Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Feminism’

As the current presidential election cycle draws to a close, it seemed good to me to put down in writing what I see as the big issues at that will be determined by the November 8th vote.

It’s not uncommon to hear the upcoming election described in superlative terms such as “the most important ever,” or “the most revolting ever.” For my part, I try to steer clear of such statements, if only because I’m not sure how prove that they’re true.

But if I hesitate to say that the 2016 election is the most important ever in American history, I am willing to go on record and say that it may very well be the most important election of my fifty-year lifetime. I do not recall any previous election in which there were so many major issues at stake, issues, which depending on how the vote goes, that very likely will determine the course of our nation for a long time to come.

With that in mind, today’s post is intended to be more high-level, addressing the major overarching themes of this election, which I have cast in these terms: Oligarchy vs. the Rule of Law, Feminism vs. Patriarchy, and Globalism vs. Westphalian Sovereignty.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

 

Wittenberg-1536.jpg

Wittenberg as seen from the Elbe, 1536.

October 31 is known to much of the world as the pagan holiday of Halloween. But for Christians, October 31 represents something quite different. It’s what we call Reformation Day.

 

For it was on that date in 1517 that Martin Luther’s nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door and forever changed the world for the better.

The Gospel of Justification By Faith Alone – the idea that sinful men are saved, not by doing good works, but solely by faith in Christ Jesus – once again shone forth in all its brilliance after a millennium of suppression by the Roman Church-State and millions were saved as a result.

But Luther’s rejection of church tradition in favor of the objective, written Word of God did not revolutionize the church only. It resulted in a whole new civilization, what we now call the West, coming into existence.

Ideas such as the sanctity of private property, honesty in exchange, the rule of law, capitalism, written constitutions, secular work as pleasing to God all found their origin in the Protestant Reformation that began with Luther.

Though it is not commonly understood by Americans, our nation owes its very existence to the Biblical ideas recovered at the time of the Reformation.

Most of us are taught to trace the foundations of our republic to Greece and Rome. But limited, constitutional government did not begin with Greco-Roman civilization. It began with the Hebrew Republic as recorded for us in the Old Testament. Thus the Bible is foundational to our political system.

In like manner, our economic system of capitalism or free enterprise finds its origins, not in the writings of pagan philosophers, nor in the thought of medieval scholastics, nor in the principles of the Renaissance, but in the propositions of the Word of God, the 66 books of the Bible.

To put it another way: No Protestant Reformation, no United States of America. To quote John Robbins,

One of Luther’s most brilliant followers, John Calvin, systematized the theology of the Reformation. The seventeenth-century Calvinists laid the foundations for both English and American civil rights and liberties: freedom of speech, pres, and religion, the privilege against self-incrimination, the independence of juries, and right of habeas corpus, the right not to be imprisoned without cause. The nineteenth-century German historian Leopold von Ranke referred to Calvin as the “virtual founder of America” (Civilization and the Protestant Reformation).

(more…)

Read Full Post »

trump_clinton_2

In last week’s post, I set forth a framework for helping Evangelicals think through the issue of whether then can support Donald Trump for President. I suggested we ask ourselves the following questions when considering whether we can vote for Trump: What is more important, What is less important, What is not important at all.

Today, I would like to apply that analysis specifically to the issue of the vulgar Donald Trump/billy Bush video that was released a few weeks ago.

That video, showing both men engaged in what has been euphemistically termed “locker room talk”, has threatened to undermine Trump’s support among Evangelicals, who, with good reason, are offended by what was said on the recording.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

trump_clinton_2

The Bible distinguishes knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is the ideas taught in Scripture either by direct statement or by implication. Wisdom, on the other hand, is the correct application of knowledge to the particular men and circumstances that we encounter in our lives.

As a way of getting them to apply their knowledge, John Robbins sometimes would tell people they needed to decide what is more important, what is less important, and what is not important at all. This approach can be a helpful way for Christians to think through a host of different issues, including the decision how to vote in elections.

And given the stakes inherent in any presidential election, maybe especially this election, it is important for Christians to have a Biblical framework for evaluating the candidates.

For my part, I have struggled with the election more than any other. There are numerous reason why I would never consider voting for Hillary Clinton. Some of them I have outlined below.

On the other hand, the thought of voting for Trump presents challenges as well.

One Christian writer, put off as he is by the release of a video with Trump making lewd sexual remarks, has equated support for Trump with idolatry and a decision that harms our witness for Christ, “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord” (Andy Crouch, Speak Truth to Trump).

Over at World, Marvin Olasky penned Unfit for power, an editorial calling for Trump to step aside as Republican nominee.

One suspects that the arguments put forth by both these writers reflect the thoughts of many Christians. And it is not hard to understand their agreement with Crouch and Olasky.

My view is different. As I shall argue, I believe both these gentlemen miss the mark with their commentaries. Given the circumstances, In my opinion a vote for Trump, rather than being idolatry, may very well be an act of good judgment.

Concerning the call for Trump to step down, it’s worth asking whether there have been any calls from World for Mrs. Clinton to step aside for her many, blatant and serious crimes, not to mention several other significant problems that make her unfit for office.

Before presenting my argument, there are a few points I would like to make.

First, what I say in this post is an opinion. I do not offer it up as a necessary deduction from Scripture. I do not claim it as knowledge. As one who’s spent more than a year struggling with what to think about Trump, and to some extent avoiding commentary on the subject, I can appreciate Crouch’s and Olasky’s concerns and do not doubt their good intentions.

Further, there are many good brothers and sisters in Christ who, as a matter of conscience believe they cannot vote for Trump. This post is not aimed at them. If someone believes voting for Trump is wrong, he should by no means go against his conscious. To do so would be sin.

Third, I acknowledge my own biases, sinfulness and ignorance and realize that all of these shortcomings color any analysis that I do. A Hillary Clinton administration will be, in my view, a heavy burden upon the American people. Perhaps my own intense dislike for her has unfairly colored by assessment of Trump. In light of this, it is possible that I am wrong and those who oppose a Trump presidency are right. That I will leave for others to decide.

Fourth, I write what I do in good faith in the hope that the body of Christ may find it edifying. It is not my intention to castigate those who come to conclusions that are at odds with mine. And if I’ve made errors in my reasoning, perhaps at least some of what I’ve set forth will stimulate thought concerning the election choice facing the nation.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The specific purpose of this series has been to look at what the Bible has to say about the now popular idea that , not only is it improper for voters to reject a presidential candidate because she’s a woman, but that having a female head of state is itself actually a positive development, demonstrating progressive thinking on the part of any nation whose electorate votes for such a thing.

More broadly speaking, it has been my intention to make people aware that what Martin Luther called the SchriftprinzipSchriftprinzip is German for “Scripture principle” – applies not just in matters that Christians normally think of as “spiritual”, but to all facets of life, politics included. A typical formulation of the Schriftprinzip is this: Scripture is, “in itself most certain, most easily understood, most plain, is its own interpreter, approving, judging, and illuminating all the statements of all men…Therefore nothing except the divine words are to be the first principles for Christians; all human words are conclusions drawn from them and must be brought back to them and approved by them” (emphasis added).

Note well Luther’s use of the words “all” and “nothing”. All statements of all men must be judged by nothing other than the words of the 66 books of the Bible. For some, the idea that the Bible has anything to say about politics may be a new thought, let alone that what it has to say is authoritative. God is not the God of 11 am on Sunday mornings only. He is God 24/7, and his Word is authoritative in all things 24/7.

This means, among other things, that when Christians think about politics, they must not take their cues on what is right and what is wrong from secular thinkers, but they are required to bring the statements of the political pundits and philosophers back to the Bible to see if their opinions square with the Word of God.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

monstrous-regiment-of-women

The Monstrous Regiment of Women, title page.

In part one of this series we looked at the history of the idea of a woman president. As it turns out, people have been agitating for a woman president since at least 1872 when Victoria Claflin Woodhull became the first woman to run for president of the United States.

But even though in some quarters there has been a push for a woman president for well over one hundred years, in recent decades the clamor for this has increased considerably. Those who favor this idea scored a major victory with the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female presidential candidate of a major political party.

The spirit of the times is such that to question the propriety of having a female chief executive is viewed at best as hopelessly out of date and at worst a thought crime worthy of severe punishment in the gulags of political correctness. No current day political thinker, at least none that I am aware of, questions whether having a woman president is a good idea. Perhaps the only high-profile secular writer of recent times who clearly opposed the notion of a woman head of state was Ayn Rand, who commented that a woman commander-in-chief was “unspeakable.”

Part two of this series took a look at woman suffrage, which was a necessary condition to bring us to the present state. When the nations of the West gave women the vote, by this very act they also implied that it is appropriate to have a woman head of state.

At least some people were aware of this at the time woman’s suffrage was being debated. According to Grace Saxon Mills, one reason to oppose women getting the vote was, “because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.”

Mills obviously understood where the logic of woman suffrage would lead and had the good sense to reject it as absurd. One could hope that today’s Evangelicals would be so perceptive and courageous. But such is not the case.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

monstrous-regiment-of-women

The Monstrous Regiment of Women, title page.

Ratified in 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed women the right to vote in the United States. The text of the Amendment reads in part, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Prior to the adoption of this Amendment, women had limited access to the ballot box. Some states permitted women to vote, as did some municipalities. But with the 19th Amendment, women were guaranteed the same voting rights as men. And if women had the same voting rights as men, on what basis could anyone deny them the right to hold office, up to and including the presidency?

This very point was raised during the debate over woman suffrage in Great Britain. During the parliamentary debate on the 1906 Resolution on the Enfranchisement of Women, several points were put forth by those opposed to women voting. Among the reasons for opposing female suffrage was the following:

Because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that an many similar absurdities.

But what was scarcely imaginable in 1906 has in 2016 become a self-evident truth. To deny it is to run the risk of being declared a heretic in the church of progressive liberalism and, at least metaphorically speaking, being burned at the stake.

But if this be heresy, let us make the most of it. It is the contention of this writer that those opposed to woman suffrage were in the right, and the suffragists in the wrong. My case rests on the evidence of the Scriptures. And while the conclusions drawn from Scripture on the matter are, in and of themselves, decisive, the practical experience of the last 96 years can be called upon to support this contention as well.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: