First, I do not and will not promote insurrection. But I will promote active dissent, even active disobedience when it comes to maintaining the practice of one’s faith. The time is coming closer with the current situation in D.C. The D.C. council has taken upon itself the authority to decide when one can or cannot practice their religious beliefs.
Under the bill, headed for a council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings.
How dare they! They should be silent on the matter. They should speak neither positively nor negatively.
But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.
What an arrogant bunch of thugs! If one participates at all in civic affairs then one has to hire homosexuals! That is wrong. The Romans should stand up against the city and stand in contempt of illegal laws. Call their bluff. Let Congress, which manages D.C., come out and make its position clear. Let’s see how much statism the Left in D.C. is willing to enforce. Let’s see them throw a few people in jail for the cause of religious liberty.
November 14th, 2009 | 9:30 am | #1
I don’t support insurrection either, but I also don’t support breaking a law just because it’s wrong to pass it. I would approve of breaking a law only because it’s morally wrong to keep it. But there’s no moral requirement to receive federal funding to support a charity. So I couldn’t endorse this kind of civil disobedience either.
November 14th, 2009 | 11:56 am | #2
This is just the tip of the iceberg if Liberals get their way. Evangelicals will be next and many on the Left are calling for an end to the tax exempt status of churches everywhere. Is not Obama seeking to cut the charitable giving tax credit in half? Reminds me of Jesus’ warning about loving God or money, and a test about that love is control. Liberals want the State to control money and every aspect of our lives and we see their priorities. The embrace of sin cannot but lead to the persecution of the faithful and we may soon see who the faithful remnant truly is. Get ready for Obama’s Gestapo to take shape in the near future.
November 14th, 2009 | 1:54 pm | #3
I don’t know that there is a soon coming gestapo type approach to our behavior. But we can expect that something serious will happen within the next few administrations. Who would have realistically thought, even 10 years ago, that the White House would either gain control of private industry (auto, finance, mortagage) or promote control of private media (under the guise of “justice”)? What this admin has done is nothing short of transformational. And that is a real concern.
November 14th, 2009 | 2:49 pm | #4
Come now. I am no Obama voter (see my blogging on the last election), but to see a Gestapo coming is just out of bounds.
That is a far, far too serious charge (six million died under the last Gestapo!) to bandy about at this moment.
If we compare life in North Korea or the Sudan for Christians, we will realize how moderate and sedate our situation is.
I will not vote for our President (and he is our President) the next time he runs, but I don’t think he is about to throw us in camps or even would consider it.
November 14th, 2009 | 2:50 pm | #5
Just to be plain: I think it outrageous to compare President Obama to Hitler.
I thought it outrageous to compare President Bush to Hitler too by the by.
November 14th, 2009 | 2:51 pm | #6
I do agree (btw) that peaceful civil disobedience in D.C. with the charity situation may be reasonable.
November 14th, 2009 | 3:33 pm | #7
I pray God restrains the evil that is capable by those who hold to a Marxist/Liberal/Alinky type world view.
When Communists in China compare Obama to Mao, that ought to trouble us. When advocates of population control are in the Obama Administration, that ought to concern us. When Obama’s Czars praise Mao and refer to raw power as a method to transform society, that ought to concern us. When outright infanticide was tolerated by state Senator Obama, that should have made us realize the evil he would and does tolerate.
Ideas have consequences, and necessary ones at that. And as Christians we need to understand that idols have consequences just like ideas. I know the depth of biblical history is good at this blog, but when idols remain unchallenged, or worse, taken on by the priests of God, evil prospers and good is punished, even killing those who stand for God’s truth. It seems that the idolatry of today closely mirrors that of the Old Testament: child sacrifice-abortion, sexual immorality-gay rights, and nature worship-fostered by fears over global warming, then those who stand against it are persecuted.
I do not think Hitler just started persecuting Jews out of the blue. There was a systematic legal and religious assault on Jews in Germany. Any drift towards Totalitarianism ought to be alarming regardless of which Party is leading the way, but the inherent anti-Christian nature of Liberalism/Marxism is such that power must be applied to silence those who disagree.
The same could be applied to Christians in America. For how can we preach the Gospel when sin is declared a public right? To do so would be an act of hatred, bigotry, homophobia, intolerance and exclusiveness. And the Obama Administration seems to be promoting the societal and governmental embrace of sin. I think the only proper biblical and historical comparison is to King Manasseh.
November 14th, 2009 | 3:38 pm | #8
But Todd proportion in our reaction is important. It is true that the weeds of totalitarianism must be plucked early lest they take over, but using the crop duster of our truth to dump a full spray of rhetoric on the first dandelion seems likely to do more harm than good.
We should use the least force possible to deal with an problem.
What do we call the Dear Leader if we use overly strong rhetoric on leaders like Obama or Bush who happen to do dangerous things we don’t like?
November 14th, 2009 | 7:37 pm | #9
I like the imagery of the crop duster and the dandelion. Yeah, it is a matter of figuring out when to push the panic button and at what point a handful of dandelions are a concern. It does not take many to spawn a movement that gets out of control and then it is too late.
November 14th, 2009 | 8:33 pm | #10
And just a *little* resistance now may be enough. That’s all I await.
November 14th, 2009 | 10:11 pm | #11
Collin – I’d like to ask you about something but I’d prefer to do it over e-mail, but I’ve had no luck tracking down an e-mail address for you. Could you drop me a line at jakemeador@gmail.com?
peace
November 15th, 2009 | 8:45 pm | #12
Easy to stand at the side and tell “the Romans” what they should do to resist. How about all the Christians engage in civil disobedience? We’re happy to lead the way, but will you join?
November 15th, 2009 | 8:57 pm | #13
Both black and white Christians will find themselves together in the back of the secular bus.
November 15th, 2009 | 9:36 pm | #14
I think someplace we are losing sight of a key paragraph in this story:
Emphasis added. What the city is not mandating CC to do is spend diocese money and then obey secular rules. CC is acting as a civil agency, and as such it will, inevitably, be asked to follow the civil laws regarding benefits and EEOC.
I think CC is right to simply say, “no thanks,” but it’s a little late to the party. Spending taxpayer money is, frankly, not the job of the diocese — even if helping the poor is. It’s more than a little slippery to break out the “religious freedom” banners and polemic when some group has already tread across the barrier by taking the government’s money to do the government’s appointed work.
November 16th, 2009 | 9:09 am | #15
It seems to me that we’re seeing the inevitable fruit of faith-based government programs.
I see no need for civil disobedience or insurrection, simply step back from the feeding trough and tell the poor and destitute to come to the church and be fed by the church and not by the government.
In the same way, when the whole issue of tax exemption comes up, and it will, right after some gay pastor sues a church for being fired (although the further this goes, the less likely it seems that a church would take that stand…). At that point churches will need to take the principled stand of refusing tax exempt status and carry on their work while paying taxes.
I don’t think the Gestapo comparison is too far off in terms of what will come, but I do think it’s still a fair way off in terms of actual time. We’ve got a lot of room to maneuver, more than we realize I think, here in the west, before it comes to that.
Elminate the government handout’s to churches and suddenly they’ve got a lot tougher laws to pass to shut them down, and I don’t think there’s any stomach for that in Washington, or Ottawa, or even in Europe for that matter.
What they don’t want is my beliefs spending their money.
And I don’t think that you and I should want that either.
November 16th, 2009 | 11:32 am | #16
Frank Turk,
Amen!
November 16th, 2009 | 12:01 pm | #17
I see no need for civil disobedience or insurrection, simply step back from the feeding trough and tell the poor and destitute to come to the church and be fed by the church and not by the government.
In the same way, when the whole issue of tax exemption comes up, and it will, right after some gay pastor sues a church for being fired (although the further this goes, the less likely it seems that a church would take that stand…). At that point churches will need to take the principled stand of refusing tax exempt status and carry on their work while paying taxes.
I don’t think the Gestapo comparison is too far off in terms of what will come, but I do think it’s still a fair way off in terms of actual time. We’ve got a lot of room to maneuver, more than we realize I think, here in the west, before it comes to that.
I agree, it is time for the Christian church to do what it is called to do. We have to view Liberal Theology and Liberalism as standing in antithesis to biblical Christianity. The false social justice gospel of Liberalism is an attempt to undermine Christianity and to replace the Church with the State. Once that happens, all moral and political truth will be grounded on power and one’s ability to wield that power. The we give up to the State the more it will take and then we/Christians will be the only thing standing it the way of tyranny.
November 16th, 2009 | 12:23 pm | #18
Francis Beckwith: “Both black and white Christians will find themselves together in the back of the secular bus.”
Blue Collar Todd: “We have to view Liberal Theology and Liberalism as standing in antithesis to biblical Christianity.”
I agree with both of you.
Here’s an interesting article titled “What’s Behind America’s Politically Correct ‘Love’ of Islam”.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:56 pm | #19
Once the Church accepts the liberal bargain and agrees to becoming merely a domesticated wing of the State for the purposes of social health defined by the State, the consequences are inevitable.
The government needs to get its paws off of charity work where it does not belong, or it will continue to funnel Christian resources through the State and force Churches to feed at the trough of “taxpayer money” with increasingly tight strings attached.
For once resources are in the hands of the State, we will hear no end to the choruses of “it’s the State’s money, you have to dance to its tune”!
November 16th, 2009 | 5:03 pm | #20
I wonder if the reason the churches have accepted government money in the first place, is because we have confused our primary and secondary mission.
I mean, our primary mission is to spread the gospel, no?
But when we accept government cash, do we not then ramp up our secondary mission to the poor, in order to justify our existence in the eyes of the world and to keep the money flowing?
What does the church need the government for? Well, nothing. Granted, the government does some good things, but none that can really help or hurt our mission.
November 16th, 2009 | 5:33 pm | #21
Daryl, I get what you mean. Yet, I would be less confident that the separation of “spreading the gospel” from “helping the poor materially” is tenable in light of Scripture’s vision of the life of the Church. That’s be like saying I can speak without breathing. I can, sort of. That’s not what my life is supposed to be though.
I think the Church has accepted government money because it’s the best they can do in this situation. The problem isn’t with the Church accepting taxpayer money. The problem is with the Church accepting Caesar’s definition of what belongs to Caesar and of what the role of the Church is, instead of telling Caesar what Caesar’s role is and defining what belongs to Caesar. That is part of the liberal (in the sense of classical liberalism) bargain.
But you are right that the Church does not need the government to do the Church’s job; but the government can and does hinder the Church’s mission, and one way is by taxing her for purposes beyond the legitimate scope of government and then refusing to provide funds unless the Church relaxes the least of her Lord’s commandments, just a little bit.
November 16th, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #22
Albert,
The Catholic Public School system is a prime example of how to sidestep the government and yet still provide a service to the public as a private institution with high Christian standards. Daryl Little is absolutely correct. “What does the church need the government for? Well, nothing.” Consider this – did Jesus work with the government or in opposition to it?
…Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the era of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.
…Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity.
…Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments.
– Thomas Jefferson, 1784
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact