Marriage … It Either Has A Stable Meaning, or It Means Everything and Nothing

‘Once one says that a homosexual orientation is no more culpable or disordered than a heterosexual orientation, and once one observes that Scripture does not teach that God says that homosexual activity is always wrong, I think we’re left to conclude that justice requires that the church offer the great good of marriage both to heterosexual couples committed to a loving, covenantal relationship, and to homosexual couples so committed’.

Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff 
American Philosopher
All One Body Lecture

A pedophile should be held responsible for his conduct — but not for the underlying attraction.

Margo Kaplan
New York Times Article

How long until we hear that the orientation for pedophiles is no more culpable or disordered than a heterosexual orientation? Where in Scripture do we see that bedding children (even of the same sex) is wrong if done in the context of a “loving, covenantal relationship, and to Man-boy love so committed,” as stated by Dr. Wolterstoff in regards to sodomy?

After all, if God is the one who gives the underlying attraction and if God is the one who wired some adults brains differently who are we to deny what God has done? If God has made pedophilia (or Necrophilia, or Beastiality) as merely a creational variance of sexuality who are we to challenge God?

In 1986, a short 31 years ago,  SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger considered by many to have been a liberal could write in the Bowers v. Hardwick decision,

“To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

In the same Hardwick decision Burger also cited the “ancient roots” of prohibitions against homosexual sex by quoting William Blackstone’s description of homosexual sex as an “infamous crime against nature”, worse than rape, and “a crime not fit to be named.”

Somehow, in 30 years as a culture, we have gone from a liberal Supreme Court Justice inveighing against sodomy to a well-respected Churchmen and philosopher giving his imprimatur on the same.

Also,  we have to note the linguistic play that is found in describing marriage as something two people of the same biological sex can enter. Scripturally, as well as historically, marriage, by definition, is an institution that only can be occupied by males and females.  In the 1888 California court case, “Sharon vs. Sharon,” we find marriage defined,

“Marriage is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and to the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. “

In Scripture Jesus defines Marriage as being composed of males and females,

Matthew 19:4 – Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

So, when people begin to talk about the “church offering the great good of marriage … to homosexual couples so committed.” we should recognize that linguistic deception has just been leveraged, even if unwittingly done. Because of the definition of marriage, we can no more offer the great good of marriage to sodomite couples then we can legitimately offer the great good of the US Presidency to someone born in Kenya. Neither of the Institutions, by definition, are allowed legal occupancy by those who don’t adhere to the definition.

And while we are at it, we might as well note the same is true for the word “sex.” Given definitional realities, it is not possible for sodomites or lesbians to engage in “sex,” whatever it is they may be doing to and with one another with their reproductive organs.

When we get sloppy with our language we begin to lose what the reality that the language is supposed to represent.

 

 

 

President Trump’s 2017 Address to Congress … An Analysis (Or Trump Channels FDR)

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #1

“… We have formed a Council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.”

________

Bret notes,

Keep in mind that making sure women have access to the networks means they are prioritized over men who may be more qualified. This is a form of affirmative action for feminists.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #2

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #2

“I have further ordered (my agencies) … to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.”

Bret observes,

This is not so much Liberal as it is naive. The largest criminal cartel in America that needs to be dismantled is the Federal Government in its Corporatist expression.

The cynic would hear this quote and say, “Yeah, the FEDS want to dismantle the criminal cartels because they don’t want any competition.”

 

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #3

“I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in the infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital — creating millions of new jobs.”

Bret observes,

Legion are the books from Conservatives blasting FDR for Government make-work infrastructure projects during the New-Deal era. Yet many conservatives today are cheering this President and this speech as if we have found the second coming of John Calvin Coolidge. Trump is proposing Keynesian economics. To spend a Trillion dollars on infrastructure means either printing more money (can you say inflation?) and /  or increased taxation. This is pure Liberalism.

Also there is no draining the swamp as long as the swamp is flooded with money. More Government spending means more Government.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #4

“Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better Healthcare.”

Bret observes,

This is infantile. This is a “Chicken in every pot” type of promise. It is simply not possible to do all this and at the same time to make sure every American is covered by health insurance, as Trump promised in a statement in January,

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

President

Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #5

“My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave … “

Bret responds,

Paid family leave means those not being on paid family leave are paying for it. Redistribution of wealth program. Pure Keynesianism again.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #6

President Trump talked about the need to introduce efficiency by rolling back regulations at the Food & Drug Administration and at the Education Department. A Conservative President would have instead called for the elimination of these Agencies since they are not Constitutional. It is progressive politics to desire that these unconstitutional agencies have any role at all in prescription drugs developed or in setting policy for Education from Washington.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #7

“I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.”

Bret observes,

Trump is going to,

1.) Cut Corporate Taxes

2.) Cut Middle-Class Taxes

3.) Spend a Trillion dollars on domestic an infrastructure project.

4.) Reform Healthcare so that it covers all Americans.

5.) Provide one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.

6.) Increase funding for Veterans

7.) And all this while being fiscally responsible.

Only 5-year-olds believe in the tooth fairy.

In the end, Trump revealed last night, with his address to Congress, that he remains an FDR Democrat. Principled people continue to have next to zero representation in Washington.

 

Obama’s Misreading of History

“We are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around “an us and a them,” and I will never apologize for saying that the future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common, as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict. Take Europe, We know what happens when Europeans start dividing themselves up and emphasizing their differences and seeing a competition between various countries in a zero-sum way. The 20th century was a bloodbath.”

Barack Obama

If you ever wanted to have a more egregious misreading of History you would have to look long and hard to find one more errant than this one.

It was not Nationalism that created WW II. In point of fact, it was letting loose Bolshevik Internationalism that created WW II.

Woodrow Wilson, the Internationalist, by his boneheaded actions in WW I paved the way for the Bolshevik Internationalists to come to power. Without Wilson’s meddling in Europe, the nations in Europe would have settled their war just as the Nations had been settling wars for centuries in Europe, by negotiated peace.

However, Wilson had to stick his creepy Internationalist nose into Europe. Then he had to use US Troops to protect the Soviet Reds railroad in Russia, freeing up Red Troops to polish off the Christian White and Green Russian armies. Wilson’s actions in World War I bathed Europe in blood because those actions empowered the blood letters of the next 70 years.

Then FDR, the next Internationalist, overturned the protocol of the 4 prior US Presidents and gave diplomatic recognition to the Internationalists in Russia, thus giving them International credibility.

It was the Bolshevik Internationalists who had created a Comintern to spread Bolshevik Internationalism across the globe with the same intent as Obama … to create a New World Order as run by the International Bolsheviks in both New York and Moscow.

It wasn’t Nationalism that bloodied the 20th century. It was the damn pestilent Internationalism that let loose oceans of blood. The same Internationalism that Obama has been a creature of.

Obama’s whole presidency can be described as being built around “an us vs. them,” mentality. It is the height of hypocrisy for him to lecture anybody about that particular danger.

Finally, Obama insists that humanity needs to build on what they have in common. This is the old “Brotherhood of all men” chestnut that has been debunked a million times. All men are not Brothers, if only because of their differing faiths. Those who believe in ordered liberty have nothing in common with the International Marxists with their New World Order agenda.

On Voting Third Party During Presidential Election Cycles

Yesterday I was having a conversation with folks counted as good friends. We were sitting underneath the shade of our beautiful maple trees at Church during our fellowship meal. Some were insisting that my intention to vote for Darrell Castle for President is a wasted vote. Of course, I politely demurred.

In this short piece, I want to pursue the reasoning as to why voting third party in Presidential cycles is not only not a wasted vote but a positive good.

The reason voting for Darrell Castle in 2016 is not a wasted vote is the long term vision. When third party candidates receive votes the effect is that in later election cycles the major party candidates look at those voters who voted third party previously and ask themselves, “How can I secure those voters for myself who voted for that third party candidate in the previous election cycle.” As a result, the parties begin to shift in order to capture voters who previously voted third party in previous election cycles.

If people, with contrary interests to the candidates they are voting for, continue to vote for major party candidates, like Trump and / or Clinton, that they only barely agree with the result is that the major parties will conclude that they really do not need to shift in order to gain what might have been a well placed third party vote. HOWEVER, if people refuse to vote for the major party candidates in any given election cycle then in the next election cycle Presidential candidates will begin to ask themselves, “what must I do to secure those third party voters,” and will shift accordingly in those voters direction.

1968 is a classic example of this. In 1968 the Democrats lost the deep South to the third party candidacy of Geroge Wallace. In 1972, instead of taking those Wallace voters seriously the Democrats tacked harder to the left with McGovern. However, Nixon went after those “68” Wallace votes and captured them giving Nixon a HUGE landslide while at the same time turning the deep South Republican for two generations now.

Voting third party for George Wallace in 1968 was definitely not a wasted vote.

Something similar happened with all the third party votes cast for the Socialist Presidential candidacies of Eugene Debs, and later Norman Thomas over several election cycles in the early 20th century. Eventually, Democrats decided to go after those Socialist votes and with the candidacy of FDR those third party votes found a major party candidate who appealed to them. All those third party votes over the years had not been wasted as the Democratic party became the party of Debs / Thomas Socialism though retaining the name “Democrat.”

Norman Thomas is even reputed to have said

“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

The effect of the Republicans embracing the independent voters of Wallace’s 1968 campaign pushed the Republican party further to the right. The effect of the Democrats embracing the independent voters of the Debs – Thomas campaigns was to push the Democratic party further to the left.

The point for our purposes is that those Independent votes of previous election cycles were not wasted votes. History teaches that they had an impact on later election cycles. If those Independent voters had not voted Independent and said to themselves instead, “I have to vote for one of the major parties if I want my vote to count,” neither of the parties would have had the later incentive to move in the direction of those third party voters in order to capture that vote.

So, we see that voting Independent is not  a wasted vote.

Ask The Pastor — Why Not Trump? — A Conversation With A Christian Trumper

μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγ.] Bengel: “ne fiatis, molliter pro: ne sitis.”

“Be ye not unequally yoked”

God does not forbid all intercourse with the heathen whatever (see 1 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 10:27; 1 Corinthians 7:12), but the making common cause with heathen efforts and aims, the entering into the heathen element of life. There is no ground for assuming exclusively special references (such as to sacrificial banquets or to mixed marriages), any more than for excluding such reference.

Meyers NT Commentary

II Corinthians 6:11-18– “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.”

It is wrong for believers to join with the wicked and profane. The word unbeliever applies to all destitute of true faith. True pastors will caution their beloved children in the gospel, not to be unequally yoked.

Matthew Henry commentary

Lori Thomas wrote,

“If we are “yoked” by our vote for Trump, we are already yoked by living here and partaking of all the blessings this governance brings and bearing personal responsibility for all the deviance this governance brings us.”

Bret offers,

Distinctions

It is true that we are yoked together regardless, BUT it is not necessarily a yoking of our making. When we vote for wicked men who hate Christ we are making the yoke of our making. We are yoking ourselves with unbelievers. The precise thing that God forbids here.  We are lending our strength to continuing an already present yoking.

LT wrote,

“We are, after all, paying taxes to this government and by that very token, we are supporting it, like it or not.”

Bret offers,

I fail to see how being robbed at gunpoint to pay taxes means that I am supporting this wicked government who takes my money to kill babies, to support wicked governments overseas, to import people here who hate Christ etc.  I fail to see how when someone robs me it means I have yoked myself to my muggers.

LT wrote,

“If this is your view, you need to move to another place on this planet where everything is governed according to the dictates of the Word of God.”

Bret offers,

No, that is not true. I need to do all I can to disciple the Nations to bring them under Christ’s authority (Matt. 28:16f). I am to engage here upon the work that Vos speaks of,

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.”

Geerhardus Vos
Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God & the Church – p. 194

LT wrote,

“I find no Biblical mandate or example to do that (and couldn’t find another place if I had to). The people of God also “rendered to Caesar the things that were Caesar’s.” There were things that were “Caesar’s” ? And the people of God were commanded by Christ Himself to give these things to Caesar? Did we hear that right? Yes.”

Bret offers

The giving of what is due to magistrates (Romans 13:7) or the rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesars must be measured by some standard that is beyond and above whatever the magistrate or the Caesar determines. Any Christian people who would allow a wicked Caesar or magistrate to determine on their own what is their due or what should be rendered to them would quickly become an enslaved people. Any glance of history will reveal that there are times when the magistrate has wanted taxes that were not his due. Any glance of history reveals that there have been times when the magistrate desired a fear and/or honor that were not his to command due to his disobedience to God. There are times when it is conceivable that dishonor, as the magistrate counts it, would be done out of honor to God.

Further, as a Christian to be obedient to God, I must render Caesar to God since Caesar belongs to God. Caesar owns nothing that God does not first own. 

Secondly, Scripture does not compel me to render unto a wicked potential Caesar my vote.

LT wrote,

“So, there is no Biblical warrant for insisting that we are “yoked” together with a disobedient government. But personally, we are bound to support the government of the space that we occupy.”

Bret offers,

II Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is a text that clearly and unequivocally forbids Christians to vote for Christ-hating men. I already have quoted two sources (Meyers NT Commentary and Matthew Henry). Here is the Expositors Greek NT,

“2 Corinthians 6:14. Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες κ.τ.λ.: be not (mark that the pres. tense γίνεσθε indicates the beginning of a state, sc., “do not become”) unequally yoked with unbelievers, the constr. being “be not unequally yoked, as you would be if you were yoked with unbelievers”.

The most obvious application of such a prohibition would be to intermarriage with the heathen, which was continually forbidden to the chosen people (see Deuteronomy 7:3, Joshua 23:12, Ezra 9:2, Nehemiah 13:25), and this is probably the main thought here (see ref. Lev. for ἑτερόζυγος); but to indulge in any excessive familiarity of intercourse would be “to be enlarged in heart” in a way which the Apostle strongly deprecates (cf. 1Ma 1:15). He enforces this by five contrasts which illustrate the incongruity between Christianity and heathendom.”

When you vote Trump you’re voting for a man who has said he will increase funding for Planned Parenthood. You are voting for a man who is actively courting the LGBTQ community thus indicating he will mainstream sodomy. You are voting for a man who has admitted whore-mongering. You will be unequally yoked.

LT offers,

In our country we are blessed to have the right to VOTE for our governance. As in our payment of taxes to a deviant government, we can’t always choose every thought, word, or deed of our governors, but we can choose a BODY of governors who espouse POLICIES that will best advance our faith, the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.”

Bret offers

Given that Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same bird of prey I’d say your vote means very little. How many Republican Presidents have you voted for since 1973 in order to keep the dreaded Democrats out of office Lori? Has Abortion been overturned? Has Title IX and X been ended? Has Government been shrunk? Have the Republicans done anything to actually reverse the far left agenda?

Honestly, in our current political context, to talk about the advancement of our faith via Political policies that have been pursued because of our vote doesn’t seem to connect to reality.

The option now is to realize that both Republicans and Democrats use the Christian vote to advance paganism and as we vote for them we are being yoked to the advance of the anti-Christ agenda.

LT wrote,

We have plenty of evidence this past eight years, and especially this last year, that our current BODY of governance, particularly the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, will stop at almost nothing to jeopardize our religious freedom which will undermine our efforts to use our churches, build our Christian schools, practice Godly morals and on and on and on.

Bret offers,

You mean as opposed to the lying that “W” did to put us in a War where our sons and daughters have been killed? Where the Christian community that did exist in Iraq was snuffed out because of US policy? Where the deficit was larger than ever until Obama? Where the Government grew by leaps and bounds? Where the Patriot Act was passed that ensured Statist Tyranny? The wreckage that Republican “W” left behind him competes with the wreckage that Obama has wrought.

Sure, Obama is a Demon from the pit but maybe Christians deserve him because they keep voting for wicked Republicans?

LT offers,

A vote for Hillary Clinton, or even a vote for a third party candidate that cannot win, or a write-in vote that cannot win, will place us in the position of an irreversible downslide in this country. It will put our future generations in the cradle of corruption.

Bret offers,

Your solution has been pursued for several generations now and the result has been the corrosion of the Christian faith in the public square. That erosion can be seen by otherwise fine Christian people not being able to see that Scripture explicitly forbids them to be unequally yoked to a wicked man like Trump.

And in my estimation, the irreversible downslide is already irreversible. It is certainly not going to be reversed by voting Republican.

LT wrote,

And, while God is certainly capable of reversing things in future generations, it does not seem to be His pattern to do so. So now I have broken my promise to myself not to remain in the discussion on this site. But since I am back in it, I do want to say that I have read all of the comments above, and I am stunned at the judgmental attitude of some to categorize a position like ours as Alt Right propelled by Satan, and in some cases consigned to hell itself for not “buying into a vote for a third party candidate or a write-in candidate, or staying at home and not voting.” This is offensive and untrue. Although we feel strongly about our position, we make absolutely no spiritual judgment about any fellow believers who feel differently. I am signing off now.

Bret offers,

First, I have no doubt of your Christianity. I simply believe that Christians who intend to vote for Trump are woefully deceived. There are times when I am deceived and people challenge me. This is what I am doing now.

Look, the Alt. Right is backing Trump big time. Obviously, not all who vote for Trump are Alternative Right. Shoot, if the Alt. Right would just own Christ, I’d be good with most of what they promote. But many many of their Representatives do not as this linked article demonstrates,

http://faithandheritage.com/2016/05/the-top-10-reasons-the-secular-alt-right-is-not-the-answer/

And, respectfully, I can not look at II Corinthians 6:14f and understand how Christians can yokethemselvese to an anti-Christ like Trump. I just can’t understand ignoring the clear implications of that passage.

And so I speak.