The Desert of the Real

In many churches today discussing passages like Colossians 3, or its parallel passages in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3, are off-limits. It isn’t even mentioned privately in pre or post marriage counseling, and the idea of preaching on it is positively unthinkable. A large portion of evangelicalism flinched in the face of feminism, and ceded this point.

The inevitable result of this is the loss of a proper understanding of the Trinity. We emphasize the co-equal, and by implication emphasize the equality of the husband/wife relationship, but then neglect the submission of the Son to the Father. Once you begin abandoning the revealed truth of Scripture for the sake of convenience, pride, or really any reason whatsoever, the inevitable slide into heresy begins.

This is demonstrated quite clearly in this story from Fox News on the PCUSA national assembly putting forward an action to change ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ to ‘Mother, Child, and Womb’ or ‘Rock, Redeemer, Friend’. Many people see this and shake their heads in dismay. They recognize that it’s wrong. What they don’t recognize is that their own rebellion against God’s Word are the same actions that led the PCUSA to where it is today.

Men are not by any means off the hook here either. This story brings to mind the passage of Jeremiah 44. Here, the women of Judah have been committing idolatry, worshipping the ‘Queen of Heaven’. The Lord, through the prophet Jeremiah rebuked them, and they rejected his instruction outright:

15 Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying,
16 “As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you!
17 “But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.

This is a classic excuse from people who wish to attempt to justify their rebellion. They confuse God’s mercy and generosity with His blessing. Despite the clear teaching that God causes rain to fall on the righeous and the unrighteous, they assume that if they get rain He must think they’re ok.

Note that the men were in full awareness of the activities of their wives, as noted above, and then in vs 19:

19 “And,” said the women, “when we were burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and were pouring out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands that we made for her sacrificial cakes in her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

Do you see what is happening here? The men in these families did nothing to intervene in the unbiblical actions of their wives. As a result, their wives used this as justification for their actions. As husbands we will be called to account for this, and it is our failing as men, both in our leadership in the home and in the church, that has brought the church to a state where this sort of thing can happen. We can point the finger at feminism, the the fault lies ultimately with us as men.

Further, it specifically comes from our failure to define a standard. Confessional churches have an easier time of this, because there is an objective standard of the way Scriptures are interpreted. The elders in a church can be held to it. The Elders can use it as a valuable resource in handling these sorts of movements. However, the majority of evangelicalism has ejected the majority of creeds, and certainly don’t require any sort of subscription to them. As a result, our churches are adrift, and vulnerable to exactly this sort of thing.

Yet another serious blow to the fourth amendment today. One with potentially far reaching implications. I must say that I am deeply disappointed in Scalia and Thomas. Given Alito’s fascist leanings his ruling in favor of Michigan is certainly no surprise however. Thanks again GWB. And thanks again all you republicans who knew he was a horrible candidate but voted for him instead of a third party because he was the lesser of two evils.

So what is Hudson? Well, to boil it down to its meaning, if police have a warrant to search a home, and they enter in a way that violates their constitutional duty to knock first and announce themselves, the evidence turned up in the search can be used in a criminal prosecution. It can’t be suppressed, which is the usual penalty for a violation of Miranda rights. So, if that penalty is gone, what is the new penalty?

Well, according to the majority opinions (Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion) we’re supposed to depend on the professionalism of the police officers, and the disciplinary action that police departments undertake internally when there are mistakes. Right. Somehow that hasn’t in the slightest affected the hundreds of times that police have knocked on the wrong door, or not bothered knocking at all. Often injuring or worse killing innocent people. Unless the negligence results in sufficient personal harm to raise enough eyebrows to get press coverage absolutely nothing is done.

So, what else? Civil suits. We can sue for damages! Oh…wait…that’s right, how often do courts rule against the cops in a civil suit on a constitutional violation…especially when the cops were trying to find drugs, even if they found the wrong house? Rarely. Then of course there is the fact that most drug raids don’t happen in upscale neighborhoods where there’s money ready to hand, and even if they could find a lawyer to take their case, now they have to worry about retribution. (And yes, it does happen. In fact, just recently here where I live they exposed a case of police harassment of a man who had discovered and reported Police corruption.)

But lets say they find money, so now they sue. Oh…wait…this is the same court that just ruled on May 30th in Ceballos that the govt has immunity from civil rights liability from abuse of internal whistleblowers. But somehow they’re going to uphold the right of citizens to file suit against the government for abuse of no-knock warrants? Right.

One of the foundations of this ruling was that of eventual discovery. They stated that they had a search warrant so they would’ve found the evidence eventually anyway. I wonder, how long before they just say “Hey, I know we didn’t have a search warrant, but we were going to get one, so we would’ve found it eventually anyway” and so we uphold the evidence?

How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

from Phil Johnson, in a post of his views on the Emerging Church movement:

They are right when they complain about the way the evangelical movement has sold its birthright for a mess of Republican Party porridge. I obviously don’t agree with those who think a commitment to left-wing politics would be the right remedy. But I do think the evangelical movement should cut its ties with all political parties, get out of party politics completely,and get back to the business of preaching the gospel.

Very well said. Note though that he didn’t say “get out of politics”. He said get out of party politics. I agree. I recognize that my position is Classical Liberal, and from a party perspective most would peg me as a libertarian. But I have no particular bond with them, frequently don’t vote that way, and sometimes…maybe even a lot of times…oppose those who run in that party. Meanwhile I have nearly unwavering support for a certain republican from Texas. Parties mean nothing. Our absurd dedication to them, particularly long after they have abandoned even the pretense of agreeing with us on any platform of significance outside of whatever they have to say to get our vote is embarassing.