Amen, sister...
Very well said, Representative Whitsett! Finally a Democrat with the courage to say the unspoken things out loud.
Very well said, Representative Whitsett! Finally a Democrat with the courage to say the unspoken things out loud.
The troubled conscience, in view of God's judgment, has no remedy against desperation and eternal death, unless it takes hold of the forgiveness of sins by grace, freely offered in Christ Jesus, which if it can apprehend, it may then be at rest. Then it can boldly say: I seek not active or working righteousness, for if I had it, I could not trust it, neither dare I set it against the judgment of God. Then I abandon myself from all active righteousness, both of my own and of God's law, and embrace only that passive righteousness, which is the righteousness of grace, mercy, and forgiveness of sins. I rest only upon that righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ and of the Holy Ghost.
— Martin Luther, “Declaration” in his Commentary on Galatians
It doesn't get any better than this, does it?
“We will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign [sic] upon them.”
This is NOT the Just War Tradition in practice. This is NOT how this works. It's simply not.
At best, this most certainly would violate the jus in bello tenets of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. At worst, the United States would abdicate any claim to moral authority among the nation.
Clearly the regime in Iran is demonic and horrid, one of the worst in the world; however, from a Christian perspective all is NOT fair in love and war. It never has been. These are not the tactics of the United States of America. These are not the tactics of a nation behaving with honor. These are the tactics of treachery. These are the tactics of the ungodly.
You cannot rationalize this approach under any historic Christian understanding of the Just War Tradition. It is inexcusable. God, save us.

The same God who guides the stars in their courses, who directs the earth in its orbit, who feeds the burning furnace of the sun, and keeps the stars perpetually burning with their fires—the same God has promised to supply thy strength. While he is able to do all these things, think not that he shall be unable to fulfill his own promise!”
— Charles Spurgeon
My disdain for Dispensationalism is no secret.
It fails to discern the unfolding of God's saving plan for humanity. It fails to properly understand the fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New. It flies in the face of the Church's consistent and universal understanding of Scripture. It is a novel scheme that is heterodox, at best, and heretical in some of its variations (I'm looking at you, John Hagee).
Here is the summary of a Roman Catholic explanation of Dispensationalism and Zionism that does a great job succinctly dismantling this interpretive system, which (thankfully) is waning in popularity and influence:
Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. He is the New Covenant, which established the new Jerusalem, the Church, at the cost of His own blood, which does not seek to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, let alone advocate a Zionist political state.
The promise of the land was always inseparable from the Temple: “you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go” (Deuteronomy 12:5). Since an earthly Temple is no longer wanted by God, for Christ Himself is the Temple—“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19)—the religious reasons Christian Zionists hold that a physical land is necessary are obsolete since the Messiah became the Temple and sign of the land.
It can be exalting to belong to a church that is five hundred years behind the times and sublimely indifferent to fashion; it is mortifying to belong to a church that is five minutes behind the times, huffing and puffing to catch up.
— Joe Sobran (quoted here)
Your church either has a stage or an altar. One glories God, one glorifies whoever is on stage. Choose wisely.
— (quoted here)
Non-Christians seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician. Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it.
— C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night, chapter 6
link: Was blind but now I see
When the Church got into the habit of making faith simple or easy and doctrine reasonable and flexible to fit the times and situations of the people, the pews emptied. But when the full measure of what faith is and requires was laid before the people, they took up the cross and followed Him. The easier and simpler we try to make faith and the easier and simpler we try to making following Him, the worse it will be for the Church. It is in the desperate doubt that has surveyed every other option and found none that the broken are restored, raised up from despair and disappointment to follow Him. It is in the hesitance before the call of God that saints are made from sinners and the strong forged from the weakest of stock. Make worship easy and simple and fun, they said. But they did not come and those who came did not bother to stay. But hold up the mystery of the faith and invite the doubts to rest in the arms of the one and only who has seen the Father and, well, the Church lives.
Pr. Peters has written another fantastic piece, this time on the difficulties of the Christian faith and the disastrous results that came with our attempts to make Christianity easy and appealing. This article is worth five minutes to read slowly and hours of consideration regarding how we put this into practice in our parishes.
Immediately after the death of Charlie Kirk, many on the political left celebrated and mocked his death as getting what he deserved, while many on the right called for retribution in the form of violence. There were not calls from either side to stand down. There was not even agreement that his assassination was a tragedy worthy of lament and mourning. People on both sides of the political spectrum were stoking the sparks of dissent into anger.
Immediately after the death of Renee Good, many on the political right celebrated and mocked her death as getting what she deserved, while many on the left called for retribution in the form of violence. There were not calls from either side to stand down. There was not even agreement on what just happened. People on both sides of the political spectrum were fanning the flames of anger into rage.
Clearly, this event is BY NO MEANS THE MORAL EQUIVALENT of Charlie Kirk's assassination. It is potentially far worse. It is potentially far less serious. If it turns out that Good was gunned down by an overzealous law enforcement agent of the state, it is far worse than Kirk's assassination by a private citizen. It if turns out that the use of deadly force against Good was justified by law enforcement, her death is still tragic, but it is nowhere near morally comparable to Kirk's.
Here's the thing...we do NOT know which one of the above evaluations is correct. That judgment does not come in an instant from social media, talking heads on cable news, or politicians. That judgment comes as the result of a deliberate, impartial investigation by individuals qualified to do it. So far, that has not happened.
Here's what we do know...both sides of the political spectrum have abdicated their moral authority by cheering either death and should be soundly rebuked. Both sides are wrong to celebrate the death of either of these individuals, regardless of motivation. Both sides are being irresponsible and are part of the ever-growing cancer of division that has metastasized through these United States. Though there are clearly times when violence is necessary and right, anyone celebrating and glorifying death (regardless of cause) is acting as a lackey of Satan, willingly or unwillingly, and is directly contributing to the destruction and collapse of our nation.
It is time to stand down. It is time to mourn the destruction of lives, the destruction of the ability to debate and disagree, the destruction of civility, and the inevitable destruction of our nation that will come as a result of the normalization and celebration of political violence. Stand down. Everyone.
Better yet, time to fall down on our knees and pray...that is the only way out.
Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.
Yesterday's post about 'online worship' was not intended to simply be a rant—though I admittedly want us to keep that in mind—nor does it allow us to become smug because 'we worship in person.'
On the contrary, those of us blessed enough to be able-bodied have the additional privilege (and bear the additional burden) of bringing the fellowship of the body of Christ to those who are unable to participate in the corporate life of the church. We must take Jesus' words from Matthew 25.31ff. and St. James' words very seriously, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble...” (James 1.27). We should add to the list of those we must visit the infirm, the sick, the home bound, etc.
We tend to think 'online worship' gets everyone 'off the hook' by allowing folks to 'worship' from their couch and allowing us to forget them. On the contrary, given the fantasy of 'online worship,' we must encourage those able to join us to actually do so and visit those unable to join us to encourage them in their faith during their time of solitude and isolation.
I confess, I am as guilty as most of neglecting the latter.