New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
3 Likes
Excellent. Small typo in paragraph about Roman emperors. Blooshephed should be bloodshed.
Corrected; thanks.
I personally don’t really care about the mask issue. While I doubt their effectiveness, I am willing to comply and have complied. There is no real loss to me or to others in doing so.
However, we have found ourselves in a situation where the state is forcing people to shut down their businesses without compensation (or with limited compensation) on the basis of highly questionable motives and evidence. Should a Christian just comply with this and lose their livelihood? Why not at least dare the state to enforce the law and then challenge it in court?
4 Likes
But there is substantial help available in many ways, at the individual worker level and at the business level.
Definitely, defending a right to livelihood is more justifiable than a right to fashion. But a temporary shutdown is tolerable, or should be tolerable through wise forethought of things like emergency funds.
And there’s help from loyal customers, friends, family, church, neighbors. Most are doing fine, no?
And one livelihood gone always lead to another.
So was Shelley Luther wrong to re-open her salon in Texas?
She challenged her state’s policy and won.
Also, a lot of people noticed inconsistencies in the way the shutdown has been administered. For example, here in NY we are in the ridiculous situation where pretty much any store is open except for those that are in malls. The malls are shut down and shut down indefinitely it seems.
So you can go to Walmart but you cannot go to a mall
Personally, I think we have a right to challenge such haphazard and inconsistent policies.
1 Like
You won’t hear any objection from me to challenging the inconsistencies and injustices that are often a part of new laws. We have a very well developed system for doing so.
But that is a world apart from insisting that the government has no authority to make such laws in the first place.
What many of us seem to have difficulty understanding is that there is a way to challenge authorities while remaining respectful instead of railing. A wife thinks that respect means she cannot speak to her husband about his drunkenness, so she does nothing until she finds it intolerable and snaps, joining herself to the feminist cause of hatred of the patriarchy, since “respect” was such a failure.
Many Christians have fallen prey to those egging them on to a despising of authority.
6 Likes
OK, I hear what you are saying and agree. Thanks!
2 Likes
The recent decision by the Supreme Court, which gave preference to Casinos by allowing 50% capacity but churches were capped at a hard 50 person limit is surprising, and seems to be “ dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.”
It’s hard to see how such sins won’t lead to societal collapse.
2 Likes
I believe it was a 5-4 decision and is likely to be revisited yet again.
It’s par for the course. It’s why many of us have railed against our civil authorities. We do not trust them and have not trusted them for a long time. We do not trust the media either.
All of this has gotten worse during the Trump era. It was one of the primary reasons for his election in the first place.
2 Likes
We will all gladly concede that our civil authorities have a great potential for wickedness. Much of my responses are from the WLC.
The question is are we the ones “… envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.”
We have the duty of: “bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.”
So railing against government authority in general is clearly sinful. I don’t believe this precludes where particular magistrates have brought dishonor upon their office by their own actions. But even still we are to bear with them, and not bring further dishonor.
I do think the harder question is when does a magistrate’s personal dishonor become so notorious that they are no longer able to be a minister of God’s righteousness and refuse to punish the wicked? The church certainly does not bear with its own officers (Deacons and Elders) who are so unrepentant.
This is such a challenging issue. I work as a sort of lesser magistrate for a public health department. I’ve experienced the rebellion by the public and have borne many sins from within the Department. But as of late the Department has left me with few options for which I am no longer able to perform my duties with honor.
But the conspiracy theories of fake number and what not are neither honoring of our magistrates, much less following Gods own standards of evidence to accusations. So much of what I hear as evidence is actually ignorance. The mask railings are a perfect example of ignorance and the dismissing of deaths is an example of both ignorance and blind mockery. This does not advance the credibility of our Christian witness.
3 Likes
It was, but that doesn’t make the miscarriage any less notorious nor does it even mean that it will be revisited. Many Supreme Court decisions that break along 5-4 lines remain law indefinitely. There is much to complain about with our legal system but I’m speaking specifically of the failure of these magistrates to preserve the honor of their own offices. It is having a degrading effect nationally, and whether the Church fans the flames or not, I’m concerned a collapse in the rule of law will lead to war.
It was a decision not to hear an appeal rather than a decision on a fully argued case, which leaves open the opportunity for a related case to come before the court on appeal. I think this is likely to happen since as the months roll on, COVID-19 becomes the new normal rather than an acute emergency situation in which decision-making by the executive should be accorded special deference. Also, as time goes on, statements by public officials privileging certain political protests above religious worship will accumulate and thus provide direct evidence of animus against religion. Justice Roberts won’t be able to stretch a fig leaf over it much longer.
2 Likes
Yes I know that detail, but opinions were offered and the lesser magistrate’s position was left standing, which is the same as a ruling in favor of the unjust application of emergency powers. I think related cases will get the same outcome if the court composition remains the same. I’m not suggestion that composition is the only thing that is wrong here.
I think a case will come before the court because the rationale that Justice Roberts used to turn down the appeal from the first case is getting undermined by facts on the ground.
1 Like
The proliferation of conspiracy theories is, one hand, a sign of public gullibility. On the other hand, the proliferation of conspiracy theories is also a sign of a lack of confidence in the civil authorities.
For example, polling showed that the number of Americans who thought that 9/11 was an inside job peaked around 2006, when overall public confidence in the Bush administration and his handling of the Iraq War was at a low point. We can say two things: 9/11 Trutherism has no basis in reality, and was a sign of public sin in the people against their president. But we can also say that the president’s own failures of judgment and consideration contributed to this state of affairs.
The Supreme Court’s repeated wicked rulings, the media’s countless lies about all kinds of fake scandals and crises the last few years, the blatant double standards given for BLM protests vs churches by public health authorities, along with all other manner of incompetence and malice I could list here – all of it is civil magistrates destroying their own credibility, inviting the public to not believe them. Once destroyed, credibility is very hard to regain.
3 Likes
One last comment about Justice Roberts’ ruling…
The widespread systematic breakdown of effective governance and justice, symbolized by burning cities, the Supreme Court’s perfidy, and the government incompetence and malfeasance we have been seeing in a particularly concentrated form this year, is all a judgment of God. It is meant to drive us to repent, to cry out for relief. It’s a sign the clock is ticking, and destruction is near.
The response of Christians, for the most part, has been to divide into different political camps, where we argue about viral statistics, the Constitution and so on while accusing each other of being statist idolaters or science denying morons. Lots of tribalism and finger pointing.
Political debate has its place. But with so much outrage to go around, my outrage tank is empty. So while I’m upset about Justice Roberts’ ruling in some sense, in another sense I’m resigned to the fact that this is just how it is, it’s only going to get worse, and there’s nothing I can do about it. What good does it do to complain at all? Nobody is listening and it doesnt matter.
This is a feeling of despair about our political climate. While you could accuse me of sinning by feeling this way, I suspect that the feeling of despair in any man made political solution is God’s design for us in this. He wants us to despair so that we may turn to Him alone. His discipline is for our good, if we receive it. Receiving it is the key.
Our wealth and power have made us proud. We want to think we can somehow fix this. Hence the debates about statistics and the Constitution. But the statistics and the nanny state are symptoms of a deeper problem. The real disease is our sin. The cure is repentance and faith.
Humbling ourselves before God has to come first. Then the politics and statistics. But I have reversed this order. I wanted to vent about the stats and the politics first. I’m what’s wrong with the world.
12 Likes