfortune.

 

Jonathan Edwards

“The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.”

The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.

[“The Eternity of Hell Torments” (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]

Thomas Boston, Scottish preacher, 1732

“God shall not pity them but laugh at their calamity. The righteous company in heaven shall rejoice in the execution of God’s judgment, and shall sing while the smoke riseth up for ever.”
_________

Normally, the idea of schadenfreude would be seen as automatically out of bounds for someone who claims Christ but some of the best theologians of the Church throughout history have thought just the opposite and have embraced ideas of what we might call “Biblical Schadenfreude.” To be clear, there have been many of our greatest lights who have spoken that one character trait of the redeemed in heaven will be to delight in the misery of those who occupy hell who fought against Christ during their whole lives on earth.

__________


Peter Lombard, the Master of Sentences

“Therefore the elect shall go forth…to see the torments of the impious, seeing which they will not be grieved, but will be satiated with joy at the sight of the unutterable calamity of the impious .” Sent. Iv 50, ad fin

Gerhard

“…the Blessed will see their friends and relations among the damned as often as they like but without the least of compassion.”

_____________

We should say at the outset that schadenfreude is a dangerous emotion only when injustice is celebrated, not when justice is served. In other words people can have a schadenfreude that is both consistent with a Biblical mindset and inconsistent with a Biblical mindset.  A Biblical schadenfreude would be to feel pleasure when the wicked who dug their pits for the righteous, finally themselves fell into those pits (Psalm 7:15).

The Scripture drip with this kind of biblical schadenfreude.  Read how Israel sings about Pharaoh’s defeat (Exodus 15). Go to the book of Proverbs and see the clear and  unmistakable schadenfreude of Woman Wisdom (Proverbs 1:20-33). Go to I Kings 18 and join in Elijah’s schadenfreude as he mocks the bloodied pagan Priests.

This schadenfreude in Scripture reveals again that the Church in the West, as following the PC codes, is attempting to be nicer than God. There is no longer any capacity by Christians to laugh at the overturning of God’s enemies or to delight and cavort when those who attempt to overthrow God’s Kingdom are themselves overthrown. Indeed, the very mention of such an idea turns the stomachs of most modern Christians.

________________

Andrew Welwood

(speaks of the saints as being) “overjoyed in beholding the vengeance of God ,” and their beholding of the smoke of the torment of the wicked as “a passing delectation.”

Bishop Newcomb

“The door of mercy will be shut and all bowels of compassion denied, by God, who will laugh at their destruction; by angels and saints, who will rejoice when they see the vengeance’ by their fellow-suffer the devil and the damned rejoicing over their misery.” Catechetical Sermon

_______________

John Portmann, a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, set forth his own schadenfreude theory several years ago in his book, ‘When Bad Things Happen to Other People.’ Portman offers that we all consider justice a virtue and feel pleasure when we see lawbreakers brought low. We might say that it’s all to the good that Christians experience biblical schadenfreude, because this pleasure reflects our reverence for God’s law and God’s character. We rejoice in the wicked’s misfortune, not in a sadistic manner, but rather because their misfortune vindicates God’s righteousness against their attempts to de-god God and en-god themselves.  Thus, according to Portman, there is such a possibility as Biblical schadenfreude and to experience Biblical schadenfreude would be a corollary of justice rendered to the guilty and so God’s law being upheld.

_____________________

Tertullian

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause.”

“What a spectacle. . .when the world. . .and its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? As I see. . .illustrious monarchs. . . groaning in the lowest darkness, Philosophers. . .as fire consumes them! Poets trembling before the judgment-seat of. . .Christ! I shall hear the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; view play-actors. . .in the dissolving flame; behold wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows. . .What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.” [De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX]

Augustine

“They who shall enter into [the] joy [of the Lord] shall know what is going on outside in the outer darkness. . .The saints’. . . knowledge, which shall be great, shall keep them acquainted. . .with the eternal sufferings of the lost.” [The City of God, Book 20, Chapter 22, “What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked” & Book 22, Chapter 30, “Of the Eternal Felicity of the City of God, and of the Perpetual Sabbath”]

__________________

But where does all this biblical schadenfreude come from? Well, I would say that we laugh at the misfortune of the wicked because we laugh with the schadenfreude God of laughter.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people murmur in vain. The kings of the earth band themselves, and the Princes are assembled together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Let us break their bands, and cast their cords from us. 4 But he that dwelleth in the heaven shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure…

The wicked need repent or face God’s laughter and mocking. God laughs at the thought that the created would rise up to plot against the creator and God laughs as he vexes them in sore displeasure. God is a God of schadenfreude mirth and it only stands to reason that His people should be as well.

________________

Thomas Aquinas

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, “Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned,” First Article, “Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned. . .”]

Isaac Watts:

During America ‘s “Great Awakening” the popular hymn writer, Isaac Watts (1674-1748), even set Christians’ feet to tapping with this crisp little verse:

What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,
When they in glory dwell,
To see the sinner as he rolls,
In quenchless flames of hell.

St. Anthony Mary Claret

“Once [a soul] is condemned by God, then God’s friends agree in God’s judgment and condemnation. For all eternity they will not have a kind thought for this wretch. Rather they will be satisfied to see him in the flames as a victim of God’s justice. (“The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge . . .” Psalm 57:11) They will abhor him. A mother will look from paradise upon her own condemned son without being moved, as though she had never known him.”–

“The Pains of Hell,” Ignatian Spiritual Exercises, consisting of thirty-five meditations from The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius as explained by St. Anthony Mary Claret. St. Claret’s “explanations” were written in Spanish in the late 1800’s.
___________

It is schadenfreude that the saints will experience in the judgment of the wicked at the great white throne judgment. The saints will and should find satisfaction and pleasure in the wicked’s misfortune because God’s justice is vindicated and their wicked plans to overthrow God are crushed.

Indeed, we might go so far as to say that where there is no schadenfreude where the wicked are caught in their own trap and so destroyed, there we find an example of sub-biblical Christianity.

__________________

Catholic Truth Society

What will it be like for a mother in heaven who sees her son burning in hell? She will glorify the justice of God. – Pamphlet from the late 1960s, part of a catechismal teaching [cited in an essay by the English poet, Stevie Smith, “Some Impediments to Christian Commitment”]

J.I. Packer

“…love and pity for hell’s occupants will not enter our hearts.” J.I. Packer in article “Hell’s Final Enigma” in “Christianity Today Magazine, April 22,2002 .”

___________________

This is a hard truth for modern Christians with our Arminian sentimentality.  People in the modern Church see this as mean, and yet they do so without pausing to consider that not having a sense of satisfaction and pleasure at the misfortune of the wicked would be to not have a sense of satisfaction and pleasure that God’s name is upheld and esteemed.

Of course we should not enter into schadenfreude to soon. Even now, we should plead with the wicked that they might escape both God’s shadenfreude and ours. Even now, out of passion for God’s glory, and compassion for the rebellious we should command all men everywhere to repent. We should remind the need of men to “Kiss the Son lest He be angry and they perish in the way.”

______________

Martin Luther

When questioned whether the Blessed will not be saddened by seeing their nearest and dearest tortured answers, “Not in the least.”

Samuel Hopkins

“This display of the divine character will be most entertaining to all who love God, will give them the highest and most ineffable pleasure. Should the fire of this eternal punishment cease, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed.”