Lux Lucet

Bernie Sanders questions Russell Vought in Senate confirmation hearing, 6/7/2017.

Tolerance. It may be the single dominate buzzword or out time. Everyone has heard of it. Progressives claim to have it. Conservatives are berated for lacking it. All must bow down to it. Yet rarely does anyone attempt to define it.

There is a Christian sense to the term “tolerance,” one to which any believer in Jesus Christ would readily affirm, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” As Christians, we are to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, “for this is the law and the prophets.”

Negatively, tolerance in the Christian sense does not mean agreeing with everybody, saying that all ideas about God, ethics, politics or economics are equally true. There is truth, and there is falsehood. There is darkness and there is light. The prophet Isaiah condemned those who put darkness for light and light for darkness. As Christians, we are called to proclaim the truth and expose the lie.

Aye, and there’s the rub, at least as far as 21st century progressives are concerned. These folks have infinite patience for every idea under the sun, no matter how irrational or destructive it may be, just so long as they can use it as a weapon to smash what little is left of Western civilization.

For the cultural Marxists, if an idea or action doesn’t shock and offend the Protestant bourgeoisie and serve to tear down their civilization, it is by definition intolerable.

Barak Obama gave voice to this notion a few years ago with his “bitter clingers” remark.

Hillary Clinton showed her contempt for ordinary Americans last fall, labeling a large swath of the American population as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic…they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

Not only does Mrs. Clinton think Americans, her present company excepted, are a bunch of bigots, but she adds that they are irredeemably so. And by stating “they are not America,” it appears that the thinks of these individuals, not as fellow Americans who deserve her respect, but as animals who must be controlled.

And she wonders why she lost the election.

All of which brings me to Bernie Sanders and his remarks in a Senate confirmation hearings this past week. If you haven’t seen the video yet, please take a couple minutes to review it.

The terse exchange between potential deputy White House budget director Russ Vought and Senator Bernie Sanders is packed with theological, legal and political implications. Let’s look at a few of them.

The Offense of the Cross

The big issue for Sanders was a 2015 article written by Russ Vought titled Wheaton College and the Preservation of Theological Clarity. The article was posted on the website of Wheaton College, of which Vought is a graduate.

In his article, Vought expressed his support for the school’s decision to fire Dr. Larycia Hawkins over her stance that Muslims and Christian worship the same God. And Vought was right on target with this remarks.

Muslims deny the Trinity, they deny that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and they deny that he is the sole mediator between God and man. Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, and only a profoundly confused or profoundly dishonest person would think otherwise.

But what really got Sanders worked up was this comment by Vought, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.” Exactly. “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

The New Testament calls Jesus Christ the sole mediator between God and man. Said Peter, “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Such assertions naturally offend the sensibility of sinners, regardless of their particular beliefs. Certainly they offend Bernie Sanders, who thundered at Vought, “In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?…You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, his Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?”

The correct answer to the first question is “yes,” as Vought noted in his article.

As to the second question, it is inappropriate. Theology deals with matters of truth. Therefore, the proper question concerning any assertion about God is not whether it is “respectful,” but whether or not it is true.

If nothing else, Sanders’ reaction to Vought tells us that the cross is still very much an offense, even two thousand years later.

Religious Test

After challenging Vought on this Christian beliefs, Sanders concluded his questioning by saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

As the SJWs like to say, “Wow, just wow.”

Far from Vought being “not someone who this country is supposed to be about,” those words would be far more fittingly applied to the Senator from Vermont.

The Constitution of the United States specifically prohibits using a religious test for public office. Assuming the Senator is familiar with this clause, it would be interest to hear how he would square his statement with the plain language of Article VI of the Constitution.

Reactions, Various and Sundry

As you may expect, opinions regarding the exchange between Sanders and Vought came fast and thick.

Agreeing with Sanders, Muslim James Zogby noted that “It is Vought , not Sanders who has used a religious test to support the firing of a tenured professor.” This is foolishness. The Constitution prohibits religious tests “as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” It says nothing about religious schools. Would Zogby support a the hiring of a Protestant minister to serve at his mosque or Muslim religious school?

Zogby continues, “[Vought] demonstrated intolerance…when it came to Professor Hawkins…precisely because her description of her faith did not comport with his narrow interpretation of Christian theology.”

In Zogby’s opinion, “narrow” is a pejorative with which to brand your enemies, but Jesus did not see it that way. He said, “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life,” and commended those who choose this path.

The Council on America-Islamic Relations (CAIR) posted the following statement on its Facebook page the day before Vought’s confirmation hearing,

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslims (sic) civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee to oppose the confirmation of Russell Vought as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget because of his past Islamophobic statements. Vought has written that Muslims follow a “deficient theology” and “do not know God.”

This is a sloppy statement. According to Webster’s, a phobia is “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object or class of objects.” Based on this definition of “phobia” there was nothing Islamophobic about Vought’s article. Vought did not express an irrational fear of Islam in his post. He expressed disagreement. And disagreement and irrational fear are not the same thing.

Yet we live in a world that is so based on feeling that it has become nearly impossible for people to make simple, logical distinctions between ideas. It does not follow that because Vought disagrees with Muslims that he fears them. He thinks they are wrong and in need of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The ever helpful ACLU also weighed in, issuing a statement that reads in part,

Religious freedom is such a fundamental liberty that the framers of our Constitution enshrined it in the First Amendment. That’s why it’s so disturbing that Trump continues to pack his administration with appointees like Russell Vought, whose views threaten that very freedom.

The first amendment prohibited the Federal government from establishing a state church. It in no way prohibits Christians from believing and teaching that faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone is the only way of salvation. Further, the first amendment in no way prohibits American’s who hold this belief from serving in office, even as president.

By taking the position it does, the ACLU is in essence saying that “we must destroy religious liberty in order to save it.” Go figure.

The ACLU goes on to state that they intend to watch Vought closely “to ensure that those helping decide how public money is spent and the government is managed understand the vital importance of nondiscrimination.”

These guys just can’t get the plank out of their own eye. How is it that they are so stupid as not to understand that by attacking Vought for his Christian faith, they are guilty of the very thing they rail against, discrimination?

Muslim Advocates posted a letter on its website that read that attacked Vought for, what else, his “bigotry,” concluding, “It is improper for the Trump Administration to appoint a person who expresses such views to a positions that is so consequential to these communities.”

So because of the importance of the office of Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a man of Vought’s faith is disqualified. If this were actually true, it would logically disqualify Vought or any other Christian from holding any office that required Senate confirmation. It could also be used as a basis to argue that Christians ought to be barred from holding any federal office, elected or appointed. That same logic could be extended to state and local offices as well. With the result being that a Christian could not so much as hold the office of dog catcher.

And this from an organization that touts itself as “promoting freedom & justice for all.” For all, that is, except those who have faith in Christ.

Conclusion

For my part, I’m actually glad that Bernie Sanders said what he said in the hearing. By his words, he clearly demonstrated the profound hostility toward the truth that exists in high places in our society. Sanders and his supporters hate the truth. And they laid their cards on the table for all to see.

Second, the exclusivity of cross is still an offense. The tolerant are more than happy to grant that Jesus was a good teacher and a good man, a true example to us all. But when Christians preach that the is the only way to God, that’s when the fangs come out. Luther saw this in his day and rejoiced in the division that his preaching brought, “for,” he said, “this is how the Word of God works.”

Third, Christians have an amazing opportunity before them to preach Christ crucified. It is tempting to lament the hardness of heart shown by Bernie Sanders and others. But Bernie Sanders needs the Gospel of Christ, for as it stands, he is condemned before the bar of God’s justice. The same with the Muslims and those at the ACLU. Let us be faithful in our witness and see to it that they hear the truth, leaving the results to God.