Category Archives: Politics

JK Rowling and the Biblically Iliterate Bible Quotation

The biblically illiterate author of the Harry Potter series, a woman with no experience in foreign policy or the United States government and constitutional law, recently decided to talk about US immigration policy by using Bible quotes:

jk2

This was in response to a tweet from Mike Pence a couple of years ago:

jk1

As Matt Walsh has already put it, brilliantly, anyone who pretends that Trump’s immigration orders were bans on Muslims is a shameless liar. Even if you disagree with the order, that’s not what it is or what it does.

Rowling’s own post, despite making other biblically illiterate liberals happy (by supposedly bashing Pence with his own religion), is so out of context as to be laughable. Here’s the full context, out of Matthew 16:

… Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Rowling apparently thinks the phrase “gain the whole world” is referring to anything she finds distasteful. This is a common liberal mistake when reading Scripture called eisegesis. The text always means whatever they want it to mean, context be damned.

Of course, the context is the whole point. Jesus isn’t telling His disciples that if they don’t share JK Rowling’s view on a short pause on mass immigration to the United States from a small handful of nations which generate 99.999% of the world’s terrorists that they are trading their soul’s for the whole world. It sounds pretty bizarre when it’s laid out so starkly.

Rowling wasn’t the only one on Twitter who was excited as could be to demonstrate her illiteracy:

jk3

Leviticus, for those who have ever studied it, is a book of law written by Moses under God’s direction for the nation of Israel. This fact often eludes those who want to ignore it’s moral precepts and jump all over it’s specific legal statements (as those in the “God approves of same-sex sexual acts” debate often do).

But the verse itself provides enough context to know that the person who posted it is a dishonest hack. United States citizens were not foreigners in Egypt. The immigration pause from a small set of countries is not mistreating or oppressing foreigners living in the United States.

The context of the verse within the verse itself is enough to reveal that it is not being used properly. As Matt Walsh said, these people are shameless liars.

Marriage is Inevitable

No matter what people do, no matter how much feminism is entrenched in modern thought, there seems to be no way to avoid the necessity of marriage. Or, at the very least, a pathetic marriage substitute.

From Breitbart:

According to the language of the bill, “consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

Aside from such an absurd law being unenforceable, dependent on one witness against another, based on feelings, and so easy to break that any sane and self-controlled man would just skip it altogether, it’s also kind of like marriage. A marriage devoid of its best parts, but a marriage nonetheless.

And now California is having students learn about the process:

Gov. Jerry Brown has approved legislation aimed at making California the first state in the nation to bring lessons about sexual consent required at many colleges into high schools, his office announced Thursday.

Last year, California became the first to require colleges and universities to apply an “affirmative consent” or “yes means yes” standard when investigating campus sexual assault claims. That policy says sexual activity is only considered consensual when both partners clearly state their willingness to participate through “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” at every stage.

This pathetic marriage substitute called “yes means yes” is apparently pretty important to the anti-marriage crowd. It’s interesting that within a century of feminism dismissing marriage for being restrictive and suffocating, a marriage substitute that is even more restrictive and suffocating, not to mention clinical and sterile, should replace it. It’s marriage without force and meaning.

Can Christians be Leaders?

romesenate1With the 2016 political season drawing closer, there has been a lot of talk about the role of Christianity in politics. Although that topic is deserving of its own series of posts (which I intend to write someday if I figure out how to blog consistently), it’s a related but distinct topic that is the purpose of this post.

I saw the following comments on a Facebook thread recently:

No true Christian can be a politician, we are called away from worldly government and institutions.”

 A bit later, in response for a request of Biblical evidence of such a claim, the same person said:

“John 18:36 would be an example, but more examples can be sought by actually reading the Bible. God’s Kingdom is not of this world, and every government on earth is in rebellion to God, so what place does a follower of Christ have in such a Carnal man made institution? If you think that Christians are going to defy prophecy through politics, then you are reading a different Bible.”

The author of these comments sees true Christianity as that which is disconnected from the world, which seems rather unlike Jesus’ demand to be “in the world, but not of the world”. If we are charitable, we could suppose that this author is referring only to the very specific situation of Christians in national leadership.

And yet, is this Biblical? The example the author gives of a Biblical basis for his claim is John 18:36 which reads:

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

The author sees this as a rebuke of Christians in political office, but is that what Jesus is talking about? The context is Jesus’ trial before Pilate. Pilate asks Jesus “Can Christians be involved in politics?”

Just kidding. Pilate isn’t asking about Christian behavior at all. He asks Jesus what crime Jesus has committed and whether He is “King of the Jews”. His questions is about Jesus and His Person, not how Christians ought to participate in worldly government. True enough, Christ teaches that His Kingdom is “from another place”, but then Christians in government office are not establishing the Second Jerusalem.

When considered long enough, the author of the comments really doesn’t specify the scope of government office, and his argument has nothing to limit it to the national level. What about state governments? County governments? City governments? The local school board? The family? Are there no places of leadership that Christians ought to participate in?

It seems obvious that there are. Jesus commands obedience and points to His Kingdom as distinct from the world, but He never forbids His followers from doing what they can in the world that is good. He tells them to be the light and salt of the world. Why would a Christian arbitrarily limit their influence by avoiding some of the most important positions in the world?