You write this: "The Spirit of God is the spirit of liberty. The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of coercion. The impulse to control everything is the machinery of Isengard, and those who want to be a cog in that machinery have all their aspirations pointed in the wrong direction."

Doug, please tell me you see the irony in this statement. Your kind of Liberty is a limited one at best--freedom only to live within the constraints of your own brand of theology. And if you think you are free of the impulse to control, I suggest taking a hard look in the mirror. Your statement may very well be true of the liberal-tolerant society you condemn, but it is also true of you and your people.

Romans 14
4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.

Spikey,
When we walk the earth, we are "under the thumb of gravity", though if we think we can walk where ever we want, we think we are "free".
Freedom can only occur within the context of discipline, the discipline of gravity at a minimum.
Wilson speaks of the "liberty" that comes from godly discipline, the only freeing discipline there is.
Do you understand?
To put it another way, what contraints do you live under, and how "free" are you?

Interesting scripture choices. Obviously, I'm not free to do whatever I want. I can't fly, for example. There are laws of physics and such. My point is that the type of Liberty Wilson speaks of is a very narrow kind of Liberty, bounded by his particular take on theology. The freedom that comes from the truth, from having the living Word written on our hearts, is a freedom that goes far beyond tired, limited theologies. When you let go of the edge of the pool, at first it seems like you might drown. But then you realize you can swim. And then you realize the pool is actually an ocean--and an infinite one at that. There is no where you can go that can separate you from the presence of the creator. That is freedom.

There is no where you can go that can separate you from the presence of the creator. That is freedom.

Assuming, by creator you mean God, then you must know that a free man can separate himself from God. You must also know that without repentance, salvation and sanctification by Him, that death is the end. Assuming you know that nations are governed by Him, you also know that a rebellious nation (yours) will be corrected one way or the other.

Assuming you know this, I find it amazing that you blame Wilson!

Even if I accepted all of those points as true, I could still blame Wilson for preaching a poisonous brand of Christianity. God can govern the nations, sure, but that doesn't mean God wants to establish a Chrisitan republic in the US molded in the form that Doug envisions. The real problem here is that you and Doug and others on this site are not really spiritual Christians, but rather are cultural Christians that are looking to protect a particular way of life that you feel is slipping away from you. The truth is that you live in a secular nation that values freedom and the rule of law. The rule of law skews toward human rights over time, and cultural values, like language, have always tended to loosen and become more "liberal" over time. This is true not only in the US but all over the world. The process gets interrupted when hard liners, like Zionists in Israel and the Taliban in Afghanistan turn back the clock. You and Doug and others here want to turn back the clock as well. There is true freedom in Christ, but it is not the same freedom that you are talking about.

Thank you for your reasoned reply. I have seen this approach taken by others here--ryansather for example and JohnM to a lesser extent.

I am not in Doug Wilson's church, and I am unsure of my 'doctrine' beyond what I call 'mere-Christianity' ala c.s. lewis. My politics lean libertarian with a yuuuuge dose of federalism thrown in--in software design terms, loosely-coupled systems are fault tolerant and easy to repair, easy to extend... I have no problem with human diversity,beyond the lost souls, if a local people decide to kill themselves with sin--the world is not fully redeemed yet and I expect there to be sinful men in it. Since I am a sinner, I am very grateful for the grace and patience (not tolerance, grace and patience) that God has shown me and I can do no less for others.

Secularism cannot maintain that loose hand of liberty. It is anathema to 'progressive' government. The reason it cannot is spiritual.

If the debate is on spiritual grounds and if it is fully grounded in Christ, I don't care what the politics are because of the nature of the people (I suspect it will look a lot like federalism/libertarianism...but I could be wrong). However it is my opinion that men like you or ryansather start with the spirit of the age and argue for it--like Lot's wife looking winsomely back at all the glorious shopping options in sodom.

So, in summary, there appear to be two core issues we disagree on.

1. Secular government tend towards liberty
2. Christian motive.
3. (ok, 3 core issues) is 'secular' government even possible? (I argue, no, there will either be a god/gods of the culture or God who reigns)

Interesting response. I concede that I am influenced by the spirit of the age--though the analogy to Sodom is misplaced. The US is not Sodom. The activities described in Genesis 19: 1-12 are all illegal in the US. They would all fall under sexual assault laws. If the analogy is due to the fact that same sex marriage is legal, then it is a broken analogy. The wickedness of Sodom was not simply that men wanted to sleep with men. It was that they wanted to rape the young men. That is still illegal in this country and no fear of a slippery slope will ever make it legal.

Anyway, I'll concede to being influenced by the spirit of the age. But you are also influenced by the spirit of an age, even if it's not this exact age. It is certainly not the age of the Disciples and Paul. There is no advice for how to create a government in the New Testament. Paul, who writes the bulk of the material in the NT, is not in the least bit interested in this. He is ready for Christ to return in his lifetime. Why bother setting up rules for Christian governance? So we have none--that us until Christ returns and takes over as King. Then we'll have a monarchy, nothing at all like Federalism or Libertarianism.

I'm not saying that secular governments always provide liberty. The US is a great example of how difficult certain freedoms are to come by. People have to fight for their rights. But I am certain that an earth-bound, government made up of Federal Vision Christians would provide far less liberty for the majority of its citizens. There are millions of people that have no interest in Christianity--people that either practice other religions or don't believe in any religion at all. Having a government system that is "fully grounded in Christ" causes some problems in a diverse world.

Along these lines, I'm troubled a bit by your notion that your duty to others is to treat them the way you see God treating you: not with tolerance but with grace and patience. The problem is that there are many people in the world who passionately believe things that you do not. "Grace and patience" is reserved for those people that we know are wrong but that we forgive and patiently help along to the truth. Tolerance is a patronizing concept. Better than tolerance is acceptance, because acceptance acknowledges that other people are as passionate and convinced about their own beliefs as you or I might be.

As counter-intuitive as it is for Christians, we have to let people live their lives and have their own beliefs. You mentioned CS Lewis. I just wrapped up the Narnia series (been reading out loud to my kids). One of the recurring ideas I love in the series is the idea that Aslan only tells us our own story. It is not for us to know the stories of others. When Aravis, in The Horse and His Boy, wants to now what will happen to one of her servants, Aslan tells her, "no one is told any story but his own." So I am in favor of whatever government option here on earth is best suited to protect the rights of the largest number of its citizens--Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Atheist. Let everyone work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Your first paragraph ignores history and the history of men. The atheist Camille Paglia asserts that you will have temple prostitutes in the U.S. Rome had them. To look at present U.S. law and state it will not change is to be blind to deeper realities.

Why bother setting up rules for Christian governance? So we have
none--that us until Christ returns and takes over as King. Then we'll
have a monarchy, nothing at all like Federalism or Libertarianism.

This is Scripturaly false/incomplete. Government and authority are ordained by God. He created them for our own good. It follows that...

1. Like all institutions on earth, is sinful.

2. Is being leavened with the resurrection and is becoming as He intended it to be.

3. No man can stop this process.

Having a government system that is "fully grounded in Christ" causes some problems in a diverse world.

This hits on my problem with your worldview. You (and other American Christians) drank the P.C. kool-ide and it is your 'telos'. You worship 'diversity' not God; it is idolatry.

Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Atheist. Let everyone work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

For each man and women in that list (and others) what are the steps to salvation?

Or are you stating Christ is only one option in a diverse list of roads to salvation?

The question above in bold is the root of the matter, please start there.

thx.

Notice how diversity is a convenient means to an ends. A nation as one people, with one culture, and one religion can certainly demand government according to their beliefs. In a diverse country (an empire, not a nation) then compromises must be negotiated and the secularist is there to offer progressive secularist government. Pay no mind to the fact that it was the secularist progressive who manufactured the diversity in the first place.Take note all you Christians compelled by a globalist understanding of Deuteronomy, you've been conned. Diversity corrodes and organically ordered society and it has been weaponized against you.

I never said US law will not change. I'm certain it will. All I said was that your analogy that the US is Sodom is misapplied. Who cares what Paglia says will happen? When it happens, when rape (homosexual or not) is legal and no one puts up a fuss, then I will accept your analogy. Currently, however, US law condemns rape of any kind, and Lot's noble solution to the Sodomites request--to offer the virgins of the household to the men to en raped--is also against the law. Could this all change? Sure, but point to some evidence that suggest the citizenry of the US is growing increasing open to the acceptance of rape.

Hard to know how to respond to the rest of your post. A lot of confusion there. The same problem still persist in your logic, in that yes God reigns over all, but there are no directions on how to govern given to Christians in the Bible. It is because it was not a concern of Paul, et. al. Trying to establish a Christian government would be rife with problems for many, many people. And I am not worshipping diversity, only arguing that diversity is the only way to protect the deeply held beliefs of a diverse culture. You don't want your beliefs replied on more than the next religious guy, I'm assuming. And I believe Christ is the only way to salvation. But others do not. I can preach, try to make disciples, but at the end of the day, I have to leave people to their own free choices. And my guess is that you want people to do the same for you.

It's very unlikely that rape was formally legal in Sodom and rape does not need to be legal if laws are not enforced. Rape is common in American prisons and without corporal punishment there is little the system can do to prevent it. Rape may be spotlighted on American college campuses but ignored in Rotherham, England or Sweden where is might upset prog narratives. Like everything else, rape or enforcement of rape laws is a question of who whom. If an increased rate of rape results from our immigration policies or prison reform then that will just be the price we have to pay.

Spike, not only did Paul not want to set up a Christian government, he recognized all established government as authority from God, and that the letter of the law, as long as it did not conflict with God's law, should be obeyed.
He was helping to grow whole communities of model citizens, yet at every turn he was ran out of town, beaten, stoned, and imprisoned. Why do you suppose this was?

Tom, the Bible mentions two times that Paul is arrested. He is arrested for casting out an evil spirit from a slave women. Her owners were using her to make money by having her predict the future, so the owners complain. In this case, Paul is thrown in jail because he makes a couple of people mad, causes an uproar, and is seen as an agitator. I suppose you could argue that he was thrown in prison because he was helping to "grow whole communities of model citizens" but that does not appear to be quite accurate. The other time Paul gets arrested, it is in Jerusalem, and he gets put in prison because the Jews are so angry with him and his theology that another uproar breaks out and Claudius Lysias steps in to quell the mob. He assumes that Paul must have done something very bad and arrests him without any evidence. What is fascinating about this is that Paul then makes an appeal to Rome, arguing that he is a Roman citizen and should not be imprisoned without cause. Paul is appealing to a secular government, claiming his rights. It was not the government that was against him, it was the hard-line religious leaders of the temple in Jerusalem. In fact, after Paul makes his case to Agrippa, Agrippa says that Paul has done nothing that deserves death or imprisonment.

So let's sum it all up. Paul gets arrested for two reasons:

1. Because he is seen as a threat to the livelihood of two slave owners.
2. Because he offends the religious leaders of the day who will not accept his new teachings.

Based on these examples, Paul has more in common with leftist agitators and liberal Christians who go against the grain of established teachings than he does with the federalist/libertarian hero you seem to paint him out to be. And the Jewish religious leaders appear to have a lot in common with hard-line Christians in the US (i.e. Federal Vision, Neo Calvinism, etc.)--the ones unwilling to accept the "new" teaching of a radical like Paul.

To be sure, despite the general benevolence--or at least indifference--of Rome in the above examples, many Christians were persecuted by the Roman government over time. But there is no evidence in the historical record--Biblical or otherwise--that Christians were attacked because they tried to hold Rome to a higher moral standard. The historian Tacitus reports that Nero killed Christians because they were "given to a new and mischievous superstition." This does not sound like a major moral referendum against the perversion of Rome. Anyway, if you have evidence that suggests the Christians were persecuted because they were calling Romans to live more moral lives, I'd love for you to share it with me.

Nero's claim that Christianity is a mischievous superstition sounds exactly like a response to a moral referendum.

Paul knew better than anyone how disingenuous the religious leaders appeal to Roman authority was. His claim to Roman citizenship in Philipi is consistent with his claim that the magistrate should be respected under God's authority.

It is interesting to note that the Philippian jailer, and his entire family, were saved because of Paul's knowledge and observation of Roman law.

Your first statement needs a lot more evidence to support it. What we know from the available evidence, from a non-Christian historian, is that Christians were considered as believing in a mischievous superstition. The persecution of early Christians was fueled mainly by local communities who were put off by the secrecy of the Christian practices, as pagan worship was quite public. When the early Christians gathered in secret and used language that was unusual (eating the body and the blood), it raised suspicion. When local municipalities in Rome got involved it was normally to intervene in communities where there was an uproar among the citizens, similar to what happened to Paul in Jerusalem. This is what we know from the evidence. If you think that "mischievous superstition" sounds like a response to a moral referendum, so be it, but that position is not supported by evidence. I challenge you to find some actual historical evidence that shows that Christians were persecuted by the secular government of Rome due to their demand for higher moral standards. I'd love to see what you've got.

The fact is that Paul, according the Biblical account, is persecuted by the religious hard-liners and not the secular government of Rome. Do you disagree with this? Find me some evidence from the Bible that shows otherwise.

And, of course, this is true for Jesus as well. It is not Rome that is against Jesus. Pilate repeatedly says that he finds no basis for a charge against Jesus. Even after Jesus stands up to Pilate and says that he would have no authority over Him if it did not come from God, we read that Pilate still tries to set Jesus free. It is the Jewish leaders that won't back down. They urge Pilate to crucify Jesus, and Pilate only relents when they make the argument that Jesus is opposing Caesar. So now Pilate has an out, but it's clear he did not want to kill Jesus. Again, it is the religious leaders that are the threat, not the secular government.

When I say it sounds like Nero viewed Christianity as a moral referendum I am only giving you my own opinion. Based on accounts, both Biblical and historical, of Nero's moral character I would put money on it.

Of course Jesus and Paul's persecution was incited by the religious leaders, but they used Roman law to achieve their own perverted interpretation of God's law. Both Jesus and Paul were in compliance with Roman Law and ultimately and most importantly God's law. Which was my original point.

Tom, Nero is not mentioned in the Bible. When you say "The religious leaders used Roman law to achieve their own perverted interpretation of God's law", what examples do you have of this? Evidence? Nothing wrong with having opinions, but when so much of what is written on a site like this is condemnation and hand-wringing and critique, I think it is paramount to back up one's opinion with evidence. Putting money on a hunch is likely to leave you broke in the end.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It seems like you are admitting that the secular Roman laws were more in accordance with God's laws than the Jewish religious laws. Is your point that the secular Roman government was actually more in line with God's law than the Jews were? That is an interesting viewpoint and one I wasn't expecting. If that's what you're saying, then you seem to be supporting my claim that secular governments provide more freedom than religious ones. Are we agreeing with each other?

When you say "The religious leaders used Roman law to achieve their own
perverted interpretation of God's law", what examples do you have of
this?

You just provided your example in your description of Pilate's washing his hands of the matter.

I think I see what you're getting at. Yes, the Jewish religious leaders were able to use Roman law to get Jesus crucified and to get Paul arrested in Jerusalem. I was thrown off by your use of the word "perverted" in this context. What's interesting is that in the US, the tables are turned. The Jewish religious leaders were the literalists, adhering to the letter of the law but not the heart of it. They were the hard-liners that were able to use the Roman government and its fear of uprisings in its vast territories to get what they wanted. In the US, the religious right are the hard-liners, adhering to the letter of the law and not the heart of it, and their views are not supported by the government.

In the US, the religious right are the hard-liners, adhering to the
letter of the law and not the heart of it, and their views are not
supported by the government.

What is a hard-liner? What do they espouse that is not the heart of the law of Grace (the law we are under, btw) and why should they care that their views are not supported by the government?

thx.

Hard-liners in my definition are any Christians that are literalists, and in their literalism, hold zealously to laws that are not a part of the law of grace--the good news of Jesus Christ. Doug Wilson is one of these Christians. What some call the Neo Calvinists are. There are many, and the central problem they all share is that they, like the Pharisees, get too caught up in the details, in the letter of the law. What is necessary to believe ? Faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour. When Jesus began his ministry in Mark, we read the he began preaching the Good News. What was he preaching? Calvinism? Federal Vision Christianity? The many American denominations we have, the Reformation, the Catholic Church, the myriad counsels that were held to hash out the exact way that redemption and the Trinity and so forth actually operate are all the product of men trying to figure this all out. And some Christians really think they have figured it all out, and like the Pharisees, strain out gnats and swallow camels. And these Christians care deeply that their government does not support their views on morality. Just read some of the blog posts and comments on this site. I'm not saying they should care, but they do. And they care about it a lot.

I look forward to picking up on this line of thought in future blog posts.

Thanks for the conversation, Timothy.

Spike Pittard wrote:

Is your point that the secular Roman government was actually more in line with God's law than the Jews were?

Secular Roman government? What's ironic is that the Romans called the early Christians "atheists", because they refused the emperor cult worship. Nero tried to blame the Christians for angering the gods by not partaking in such worship. Those silly secularists.

Good point that the Romans indeed had religious beliefs of their own. I've been using "secular" as a descriptor because the Roman state religion and its ability and willingness to assimilate the beliefs of those it conquered is similar to the US, and because in terms of the argument, the relationship between pagan Rome and the early Christians is similar to the relationship between the secular US government and the modern Church. It is the established Jewish religious authorities that are unwilling to change or admit blindness, just like it is the established Christian authorities in the US that are unwilling to change or admit blindness. Meanwhile, the larger, more secular government of the land could largely care less.

just like it is the established Christian authorities in the US that are unwilling to change or admit blindness.

Blind to what?

Jesus referred to the Pharisees as blind guides. They were blind to their "perverted", as you call it, interpretation of Scripture. Now, when I said "established Christian authorities", I should have been more clear. It is not all Christian leaders that fall into the same trap as the Pharisees, but any of them (and I count Doug Wilson in this group) that adhere to the letter of the Bible as opposed to the heart of it fall into this camp. They are blind guides. Blind to the truth at the heart of it all.

Nero is not mentioned by name, but is referenced. He reigned during Paul's ministry and is known to have beheaded Paul and crucified Peter. He was so wicked he was thought to be the beast mentioned in Revelations.

I'm not really a gambling man. Let me put it this way; the idea that Christianity is a mischievous superstition is ridiculous.

What I have been trying to convey is how Jesus and Paul taught to act under secular law in accordance with God's law, and contrasting that with the hypocrisy of the religious leaders.

I really don't know how to put it any other way.

God bless

Tom, Nero is alluded to but in such general terms (often just the name "Caesar") that nothing can be gleaned about his character. He is "thought to be" the beast mentioned in Revelation. But this is not evidence--only a theory. Just like the traditions that Nero beheaded Paul and crucified Peter. These are only traditions and not supported by sufficient evidence. And I'm not saying that Christianity IS a mischievous superstition, only that this was what Taciturn said about the reasons why Nero was against it.

As to the last part of your post, sounds like you are saying the same thing I'm saying, just with a little different language. Thanks for the conversation.

Spike Pittard,
I haven't followed the whole thread, and I suppose Tom could answer for himself, but I think you might have missed what he was driving at. Re-read: "not only did Paul not want to set up a Christian government, he recognized all established government as authority from God". That doesn't sound like "federalist/libertarian hero".
Of course too, Tom mentioned not only arrests by the authorities but also being run out of town, beaten, and stoned. Secondary to the point above, and I don't have time right now to discuss all the circumstances, but in fairness it's something that should be acknowledged.

Then, suppose the work of the Holy Spirit works and over time a Christian people decide to form their own state. They have to give it a structure and working from scriptural principles and historical realities, they do so, fail, try again, fail, try again...get better at it...

Then having achieved a very good version of it in America and watching it disintegrate they are supposed to ...give up? Why? We have our example of our actions in accordance with His will bearing good fruit.

To paraphrase the noble Sam Gamgee, "There is some good in Christendom Mr. Frodo and it's worth fighting for".

It occurred to me that any affiliation with Samwise Gamgee is written off as radical idealism by John McCain.

Ha!

Baroque Italy was a worthy Christian civilisation. So was America. God will restore.

Good old Sam.
I still salute Old Glory, but at this point it's more like preserving the shards of Narsil.

Hi Spike.

but there are no directions on how to govern given to Christians in the
Bible. It is because it was not a concern of Paul, et. al. Trying to
establish a Christian government would be rife with problems for many,
many people.

Christendom was not a "thing" then? We are to expect problems as we walk our path. There are plenty of examples from Scripture on how we are to govern ourselves and to insist that Christendom submit to Pagan-dom on political matters is not the Christian p.o.v that I share.

The battle of Lepanto happened. The current war with Islam exists. The pagan's of America will follow their master and wage war against Him and His people. No, we cannot 'all just get along'. The spiritual forces are waging war and that conflict will and does play out in temporal terms.

You think the two will get along. I think this is an impossibility.

Timothy,

Before I respond, let me say thanks for this conversation. I appreciate the thoughtful and sincere responses. You say this above: "The battle of Lepanto happened. The current war with Islam exists. The
pagan's of America will follow their master and wage war against Him and
His people. No, we cannot 'all just get along'." It sounds like you are suggesting that the Ottoman Empire trying to gain a foothold in the Mediterranean, and ISIS/Al Qaeda and such waging Jihad against Westerners is an example of the the Devil waging war against God's people. And if you are equating aggressive, Jihadist Islam with the Devil waging
war, would you also equate the Crusades with God waging war against the
forces of evil? Am I reading you correctly?

And if you are equating aggressive, Jihadist Islam with the Devil waging war, would you also equate the Crusades with God waging war against the forces of evil? Am I reading you correctly?

From my meager reading of the Crusades, they where a response to Islamic aggression. (I have a government education in History and it is not my 'thing').

I don't think in military terms. I think in "fruits of" terms. I have learned by my own redemption and struggle with God that sinful beings cannot stand the things of God--that includes His people. As we grow closer to Him and are sanctified by Him, we grow averse to our previous nature in the old Adam.

Likewise, as we continue in sin, we grow increasingly hardened in our sin and our enmity against God grows and consumes us. The fruits of this have temporal consequences--and at times Christendom must defend itself by force of arms.

hth

It sounds like you think progressive liberalism will lead us towards a utopia if left untouched by conservatives.

No. But bullheaded Christianity will certainly not get us there. Thankfully, it is a very, very small minority of people that hold these views and there isn't much threat of it spreading. Still, even in small doses, and especially in small communities and churches, it is harmful.

Our church started with a very small minority of eleven frightened men. We, having millenia of teaching do not share their fear. That growth is because of Him working in us.

He isn't done and He will continue until every thing on this Earth is under His rule.(His words, katecho has the verse handy)

"...the truth, from having the living Word written on our hearts,...the creator."

So the creator, The Lord, is the master.

"To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."
At the end of the day, we know people by their "fruit". Mine and yours is comparatively invisible in the context of this blog. Wilson's is pretty visible, and fruitful. The Word grounded boundaries Wilson relates may not be as limiting as you currently suggest. In any case, I do think freeing boundaries are not exactly the same for everyone, but the range of freeing boundaries is defined by The Word.

De Tocqueville wrote that our form of government was only suitable for a moral people. He knew what Doug knows.

Sin enslaves, corrupts and destroys. Like Gollum clutching his precious, your sin is consuming your nation.

For what it's worth the quote about "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people" is more properly attributable to John Adams (and in my opinion doesn't speak well for the Constitution, but never mind.)

My sin? I like what you did with that. I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. My claim is that Doug talks of Liberty yet espouses a kind of Christain faith that is not liberating. And that if he and his follower had their way, and our government was as moral and Christian as he wants it to be, there would be plenty of coercion and lack of Liberty to go around. Name me a religiously Christian government that did not abuse its power.

I assume we are not the same people when I used the word "you", I was not referring to you specifically. That was poor grammar on my part.

You did not address the De Tocqueville statement; have you considered his reasoning? Why he said what he said? What he knew that compelled him to state that? My hunch is that he know quite a bit more than you or RandMan know about how governments rise and fall.

Name me a religiously Christian government that did not abuse its power.

There has never been any earthly government that did not err; men are sinners. What matters in Who they serve. Do you care to argue that Christendom is a bad thing? Should we do a body count of democide (men murdered by their own government) ? The record of the secular utopianists is in the tens of millions murdered in the name of progress.

Liberty flourished in Christendom for a reason. You are losing your liberty in America for the flip side of that reason.

Douglas specifically seeks a 'biblical republic'. Whatever that is. It frankly sounds frightening if the dissension of christians (even here in Wilson-ville) is any indication of the consensus.

Actually Wilson is declaring that the biblical republic aka Kingdom of Christ is a fact and will be made manifest worldwide. That every knee will bow, and those who do so with a free and open heart will like it a lot more than those who do not.

Nothing sells the true heart of christianity like a thinly veiled threat.

1) I don't see any veil.
2) Can statements of fact be legitimately be considered threats?

No idea how this will turn out. Once again I must point out that Jesus allowed the rich young man to go away, only observing how hard it was for the rich to enter the Kingdom (which He pointed out elsewhere was not of this world). He didn't send out the 12 to drag him back to hear more, He didn't call down angels to "Job-i-size" his wealth away, He didn't call down boils or sores on the young fellow to "concentrate his mind wonderfully."

Those of you, if any, who want to chase the theology of it all, (a) be my guest (b) include me out.