[Vision2020] The end of real slavery

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

Joan praised my altar call, but demurred because she is not a Christian. 
But of course, the whole point of presenting the gospel is to present it to 
non-Christians. Let me just say that it is a standing offer -- and it 
really is an offer to come to Jesus, and not to me, or to any particular 
brand of the faith. Going into Baskin-Robbins does not commit one to the 
tutti-frutti.

There are two things that must be addressed. Joan says (cheerfully enough) 
that she is not trying to have it both ways, she is trying to have it her 
way. But ethical theory is not Burger King. She then goes on to join "her 
way" to the voice of her genuine authority, which in her view should be 
"democratic consensus." I can understand this view -- demos is god. But 
then she goes on (quite mysteriously) to say that there should be 
"constitutional protections for the right of minorities." Why is this? This 
would seem to grant that demos is not ultimately god. But if demos is not 
ultimate, then who or what is? Presumably, these protections are to keep 
demos from running amok, as he is so prone to do. Let us just say that if 
demos were a guy, he'd be doing hard time in the penitentiary.

So how can we say demos must be restrained, if demos is the final 
authority? What is the standard before which even a two/thirds majority 
vote from demos must bow? Are these constitutional protections to be 
crafted by demos? But demos is the one the protections are designed to 
restrain. Should they be crafted by Joan the Law? But why her and not me? 
Should they come from . . . what? That is the question I have been posing. 
What is the authority that over-arches all of us, even when we have a 
super-majority vote? If everyone in the world wanted to torture one person 
to death on public television, and the only dissenting vote was the person 
in question, what makes this action by the super-majority wrong? If 
ninety-percent wanted to enslave ten percent, why is that wrong? That is my 
question, and it is the question that has not yet been answered. Moreover, 
Joan cannot answer it from within the model she has proposed. In the past, 
democratic consensus got us slave-holding societies. So what voice should 
those societies have obeyed when they heard the words, "Thou shalt have 
constitutional protections for the rights of minorities"? Suppose demos 
hates those pesky minorities and proposes a Final Solution. Is that bad? Why?

There is no way to reject a transcendental authority over society without 
in some fashion absolutizing society. If there is no God over human 
society, then is some fashion, human society is god. But if that is the 
case, why does Joan want to restrain the will of this god with these 
niggling protections for the rights of minorities? Why? Who says? Imagine 
there's no heaven. It's easy if you try.

In her conclusion, Joan says this, getting it exactly backwards:

"Admit it -- this is what's intolerable to you. You want absolute 
certainty, but uniformity of interpretation can only be achieved via force. 
You can do that by force of will, force of strength, or force of argument, 
but if those don't work, what's left? The sword. And so we're back to you 
and the Amalekites. I don't begrudge you your Zion, Doug, but I don't want 
to live there myself. I suspect I'd find it hard to distinguish between a 
Wilsonite Promised Land and Hell on Earth."

But this whole controversy revolves around just this point -- our 
repudiation of force as we seek to advance the kingdom of God. And this has 
brought us into conflict with those who worship force -- the "watch fires 
of a hundred circling camps." The weapons we use are not physical, the 
apostle Paul says. We do believe that the world will come to Christ, and we 
invite everyone to do so, but the instruments for accomplishing this will 
be preaching the gospel, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. That is where our 
authority lies, and only there. We are not trying to do this by political 
means at all, and certainly not by military means.

That was, in fact, the whole point of the Amalekite reference in our 
article, "Moving Beyond Pro-Life." We were explaining why Paul Hill was so 
wrong in his murder of the abortionist -- he was imitating your approved 
methods in the violent tradition of John Brown in Kansas, which we reject 
with loathing. It is worth noting that prior to the murder, Paul Hill had 
joined a church in the South, pastored by a godly friend of mine. That 
church, very much in step with us, tried and excommunicated him *before* he 
shot anyone, just on the basis of his wild and wicked talk. Steve Wilkins 
(of recent fame) had known Paul Hill in earlier years, and spent a good bit 
of time on the phone rebuking him for his wickedness -- prior to the murder 
which got Hill justly executed. After we published that article, Paul Hill 
(from death row) wrote a letter to the editor objecting to our reasoning. 
He didn't like it any more than you all do.

This is because our "Moving Beyond Pro-Life" article was a manifesto of our 
rejection of force -- even as we try to persuade those who use deadly force 
on their own children ("constitutional protections for minorities," aye). 
We cannot comprehend how anyone could be brought to the point where they 
would demand the right to execute their own children, their own future, in 
utero. But you as a people have been insisting that your children do not 
have a right to live. Why are you upset if we (appalled, but bowing to this 
hard judgment of God against you) agree? Just as we believe that slavery 
should have been ended without violence, so we believe that abortion will 
be ended without violence on our part. It is important to note that phrase 
"on our part." There will be ongoing violence in the ending of abortion, 
but it is all self-inflicted and suicidal. You all are doing it to 
yourselves, and we reject your bloody ways. We will not imitate you in 
this, not even to fight you.

And so I am eager to repeat it again. Jesus died to save us from our sins, 
and no sins are beyond His forgiving reach. He will forgive us for all that 
we have done contrary to His will -- including sodomy, abortion, anger, 
hatred, self-righteousness, stealing, adultery, lying, dishonoring our 
parents, and worshipping other gods. The death, burial, and resurrection of 
Jesus is the basis for a new life, one in which you have complete 
forgiveness for all sin. It is like having a hot, soapy bath on the inside. 
That is why the gospel calls us all to repent and believe.

Cordially,

Douglas