Tolerance's steel shackles and the gagging of Wheaton's Christian witness...

“Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way" (Luke 6:26)

"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name" (Matthew 24:9).

Taking the measure of how Wheaton's Department of Education will implement their Teacher Education Program Conceptual Framework and what kind of Christian witness it would allow Wheaton students to have and still be certified requires seeing the increasingly narrow constraints applied through these three "goals/outcomes related to social justice" spelled out on page four.

The first outcome required of the students is that they "work effectively with all children and their families regardless of race, creed, religion, national origin, sexual preference, disabling condition, or capabilities." As Professor Rasmusen said under an earlier post, as long as "work effectively" is fairly defined and doesn't exclude the diversity of orthodox Christian thought and speech related, for instance, to sodomy and sodomites, we have no problem.

But anyone half alive in these United States today knows how "work effectively" is likely to be defined. As I said to George Marsden years ago when he was busy arguing that Christians should also have a place at the table (of the modern university), if they give us our place and we open our mouths about the slaughter of the unborn children all around us; or if we utter a single word about Adam being created first, and then Eve; we'll be removed. In a heartbeat, our place will vanish. Poof! It's gone.

So we move on to the second "goal/outcome related to social justice" required of students. They are "to ensure that diversity is respected and that candidates have the opportunity to work in diverse environments and with diverse colleagues and teachers." Now we begin to see how "work effectively" is defined by Wheaton's profs as they evaluate their students. The above diversities must be "respected." Of course we respect different races and national origins and disabling conditions and capabilities. No problem.

But would a student be "respecting" the diversity of sodomy or Islam if he presented a loving and graceful and merciful and cogent and truthful witness against it? If he taught the true history of expansion by Jihad...

at the heart of the heresy of Islam from the time of their Prophet Mohammad down to today? If he called a gay colleague to repentance in the teachers lounge? With great tact and kindness, of course. Would this orthodox Christian witness be tolerated?

No. It's immediately apparent the exclusivity at the heart of the Christian faith that caused our fathers to die under the Roman Empire is utterly incompatible with our modern pantheon of gods known as pluralism and diversity.

Throughout his many comments on this blog, Darryl Hart's been absolutely right. If Christians are to get along, we must go along. Outside the church and home, the Christian's loving witness must be silenced or we'll all face persecution. If one guy's yelling, no one can hide.

The world's diversity police claim they only want us to be tolerant, but they define tolerance in such a way that only R2-K men will ever be acceptable.

Lewis saw it long ago: they'll tell us we can have our religion in private; then they'll make sure we're never alone. We're fools if we think hate crime legislation will stop outside our front doors and just off our church property and MP3 servers.

Then, in case the noose wasn't yet tight enough, we come to the third and final outcome required of Wheaton students: they must "understand current social justice issues in education and understand their obligation to work for positive change." The lynching of the godly Christian with true love for his Muslim or sodomite neighbor is now finished. Even if he were understood to be "respecting" sodomites when he called them to repentance, the second someone takes umbrage at his loving appeals, he's finished. "Working for positive change" is not defined by the one working, but the one being worked on.

Speak up against the slaughter of the unborn and they'll hang you, even if you're Mother Theresa. Speak up against the solicitation to fornication and adultery and sodomy by students and teachers in the local public high school and they'll hang you, even if you're C. S. Lewis. Speak up against the greed and moral decadence of your new host country at the AFL-CIO or Harvard's commencement exercises and they'll hang you, even if your Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Speak up for Jesus Christ and His Cross of justice and mercy; suggest to one of your depressed and HIV positive grad students that he repent and believe during a Christmas part at your home; and they'll hang you, even if you're Nathan Hatch, David Lindberg, or George Marsden.

It's clear. The man who lives by by diversity, pluralism, and tolerance will die by diversity, pluralism, and tolerance. Which is another way of saying tolerance has always been a figment of go along to get along men. The tolerance of the Roman Empire's pantheon of gods stopped at the bold witness of hearts set on fire by Jesus Christ saying in the Areopagus:

"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:29-31).

Areopagus, prayer breakfast, Harvard commencement, faculty senate, or teachers lounge; this message is the model for all time. And, like the Early Church, those faithful to preach and teach as the Apostle Paul and Polycarp preached and taught will die as the Apostle Paul and Polycarp died.

Wheaton College's Department of Education knows quite well the hypocrisy of tolerance, and the point of this document is to wear the zealous edges off their students before they enter the public school systems of our nation so future grads will not be blacklisted because former grads have made Apostle Pauls and Polycarps of themselves.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

This post is a game-winning...

Three-point basket

Grand slam home run

Touchdown!

So many parts to extol, but I'll choose this one:

"It's clear. The man who lives by by diversity, pluralism, and tolerance will die by diversity, pluralism, and tolerance. Which is another way of saying tolerance has always been a figment of go along to get along men."

P.S. Here's another one worth noting:

"The world's diversity police claim they only want us to be tolerant, but they define tolerance in such a way that only R2-K men will ever be acceptable."

If the R2K men want to align with world's diversity police comprised of LibProts and Secular Liberals, then they go and join up without me.

Thank you for writing this post as it is encouraging me and scaring me at the same time because of the work that needs to be done.

Also, the R2K thing is tempting because we won't get as bloody but I wonder how many of those men really lead and discipline their wives or just try to keep the peace?

"Also, the R2K thing is tempting because we won't get as bloody"

I'll take the courage of the 1K Bayly brothers over the cowardice of the R2K'ers any day.

Tim Bayly,

What would you like to see incoming President of Wheaton Phil Ryken do with the Wheaton Department of Education and how would like to see him go about it and in what approximate timeframe?

Short broadstroke outline responses are perfectly fine for the blog thread medium.

After getting my bachelor's at Olivet Nazarene University (another small, private Christian college in the Chicago area), I lived in the area for a few years. I think it was around 2000 that a friend of mine at ONU who was an art education major went to a local public school (a practicum?) as part of his major. He believes that art is not merely a process of mechanical production (that he would call a "craft"); rather he says in creating art the artist expresses his beliefs. So it is important to know what you believe and think about how you are portraying those beliefs in what you create. Otherwise art is meaningless. (He saw aspiring artists' lack of understanding of what they believe and lack of careful thought when creating their art as a serious problem in the art world -- I don't think I'm embellishing too much, he had given consideration to these things.)

As his example, since he is a Christian, he brought in some Christian symbol (I don't remember what it was -- a cross? Praying hands?) and explained that as a Christian here were a couple of his beliefs and here was how he those beliefs made a difference in the creation of his art.

A parent complained, and the ONU education department reprimanded my friend sharply, that this type of thing is NOT appropriate.

Faced with continuing as an Art Ed. major but silencing his witness in the classroom, he instead changed majors.

We talked at the time, but all I could offer was "Hmmm!" -- because I didn't know courage when I saw it.

Clarification: the sculpture or print of a Christian symbol that my friend brought in was one he had made.

Also, it was a high school that he went to (not for instance an elementary)

Tim, I know you think I should only do history. So here is some history, the kind you missed when reading about Machen. Machen wrote:

"Tolerance, moreover, means not merely tolerance for that with which we are agreed but also tolerance for that to which we are most thoroughly opposed. A few years ago there was passed in New York the abominable Lusk Law requiring private teachers in any subjects whatever to obtain a state license. It was aimed, I believe, at the Socialists, and primarily at the Rand School in New York City. Now certainly I have no sympathy with Socialism. Because of its hostility to freedom it seems to me to be just about the darkest thought that has ever entered the mind of man. But certainly such opposition to Socialism did not temper in the slightest degree my opposition to that preposterous law. Tolerance, to me, does not mean merely tolerance for what I hold to be good, but also tolerance for what I hold to be abominably bad." (1923)

Another quote that bears on this issue:"I am for my part an inveterate propagandist; but the same right of propaganda which I desire for myself I want to see also in the possession of others. What absurdities are uttered in the name of pseudo-Americanism today! People object to the Roman Catholics, for example, because they engage in "propaganda." But why should they not engage in propaganda? And how could we have any respect for them, if holding the view which they do hold, that outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation, they did not engage in propaganda first, last and all the time. Clearly they have a right to do so, and clearly we have a right to do the same." (1923)

So that Presbyterian fundamentalist, Machen, was a proponent of tolerance and diversity. Your notion that if you live by tolerance you die by it is wrong. In this greatest nation on God's green earth, tolerance has actually allowed folks like Machen to be mean about being consistently Presbyterian.

It really is possible to be decidedly Christian and a proponent of tolerance. It is not if you think the state needs to be steeped in the true faith.

Darryl,

You consistently miss the point. Problem is, you're bright, so missing the point is an act of your will, I believe.

But for those reading your comments thinking I would disagree with Machen, there's not a word of the quotes you chose I'd even want to quibble with. Machen's absolutely right.

I suggest you think along the lines of the distinction between tolerance and intolerance.

Tim, you wrote: "Throughout his many comments on this blog, Darryl Hart's been absolutely right. If Christians are to get along, we must go along. Outside the church and home, the Christian's loving witness must be silenced or we'll all face persecution. If one guy's yelling, no one can hide.
The world's diversity police claim they only want us to be tolerant, but they define tolerance in such a way that only R2-K men will ever be acceptable."

Machen went along. He was part of the diversity police. And since he defended the rights of Roman Catholics, I suspect he would have done the same for Muslims.

You don't do that in this post. How can you claim not to take issue with Machen? You have consistently expressed Christianity as a source of social divisiveness. And if someone like me claims that Christianity doesn't have to be divisive, then I'm not a good Christian.

In other words, how can you follow Machen on the rights of Roman Catholics when you insist that Christian norms must be the standards for public life in the U.S.? You may not think Roman Catholics are bad now, but in 1923 they were to most American Protestants like Muslims are today. After all, the first Roman Catholic presidential candidate, Al Smith, lost in a rout in 1928. But Machen voted for him, partly because Smith opposed Prohibition, you know, one of those progressive reforms that the Blanchards supported.

>In other words, how can you follow Machen on the rights of Roman Catholics when you insist that Christian norms must be the standards for public life in the U.S.?

I don't think Pastor Bayly has advocated violence to place Christian norms on the statute book but rather has said that given we live in a country where we each are free to publicly advocate positions and vote in support of those positions we should advocate and vote for positions which are not in conflict with orthodox Christianity.

> If someone like me claims that Christianity doesn't have to be devisive...

Not if you keep it to yourself it doesn't. If earlier Christians had possessed such prudence and proportion a lot of unnecessary blood-letting could have been avoided.

Mr. Hart, I think you've missed Pastor Bayly's point, as did somebody else who said, "What if Catholics or Mormons start revealing their beliefs too?"
The point missed is that it's good if everybody speaks out like that. Of course, we're right, and they're wrong, but better that everybody fights it out in a neutral public stage than that atheism is enforced. It's better if one grade school teacher talks about Allah and another one about Jehovah than if both of them have to act as if no God exists, or if one does, he's irrelevant to daily life.

What Wheaton Education seems to be doing is telling its students to be quiet and let everybody think that Christians believe the same things as school administrators (which, of course, is less religious than even what the average American thinks). Or, maybe they're actually trying to remove their students' evangelical beliefs---it's not clear. Thus, Wheaton Ed is succumbing to intolerance in the public schools rather than encouraging their students to fight it.

It reminds me of a story(possibly apocryphal) of what a Japanese judge said about judicial independence in Japan. "Oh, we're completely independent and free from political influence," he said. "That's because we're very careful never to do anything that would cause the politicians to want to interfere."

Tolerance is what your enemies plead for until they have sufficiently consolidated their forces as to allow them to be intolerant.

Pluralism is simply a code-word for "any Lord but Christ". They don't feel threatened by the false gods. Those are acceptable.

It is precisely because we have not pressed Christ's crown rights in the civil realm that we are rapidly loosing them in our homes and churches.

Sorry, make that losing not loosing. I was on a roll.

". . .the point of this document is to wear the zealous edges off their students before they enter the public school systems of our nation so future grads will not be blacklisted because former grads have made Apostle Pauls and Polycarps of themselves."

This is what it is all about. Wheaton wants glory instead of giving glory to God. I'm as depressed and sickened as I was for three years coming out of chapel at Wheaton college.

-Former Wheatie

It would be nice if Wheaton considered "to work for positive change" like God does (ie - calling to repentance is a positive change that brings people to saving faith, right?)

As David Baker pointed out in the comments to the previous post, the Wheaton College Community Covenant states that Scripture clearly condemns certain sins like adultery, pornography, and homosexuality, etc., which would seems to imply that the education department should consider "positive change" as defined by God's Word.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely this is the case.

David Gray and Eric Rasmussen, I am not defending Wheaton. I wish everyone who used the language of "justice," from Wheaton's education department to the Baylys, would read Alisdair McIntyre's Whose Justice, Which Rationality.

What I am objecting to is Tim's rhetoric, as in: "the man who lives by by diversity, pluralism, and tolerance will die by diversity, pluralism, and tolerance. Which is another way of saying tolerance has always been a figment of go along to get along men."

This sounds to me like someone who would object to defending the rights of non-Christians. I believe it is possible to advocate diversity, pluralism and tolerance and still maintain one's Christian convictions. That is exactly what the Westminster Confession says about the magistrate: "It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." [23.3]

I believer a time and place exist for applying the antithesis between Christians and non-Christians. I just don't think it has to be all the time and everywhere the way the Baylys do. But, you know, that's what makes me unfaithful in the land of Bayly.

"I believer a time and place exist for applying the antithesis between Christians and non-Christians."

But do you think it is ever to be done in public (outside of the pseudo-public church service)? I'll give you this: at least you're consistent.

Anyway, forget "applying the antithesis". How about letting Christians act like Christ at work and in the public sphere?

If you've ever spent time at a public university what you will know beyond all doubt is that diversity, pluralism, and tolerance *never* extend to those who are Christians expressing (much less teaching) *their* beliefs to others. I can only assume that you've never been in such an environment. If you had, surely you would be able to grasp the point.

A beautiful example is the time the Evangelicals kicked my dad out of the Campus Religious Leaders Association because he dared to suggest to the new President of IU that he should truly embrace diversity, pluralism, and tolerance by hiring a Christian to work at the new GLBT center to minister to those who wanted to fight their temptation, instead of embrace it.

Apparently you've never experienced the worship of the gods of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance. Either that, or you are one of those who holds the figment in his mind in order to get along.

dgh: I believer a time and place exist for applying the antithesis between Christians and non-Christians. I just don't think it has to be all the time and everywhere

Me: Some of us are left wondering when it is ever appropriate for antithesis in R2K. For all the "law" you see in a kingdom of darkness vs light motif (as opposed to the kingdom of man and kingdom of God where the two never meet), we are left with a lot or R2K law of "do this at such and such time...here it comes, wait, you missed it....wait for it...do it! You did it wrong! How could you! Not like that like this...no not that way...don't say that!"

To my mind, R2K misses the boat of antithesis where it matters most...at ground level where believers must share the reason for *their* hope...not necessarily an argument, but why they have hope. They may offer poor arguments, they may sound foolish to men of refinement...but it is faith.

You want to silence faith, Darryl. I wish you would be silent.

Joseph Bayly, I see you have not fallen too far from the trunk of your father's tree in that you are equally adept in making insinuations based on ignorance of another, and then attributing the worst of motives. I studied as an undergraduate at Temple University, later at Harvard Divinity School, and then at Johns Hopkins. I know a bit about the university world. Now I teach at Temple, a secular institution. Granted, it's only as an adjunct so I can't claim any status perks because of it. But you may be interested to know that I have taught Genesis and Luke to sophomores, trying to do justice to the diversity of students (Jews, Roman Catholics and some Protestants) and to the rules which took Temple from a Baptist institution to a Pennsylvania one. I have also been up front about my identity as an Orthodox Presbyterian.

Funny thing is, by being up front and not assuming that my views, because from God, should be those of everyone else, I was able to gain a hearing. Would you have had me preach in the class? Would that have honored my faith? But what about honoring the terms of my contract?

Craig, I want the offense to be the cross of Christ, not Christians who do not care for civility because they have the truth.

Darryl,
you're couching things deceitfully again.

Who said anything about not caring for civility? Did anyone say (or imply) that unbelievers have no rights?

Please stop being deceitful. Light shines in darkness. Always.

>I believe it is possible to advocate diversity, pluralism and tolerance and still maintain one's Christian convictions.

I agree. But not the way the terms are generally used in modern political discourse where they are applied to provide cover to anti-Christian militants and their activities.

>>I believe it is possible to advocate diversity, pluralism and tolerance and still maintain one's Christian convictions.

That's a tell.

On one side are those seeking only to "maintain one's Christian convictions," those who bury one's talent so one can present it to one's Master, intact, when He returns.

But what about the Son of Man coming to seek and to save that which was lost? What about investing the talent for eternity, looking beyond the present?

In other words, what about love? Of neighbor? Of neighbor lost in the bondage of sodomy, dying and Dying? Is there no love for him? Is there no one who will stop to bind up his wounds and comfort him? Is there no one who will commit our much-vaunted Tolerance's capital crime of speaking to him of sin and righteousness and judgment, calling him to the mercy of Jesus Christ? Are we really so sterile and cruel that we'll scrupulously keep to the other side of the iron curtain of diversity and pluralism and tolerance?

Does my neighbor have to run across no-man's land, squeeze through the barbed wire, climb the wall, take the bullets, and fall gasping onto the pavement on the other side before I'll venture out from my cover to help him? And when he fell on the other side, would he find me there? Or off in church boldly proclaiming the doctrines of grace for all twenty-three of us gathered there on a Lord's Day morning?

The Apostle Paul was hated and suffered, constantly, for his love and mercy. And when he asked for prayer, he asked them to pray he'd be even more bold. That is one prayer I've not gotten a hint of, here.

The Apostle Paul went into the Areopagus and preached against the Athenian's tolerant multiculturalism, calling it "ignorance" from which those uber-sophisticates must "repent" because judgment was coming.

Yes, I know all the R2-K men and Wheaton's profs would lay garlands on the Apostle Paul's grave (in this matter of the Areopagus, at least). But on the way home from the cemetery where all the prophets they claim to love are buried...

Men, what about love? Really. Do you love your neighbor?

Please pray for me, that I will.

Love,

>>Funny thing is, by being up front and not assuming that my views, because from God, should be those of everyone else, I was able to gain a hearing.

Dear Dr. Hart,

I don't want to rebuke you sharply because you are older and much more knowledgeable man than I am. Nevertheless, when I read things like what you've written here I've got to speak; to defend the truth and power of the Gospel. I'm just an undergrad and I'll never get into Harvard anything, yet despite this, I know enough to see that this statement has very little in common with the way godly men of the past have acted and spoken. If you don't long for "your views, which are from God" to be shared by others, then you don't love your students and if you don’t love your students then your not loving, honoring or fearing God rightly. I know this is a heavy accusation, so let me clarify what I mean.

I'm not saying you need to (necessarily) break your contract with the school; but I am saying that first you ought to faithful to the covenant that God has made with his people and with you, don’t merely do Justice to Temple and her students, do Justice to the Gospel you are teaching. If your views are indeed “from God” then they are universally true.

In your hearing that you gained what did you teach your students of? That Jesus is the only way? That all the gods of the nations are idols? That the Genesis and Luke are “theopneustos”, God breathed and profitable? That there’s a day appointed for Judgment?

O that that you would preach to them! If they are reading the teachings of our Lord Jesus then God is preaching to them already through his Word.

If you don’t speak, how will they know?
If you don’t preach, how will they believe?
If you don’t go, how will they call His name?

(Reposting the other Wheaton Thread)

Dark Heart: "The history of Christian social reform is littered with irresponsible exegesis."

That's the R2K argument?

Simply because there have been LibProts who have committed irresponsible exegesis throughout their history, therefore, the pro-life conservative Christians now need to withdraw their voices from the Public Square?

Craig French, if it is sinful to abort babies, isn't also sinful to believe in Allah? So if there should be no right to abortion, what right on your view is there for Muslims? I cannot understand why you don't see this point, that insisting on the sixth commandment in public life brings into view the first commandment? What, do you only want the second table to be displayed in public schools and court rooms?

Tim, let's just say that as much as you sign off "with love," I have been asking a lot when reading your posts about 2k and SOTC, "where's the love?" Can I get some?

Michael B.: if I follow your logic I should never have signed a contract at Temple. Which is akin to the problem of taking Christianity into the public square. It doesn't leave a lot of room for unbelievers. If Christ is Lord of the public square, how are you going to let rebels stick around? I mean, several people making comments here wish I would vacate the public square. How would a Muslim or Jew be allowed in?

"Funny thing is, by being up front and not assuming that my views, because from God, should be those of everyone else, I was able to gain a hearing."

And there you have it. You do not even think that all men *should* believe what God has revealed about himself. That at least is one major difference between you and me. I recognize that not all men *do*, but I certainly believe they *should*. This is biblical “because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)

Being "civil" doesn't require us to be silent. Paul does warn us not to cause needless offense. 1 Corinthians 10:32 says, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" But he follows that up with the goal "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, *so that they may be saved*." and next comes the command, "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”

What does it look like to be an imitator of Paul? First we will obey the command of Christ to "be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard” (Acts 22:15). Then we will have enemies who describe us as "the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place" (Acts 21:28). Finally, we will not be ashamed of churches or church members that have been martyrs (witnesses), accused of being "intolerant", "uncivil", "closed-minded". Instead, like Paul we will say to them, "we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men" (1 Thessalonians 2:13-15).

You say, "Would you have had me preach in the class? Would that have honored my faith? But what about honoring the terms of my contract?"

My dear Dr. Hart, what about the terms of following Christ? “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). And what was the charge laid at the feet of the early Christians? Atheism. They were not tolerant enough of the other gods.

Dr. Hart, it's time for you to repent of this position, so that you will not be found like the Jews, “not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost." (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16)

With love,
-Joseph

>>Funny thing is, by being up front and not assuming that my views, because from God, should be those of everyone else, I was able to gain a hearing.

Here, allow me to translate:

By being up front: "By first publicly apologizing for my archaic, uncivil, and otherwise culturally embarrassing views in such a way as to assure everyone present that said views have no possible implications for them..."

and not assuming that my views: "...because I don't actually believe or profess that my own particular (archaic) views..."

because from God: "...are actually from a sovereign and holy God, and therefore..."

should be those of everyone else: well...

I was able to gain a hearing: "...I was able to prove how reasonable I am at the expense of God's glory, the truth, and the souls under my care."

Not funny at all, Dr. Hart.

>>If Christ is Lord of the public square, how are you going to let rebels stick around?

Dear Dr. Hart,

Isn't Jesus Lord of the public square?

Perhaps you could clarify what is wrong with my logic?

Mick, you must not have been around. Dr. Hart believes in 2 kingdoms. The public square is one of them. Apparently there is doubt in his mind as to whether Christ is Lord of that kingdom.

>>Darryl Hart: "Craig French, if it is sinful to abort babies, isn't also sinful to believe in Allah?"

Yes.

>>"So if there should be no right to abortion, what right on your view is there for Muslims?"

Are you failing to see a distinction between abortion and having Muslims participate in the Public Square?

>>"Tim, let's just say that as much as you sign off "with love," I have been asking a lot when reading your posts about 2k and SOTC, "where's the love?" Can I get some?"

It's loving to shine a bright light on your error and to expose it. For your benefit and for the benefit of others.

>>"If Christ is Lord of the public square, how are you going to let rebels stick around?"

#1. Are you saying that Jesus is not Lord of the Public Square?

#2. Are you saying that Christians are not to allow non-Christians to participate in the Public Square? If so, what is your rationale?

>>"I mean, several people making comments here wish I would vacate the public square."

No. What they wish is for you to stop undermining the moral resolve of conservative Christians who are working to save and protect innocent unborn life with your caustic pharasaic R2K rhetoric.

>>stop undermining the moral resolve of conservative Christians who are working to save and protect innocent unborn life

Actually, that's just one representative sin that's particularly helpful in demonstrating the nature and fruit of the R2-K error. Breaches in the wall have a way of making the character of soldiers visible.

Love,

Jake, great translation.

Joseph Bayly, thanks for the reminder about being persecuted. "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." After reading the responses to my views here and not feeling a lot of love from my Christian brethren, I do feel godly.

Darryl,
I'm sitting at home pondering something. Why is it you continue making comments here? Are you pursuing the good of other believers? Are you rebuking any particular sin? Are you seeking some furtherance of your understanding? Are you the one posting Scripture and applying it?

For the most part, you simply toss around a few one-liners, appeal to Machen, supply ad hom in the form of innuendo, and completely misrepresent an opposing view, not so much fallaciously as much as it is unadulterated deceit. If this were merely a case of logic and wrong thinking, the solution would be simply a matter of clarification...alas, it is not.

It seems clear you are not a victim of cruel persecutors but men who are opposed to the system of sin that R2-K promotes and which your posts exemplify. If I were to reply tit-for-tat I would be tempted to point out that this discussion does not fall under the rubric of the kingdom of God, but a blog...a mere product of the kingdom of man. There can be no persecutions here...wrong domain.

Craig, well if it's a blog and not the kingdom of God, can't I participate? Or is your attempt to banish me from this public space a foretaste of what will be coming for Jews, Mormons and Roman Catholics in the United States if the Baylys get their loving way.

Frankly, to answer you question, I come here to see how people understand (or not) 2k theology.

But Craig, if this is merely a blog, then haven't you endorsed the "system of sin" that is 2k?

I always thought WCF 23.3 said:

"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

Darryl,
Not that I actually think you need to do this, but consider re-reading my comment.

You said:Craig, well if it's a blog and not the kingdom of God, can't I participate? Or is your attempt to banish me from this public space a foretaste of what will be coming for Jews, Mormons and Roman Catholics in the United States if the Baylys get their loving way.

I asked:"Why is it you continue making comments here? Are you pursuing the good of other believers? Are you rebuking any particular sin? Are you seeking some furtherance of your understanding? Are you the one posting Scripture and applying it?"

Questioning the value of your participation isn't banishing you.Of course, throwing in the subversive innuendo was a nice touch (look out Jews and Mormons).Almost like you confirmed what I had said previously:"For the most part, you simply toss around a few one-liners, appeal to Machen, supply ad hom in the form of innuendo, and completely misrepresent an opposing view"...and don't miss this part: "not so much fallaciously as much as it is unadulterated deceit. If this were merely a case of logic and wrong thinking, the solution would be simply a matter of clarification...alas, it is not."

You said: Frankly, to answer you question, I come here to see how people understand (or not) 2k theology.

I respond: That's not an answer. I asked you why you continue *making comments* here, not why you read this blog.

You said: But Craig, if this is merely a blog, then haven't you endorsed the "system of sin" that is 2k?

I respond: I thought I tore a hole in my cheek with my tongue...apparently not.

I think I've said my peace with comments directed toward Darryl.

Craig, if I didn't come and say something at this blog, do you really think I'd learn anything about the way people respond to 2k on their feet? Sure, I can read Tim and David's posts, and then read the high five's from Miss TUAD. But is that interesting? (Be careful with your tongue, it sounds like it's sharper than a two-edged sword.)

Ben, the version of the Confession from which you quote does not reflect the American revisions of 1787-88. Those revisions are now reflected in the PCUSA, PCA, and OPC's confessional standards.

Dear Darryl,

Would you please show some respect on this Lord's Day morning for your correspondents? It doesn't hurt for a man under the Cross of our Lord to overlook an offense. Enough with the snide scoffing and mockery of others. If you want to do it to David and me, if would be unseemly for us to use our ownership to stop it. But others--no, you won't do it any more. At least not something so obvious as referring to Mr. TUAD as "Miss TUAD." Please stop it, dear brother.

Such words don't commend you to those low under the Cross, eating His Body and drinking His precious Blood.

Love,

"Sure, I can read Tim and David's posts, and then read the high five's from Miss TUAD."

Darryl Hart,

I am going to refrain from addressing you as "Dark Heart" from now on (which I only did because of your initial and continued pettiness in referring to me as "Divvy" or "Divides").

I should have realized long ago that you resorted to such unedifying rhetoric because the counter-arguments against the R2K position and those who hold to it have stung so much.

Although you might not confess it or acknowledge it, there's a good number of folks who think your conscience has been stung as a result of the Bayly brothers (as well as others) kindly exposing the deficiencies of R2K doctrine.

You've been stung in two ways. One, you realize that the R2K doctrine is not as robust and sound as you've been advocating. That stings intellectually. Two, you've been exposed. Primarily by the Bayly brothers. Being exposed like that is embarrassing. That stings your pride.

So all your name-calling and non-sequitur, red-herring snarky rhetoric is because you realize that you've been stung substantively and image-wise which hurts your pride. Which only amps up even more when you refuse to admit it.

This thread has been degenerating. I didn't trace fault carefully, but I do think that the blog is better off for the comments from dgh, precisely because I think he's wrong, but in a common way that needs explaining tailored to those who hold it (so the comment debate and dialog is a good supplement to posts).

An idea present in a LOT of Baylyblog posts is the problem of Equivocation: the use of words to mean one things Audience A and the opposite to Audience B. "Tolerance" is a word used for equivocation. A schools says, "We believe in tolerance". Most people take it literally, thinking it means the school would let a Christian teacher be open about his beliefs. Education establishment people know that it is a code word, meant to reassure them that the school will make life difficult for a Christian teacher. As a result, the school can please everyone, on both sides, with a single sentence.

Equivocation is a special danger to those listeners who take words literally rather than looking for the real meaning underneath them. If you do that with an equivocator, you lose the debate. It's like agreeing to use pistols in a duel and then permitting him to pull out a shotgun and call it his pistol.

I know Daryl, at least I hope you knew I knew that.

It was kind of my point.

How can the R2K crowd claim to be the true heirs of the Reformation (as Dr. R. Scott Clark claims) if they follow a revised Confession that better suits their needs and is radically (pardon the expression) different from the views advocated by the original authors of the WCF 1646?

It is also telling that in 1789 the revisers of the Confession did not feel the need to correct the Larger Catechism (which is also binding for officers in our denominations) which has the effect of creating a disconnect between the revised WCF and the LC on this point.

Dear Dr. Rasmusen,

What a great explanation of why only a simpleton actually believes the claim of tolerance. (What a superb analogy showing why equivocation is dangerous, too!) I'm going to steal this as an (almost) quote: "When a school tells people, 'We believe in tolerance.' it is a code word, meant to reassure them that the school will make life difficult for a Christian teacher."

I only have one quibble. I would not say "most people" take the claim of tolerance at face value. In fact, it is only Christians. Everybody else is in the group being "reassured". And only those Christians that desire to go along to get along will shut their mind to the true meaning, pretending that the tolerance of the university is what allows Christians to "earn a hearing". (I sometimes wonder if Christians who speak of having "earned a hearing" know that they have to actually have said something in order to make the claim.)

Thank you for being a faithful witness through your persecution as a Christian professor. It saddens me greatly to see Dr. Hart make light of your witness and the witness of those in Revelation 6:9. “When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained.”

I am saddened by the attitude and tone that this article carries.

To the conceptual framework though, it is an article that tries to help us student out when preparing to go into an atmosphere that is very anti-christian. In fact, it is somewhat illegal to be christian. It is irresponsible and foolish to be flamboyantly preaching fire and brimstone at a public school as Bayly seems to suggest. Not that we should be afraid of being fired, but it would be like walking into North Korea with an I LOVE JESUS t-shirt on. That is simply throwing away an opportunity to share with a hard to reach group. It is a fine line between avoiding to be bold, and sharing Jesus' love to EVERYONE (yes, Jesus loves prostitutes, gays,taxcollectors, and even girls that have abortion ).

I wish you could talk to some education majors at Wheaton before you go ranting on about something you are not terribly familiar with.

> It is irresponsible and foolish to be flamboyantly preaching fire and brimstone at a public school as Bayly seems to suggest.

Apparently it is the same in the Wheaton Ed Dept.

Dear Student,

I linked to Stan Jones' reply in this earlier post:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/03/tim-last-week-wheaton-colleges-teacher-...

Pages

Add new comment