letter was part of a discussion of the Federal Marriage Amendment
between the author and a friend.
I feel like
a man stuck in quick sand. No matter that I want very much to
extricate myself, I am being drawn ever deeper into a place where
I will no longer be able to breathe and I will, after much agony
finally expire (oh the darkness, the darkness)! You are making
this entirely too complex (which is what most statists-even, or
especially, the well meaning Christian variety) do.
do not disagree with your desire to see Godly laws within the
culture-the civil magistrate is given for this purpose.
The problem is that you and Bill, Hillary and W (bet that got
a rise) all think that somehow good laws will save us and change
our culture (you don’t actually believe this cognitively,
but you do on some practical level). When I protest "No!
Law never changed anything in wicked men-except to heighten rebellion",
you all, in unison, shout "Well, people like you all would
have us be libertarians or Auburn fans or worse." You want
the state to mandate the terms and conditions under which two
people may enter into a uniquely Christian covenant. Yet I'd better
not try to register your guns. (Of course you are dealing with
someone who gets bent out of shape at weddings when the minister
says "now, by the power vested in me by the Commonwealth
of Kentucky....I suppose everyone cries at weddings for different
will not protect our children from sexual (or other) predators
any more than gun registration will keep guns out of the hands
of criminals (why is this so difficult).
is not that you wish to see a Federal Marriage Amendment passed,
but that you think that it will somehow change our culture or
protect our children. You have already given up on our culture.
You as much as say so earlier. You indicate that our country was
never intended to be Christian in the first place. Fine. I'll
give you that (I disagree but I see no point in debating it in
this discussion). So we go ahead and pass secular laws for secular
men and we get rebellion to which we answer with more laws. You
have no foundation-either philosophical or moral upon which to
stand yet you seem to very earnestly desire a godly culture. Joseph,
you are a MENTAC (Modern Evangelical New Testament American Christian-like
the guy in that great reformed TV show the Simpsons-Ned Flanders).
You want a human culture within which the Christian can freely
function-this will not be tolerated either by the secularists
or your buddies and close allies the Islamists (who, by the way
are about as monogamous as your other buddy, Bill Clinton).
people are to desire Christendom. Christendom is not a short term
solution-it is built one generation at a time-I commend you on
the loveliness of your children and I look forward to meeting
their great, great grandchildren. Christendom may operate within
an ungodly culture but it will operate without compromise in order
that Deuteronomy 4:5-8 might come to pass. America, depending
on which poll you read, is peopled by a majority of Christians.
There is a huge pile of salt here. The problem is not too little
salt but too little savor. I engaged you a couple of weeks ago
on the following point and I will end with it:
laws will not save you, me, our families or our nation."
The purpose of law is not ultimately to make folks do right (although
the restraint of evil is always in view) but to show God's people
how to live-as they live that way, they will be salt and light
(law always follows grace, not vice versa). And this is why two
things are necessary for our testimony. We must declare in the
public square that marriage consists of one man and one woman,
and we must do so in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
amen. Anyone (Christian, secularist or Islamist-BTW where do you
put the very moral Mormons in this mix) who agrees with the first
part, but demurs at the second, is not an ally or co-belligerent.
He is part of the problem1.
The sooner you and Marvin Olasky (whom I greatly admire as I also
do you) come to grips with this the better. I do not want to hold
hands with Abdul, Akbar and John Kerry and sing Kum Bah Yah-I
do not think that this is what Jesus had in mind either. If they
want to acknowledge one man for one woman, no civil unions, the
outlawing of adultery and fornication, sodomy, etc. because The
Soverign God of the Universe (aka Yahweh) has so ordained, then
fine. They can (and should) compromise
(bend the knee to Yahweh) for the furtherance of their
views. Why should I compromise God's?
Have a great
vacation. The horse has mercifully expired, I shall no longer
from “Part of the Problem”, Blog & Mablog (http://www.dougwils.com/),
Douglas Wilson; 2 July 2004