Still Never Trump

Before signing my mail-in ballot, I feel compelled to write a signing statement. I will not vote for Harris because I don't believe in the Democrat's secular progressive agenda. But I will not vote for Trump because of his deeply flawed character and his rejection of core conservative values. So I'm writing in Mitt Romney. Here are some of my reasons.

I reject the idea that voting strategy reduces to a binary choice even if there are only two leading candidates. Every vote counts for something, if only increasing the number who refused to go with their party's pick. Some good can come from that in four years. Also, during primary season, my fellow Republicans had many good choices, but overwhelmingly chose Trump. You can't make a "lesser of two evils" argument in November when 85% of you voted for one of those "evils" in the spring.

I don't think Trump is a threat to democracy the way the Democrats portray him, but I also think he is no defender of democracy either. If the Democrats could rewrite the Constitution to toss out the electoral college, the equal representation of states in the Senate, lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices, or tamp down First and Second Amendment rights in order to advance their social agenda, they certainly would. But Donald Trump would gladly do the same rewriting, only for his own personal advancement. They have a similar stance toward the Constitution. The same could be said for Trump's fiscal policy, judicial picks, and foreign policy. It's all secondary to whatever advances his brand.

The main argument that social conservatives can make for Trump is that he gave us several conservative Supreme Court justices which resulted in overturning Roe after 50 years. I am grateful for that. But I think Constitutional originalism is a compelling idea that doesn't need deeply compromised supporters. If it's right and true, it would have been best to pursue it without Trump with the hope that doing it right gives it a chance of standing longer. It's obvious to everyone that Trump doesn't believe in or even know what Constitutional originalism is, so there are sure to be unintended consequences for his transactional politics.

Finally, Trump in 2024 is a fully known political figure. I don't believe there are any more new insights or ideas. In 2016, his governing philosophy was largely unknown so you could hope for something good. In 2020, you could debate how effective or ineffective he had been because of the large distortions from COVID-19 and the George Floyd riots. But in 2024, it's all out there. If we get Trump, we are getting chaos, crazy talk, deficits, impeachments, and just a great big mess. If your main goal is to piss off the libs, then Trump is your man. He will surely do that. But that's not governing and I don't want to be part of it.

I predict that the Trump will lose, he will claim the election was rigged, but it will not rise to another January 6 moment. I think Americans are tired of the shtick and will not let anything major foment. That will be the end of Trump in politics. One jaw-dropping win in 2016, followed by a steady string of losses, kind of like a new TV show that starts with a bang, then slowly degrades season after season.

The more pressing question is whether the Republican party will recover from its veer into populism and post-liberalism and away from the Reagan coalition of limited government, Christian morality and strong foreign policy. I don't know. It will take leaders who can clearly articulate a vision that is true to our American values, can competently deal with today's challenges, and is appealing to the masses. I hope that's possible. But until then, it's Still Never Trump.

Thomas Jefferson

I've long had a general admiration for Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and our nation's third President. After reading Jon Meachem's Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power I found that admiration renewed and deepened.

It's easy to find fault with Jefferson. He was a Southern slave owner, seen as his greatest flaw today. He attempted to end slavery in the Virginia House of Burgesses and later at a federal level, but after those attempts were stymied, he gave up. He was a womanizer and fathered several illegitimate children with his slave Sally Hemings, although part of this is rooted in a foolish promise to his dying wife that he would not marry again. He was a poor money manager, leaving his country a great legacy but his family a pile of debts. He is America's leading secular progressive, the opposite of the religious conservative I am. And yet, his positive qualities are so immense and far reaching that I can forgive these faults as being a man of his age.

Jefferson was an eminent Renaissance man. He loved Greek and Roman literature, in the original languages no less. He read philosophy, history and poetry from youth to old age. He was curious about the new science and mathematics of his day. He attempted his own works of architecture and agriculture. And he pursued all this in the isolation of a colonial Virginia farm. In contrast, I have immediate low-cost access to everything he had, and far more, and yet my level of engagement pales in comparison.

Jefferson loved French food and wine and engaging conversation while enjoying that food. He knew the French language and so was ready to live in Paris as our new nation's ambassador. After returning home, he employed a French chef at the White House and back in Monticello. I can imagine sitting down for dinner with him and enjoying the finest food that Western culture has produced, all while talking about a wide range of engaging topics. He understood the beauty and function of food.

Jefferson was the nation's leading champion of democracy. Although there was broad support for becoming independent of Britain, that did not automatically transfer into a desire for rule by the people. We could easily have become another monarchy or some other elitist system of rule. But Jefferson saw that the cause of freedom was best rooted in giving the right to rule to the people. I don't think our Land of the Free, Home of the Brave would exist without Thomas Jefferson.

I chiefly admire Jefferson as the author of our nation's Declaration of Independence. He brought his education and talents to the Second Constitutional Convention and was the obvious choice to write a unifying and decisive statement for a country in peril. He even had to endure the agony of group wordsmithing, yet still we end up with, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Our Declaration is a thoroughly Christian statement of politics. One might think it's merely a deistic statement. To his fault, Jefferson loved the morality of Christ but denied the supernatural center of his redemptive work. He was a man of the Enlightenment. The Apostle Paul writes that the cross of Christ is an affront to human reason (1 Cor 1), and it was to Jefferson. Even so, Jefferson saw that the freedom of man is rooted in being created by a freedom-giving God. His vision of religious liberty came from a conviction that God doesn't need the state to promote His ends. True religion comes from free and rational men who believe without state compulsion. These ideas come from Jesus.

Finally, I appreciate Jefferson's friendship with John Adams. They were both there in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776 and they both held on to life until July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the country. They enjoyed comradery in Paris and London, yet fell into opposite sides of the two original political factions of our country, the Federalists and the Republicans. They had plenty of reason to go their separate ways after serving as the second and third Presidents. Yet, at the end of their life, they made a deliberate effort to regain their friendship through persistent correspondence. It is a lovely example of friendship and love that transcends disagreement.

Going Public by Bobby Jamieson

For years I have appreciated 9Marks books and videos on ecclesiology. They contain a wealth of practical Biblical teaching on membership, eldership, missions, congregationalism, baptism and the Lord’s supper. But I have often wondered, “What about our children?”

I anticipated Going Public: Why Baptism is Required For Church Membership would address this. Of course it would be credobaptist, but I’ve been paedobaptist-leaning while attending credobaptist churches most of my life, so I’m used to the tension. I’ve seen that these two views can work in the same body. But I was not prepared for the strenuous argument for excluding paedobaptists from Baptist church membership.

But it also left me perplexed. In arguing that baptism should be required for church membership, why are paedobaptists the main concern in a Baptist church? Why the repeated scare quotes on their “baptism”? Are they really infiltrating the ranks? By chapter 10, I felt rising anger in response to the direct confrontation. “So why would a paedobaptist seek to join a baptist church? …Is it really a conviction? …Indifference may be closer to the mark. …And indifference is right next door to disobedience.” Even absorbing those blows, I was still waiting to hear Jamieson’s guidance on when and how to baptize our children.

Finally, on page 215, right before the book ends, Jamieson writes, “One sticky issue this whole discussion raises is the age at which churches should baptize young people.” Now we are finally there. What is the answer? To my shock and surprise he continues, “Historically, Baptists have tended to begin baptizing believers around age eighteen.” Now it made sense to me.

The following is my critique of delaying baptism to adulthood and not accepting paedobaptism by other churches. I hope it leads to greater understanding and less division.

First, children are not “a special case” (p217). They are the main case. To be fair, he uses the phrase “special case” only to qualify the New Testament practice of “immediate baptism”, but addressing children only in the last few pages of a 228 page book suggests he really thinks of children as a special case on the issue of baptism and membership. On the contrary, most Christians come to know the Lord as children. A healthy church will also have new adult converts, but they will soon be having children or grandchildren that outnumber them. A church will also have transfer growth, but the primary challenge for Baptists is whether to accept infant or child baptism. So the baptism or non-baptism of children is the main case in any doctrine of baptism, not a special case.

Second, it is not true that “churches are not in a strong position” (p216) to assess whether a child’s claim to believe in Christ is credible. The church is required to make this very assessment concerning the children of its elders. Titus 1:6 says that elders should be “above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers [or faithful], and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.” Can the church carry out this duty? Clearly it can. The church’s children are known in worship, in Sunday school, in home fellowship. Normal church life will lead to innumerable age-appropriate conversations and real-world observations that reveal if those children know the Lord because of their father’s instruction.

Third, Jameison doesn’t believe we can “separate baptism from church membership” (p218), which is surely correct, but he sees this as an insurmountable barrier for children. He suggests accommodations in congregational practices to recognize baptized children as part of the church even if they aren’t ready for all adult responsibilities. But he feels the cost of the inconsistency is too high. Best to wait. But what about the costs of waiting? The children are officially outside the church and excluded from its ordinances. I have never felt the force of Jesus words’ more strongly, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Imagine a young man who grows up in such a Baptist church. He has Christian parents but he is unbaptized. He never takes the Lord’s supper. He has no official recognition by the church body that he’s a believer (although he has lots of unofficial recognition which is meaningful). On his 18th birthday he begins the membership process. He is baptized. He takes communion once, maybe even a few times. But then he moves away to college. When he meets the atheist professor, or the worldly but attractive young woman, you want him to know deep in his bones that he belongs to Christ. The spiritual formation should be substantial. The Lord gives us baptism and the Lord’s supper, official recognition by the church, precisely for this spiritual formation. To delay it in order to gain greater assurance of the genuineness of his profession seems misordered.

Finally, I believe the root problem of Jamieson’s position is a radical skepticism of any young person’s profession of faith. “Kids being raised in a Christian home should generally look and act like Christians. How then can a church tell if they really are? I’d suggest they can’t, at least not in a consistent, principled, across-the-board kind of way” (p216). So the church can’t affirm a child’s profession of faith. Do you really believe in Jesus or are you just trying to please your parents? Do you really believe the gospel or will you just fall into sin right after you move out? How do we know for sure that you are regenerate? Best to wait. This is a strike at the gracious promises of the gospel. Jesus gives himself to repentant sinners freely and generously, and it is the Pharisees who sit back and judge whether this one or that one is really worthy of his attention. This doesn’t remove the need for church discipline or accountability or rebuke when one of our children falls into sin or rejects the faith in adulthood. On the contrary, it establishes a basis for that confrontation.

The paedobaptist raises his children with gratefulness that they are Christians. They belong to the Lord, their simple faith is genuine, and they have been graciously given the gift of life in Christ. They grow up knowing they are part of the church. It seems the credobaptist raises his children with skepticism, waiting to see if they will become Christians and eventually join the church.

My defense of paedobaptism

I have never considered myself a paedobaptist until now. For years I have appreciated paedobaptism convictions at a distance, but I have also valued staying faithful to my credobaptist church. We should not divide unless absolutely necessary. This book has prompted me to shift my stance slightly. I can now simply state that I am a paedobaptist. I have little desire to argue someone into my position, and I have even less desire to shift my church’s practice. But I would like to present my reasons so that such baptism can be accepted as valid for church membership. I do not think we need to divide on this.

The question for me is simple: when did my children become disciples of Jesus? My answer is that they were disciples from birth. Therefore, in obedience to Jesus’ great commission, they were baptized by our church and taught by us and by their church to obey everything he commanded us.

When did my children first hear and believe? They certainly gave a clear profession of faith as young as 4 years old in front of our credobaptist church, and then were baptized. But they were able to profess faith at 3 years old as well. And they were already hearing and believing at 2, with even then the simplest of professions. Jamieson considers the same profession of faith at 3 and 2 years (p218) and he reasons in the opposite direction. If we can’t trust it at 2 or 3, why trust it at 6 or 10? For him this drives the issue out of childhood and into adulthood. But this denies the promise of Acts 2: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Is that promise really for our children, or only when our children become adults? I see the pattern of belief and then baptism in the book of Acts, but I also see there the belief of parents and the subsequent baptism of households. That is still belief followed by baptism. The promise is for you and for your children.

Regarding parental persuasion, is it possible that my children would not have believed at 4 years old? I don’t think so. God has made the family such that children will believe their parents’ instruction. It is not presumption for a father to know that a newborn child will believe. It is a gracious gift of God that should be stewarded. So it is not presumptuous to apply the sign of initiation into the New Covenant.

Is it possible that in adulthood my children will reject the faith? Sadly it is, but that will be a Hebrews 6 moment where they will reject not only their parents’ instruction but also their inclusion in the church. They will be rejecting the enlightening of baptism and the heavenly gift of the Lord’s supper which was only theirs by being in some sense members of the church. And if it happens, I will appeal to their church’s discipline to confront them with their backsliding and unbelief. Their baptism does not provide an excuse to presume they are Christians apart from the church’s ongoing affirmation. It does the exact opposite. They are raised knowing they are Christians who are part of a body. They have seen church discipline happen. They know the names and faces of people who have been restored and of those who have walked away. They have been part of this from the very beginning.

Jamieson’s has a helpful description of baptism as a synecdoche (p42), a single thing that stands for the entire process of coming to faith and professing that faith, in a way that doesn’t require parsing out exactly when each component happens. This is why the paedobaptist reads Romans 6, Galatians 3, Colossians 2, and 1 Peter 3 and sees that this state of being a baptized Christian must apply to his children.

Jamieson rightly sees how circumcision and Passover are analogous to baptism and the Lord’s supper, but he doesn’t mention the force of the children’s inclusion in the Passover meal. They are part of the covenant by circumcision and so they share in the covenant meal. Presbyterians covenantal system described in the Westminster Confession is surely part of the “sophisticated rationale” (p167) that Jamieson doesn’t like, and I don’t particularly like the formulation of Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace or the tripartite division of Mosaic Law either. But these more technical arguments aren’t necessary to believe the covenantal nature of the church and God’s promises to include our children in that covenant.

Finally, I have seen how a paedobaptist can function in a credobaptist church as long as his children are baptized at a young age. The impact on his children’s spiritual development doesn’t differ significantly. Likewise, a credobaptist can function in a paedobaptist church as long as he is not derided for waiting some years for a simple profession of faith which is sure to come. His attitude about the covenantal inclusion of his children doesn’t differ significantly. But deferring baptism until 18 years poses a real obstacle. It’s hard to see how it doesn’t divide a body.

Climate Action Plan

I recently heard about cities in California being required to create Climate Action Plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to adverse climate changes. We're all familiar with this type of thinking and can guess what is in those plans. I'd like to propose my own plan, one which is achievable and not merely aspirational, one which is driven by growth and not reduction, and one which leads to human freedom and flourishing and not governmental crackdowns.

First, we need to gratefully acknowledge that we have been given the sun as a source of practically infinite energy. According to NASA, the sun shines down 44 quadrillion watts of energy on the earth every year. This is the equivalent of 44 million large power plants in continuous operation. And even that is a miniscule fraction of the total energy emitted by the sun in every other direction than Earth. The amount of energy available to us can be regarded as infinite.

The sun has always been the source of all energy on the earth, but our method for capturing and using that energy has varied. A primitive hunter-gatherer eats plants and animals which channel energy from the sun. Burning wood or coal releases energy captured from the sun using the more advanced technology of mills and mines. Pumping and refining and burning oil was a major advance in technology that propelled modern economies, but with unforeseen consequences. Nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal energy are newer advances which have not matured yet, but have potential.

In all these cases, the energy coming from the sun can be regarded as infinite, but the limiting factor in capturing and using that energy has been human ingenuity. Any increase in human creativity and ambition is rewarded with a greater use of what we've been given. This positive, limitless perspective is fundamentally different from most climate catastrophe theories, and I sincerely believe it is correct.

Second, from this perspective, governments should see their part in fostering the growth of human creativity and productivity. We need just and peaceful societies that facilitate the education and advancement of the brightest and most ambitious among us, without regard to racial quotas or income inequality or other revolutionary social theories. Even if the schools of your city don't produce the next Einstein, your city can be a model of how to encourage learning and productivity which is then emulated elsewhere where the next Einstein lives.

Third, governments should tell the truth about what is actually happening and what is actually possible. Instead of aspirational plans without viable mechanisms, instead of virtue signaling on Earth Day, instead of recycling bins without any feedback loop on what goes in them, governments should focus on making accurate data available on the impacts of human society on the earth. Collect the data and allow human freedom and creativity to figure out what to do about it. No elected leader today knows how to solve the problem. I don't either. This should humble us. But we can agree on where the solution will come from, which is greater human ingenuity.

Fourth, governments should avoid alarmism. We often hear of water shortages in California and are urged to conserve. "We're still in a drought" is a common refrain. Yet the amount of water on earth is constant. Sometimes the reservoirs of California are full and sometimes they are empty. Climate change may cause increased droughts in some places, but it can also cause increased rain in other places. In all cases, there is an energy cost associated with pumping, damming, desalinating, and filtering. With the right technology, we can pay the cost and everyone can have water. Instead of banging the drums of calamity and reduction, which eventually are tuned out and ignored, we should focus on costs and benefits, which can lead to understanding and action.

Fourth, US and European governments should advocate solutions that can be applied worldwide because climate change is a worldwide phenomenon. One can debate whether 40 million Californians can afford EVs by 2035, but one billion Indians cannot. Any "advance" we make in our small corner of the world which can't be replicated by the billions trying to climb out of poverty amounts to virtue signaling. You aren't saving the planet; you're just driving a Tesla.

Fifth and finally, we should all calm down and be grateful. Compared to all of human history, the Industrial Revolution is a recent phenomenon. The Digital Revolution has barely gotten started. We have witnessed so much growth in prosperity and education and opportunity in our lifetime that we lose perspective on how quickly things have changed and how much we have benefited. There is certainly more to do, and some of that work may be unwinding the unintended consequences of past progress, but it can be done if we allow people the freedom to do it.

Why I'm not a Sabbatarian

In the Old Testament, God commands his people to keep the Sabbath, the seventh day of week or Saturday, by refraining from work and dedicating the time to rest and worship. Many Christians believe that the Sabbath was changed into the first day of the week or Sunday, also called the Lord's Day, and continues to have the same purpose and requirements. This Sabbatarianism is described in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 21, paragraphs 7 and 8. It's a doctrine and practice over which Christians can agree to disagree, but it exposes important issues which are useful to understand. My position comes from New Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism taught by reformed Baptists (that is, I didn't come up with this.)

While the Sabbath was grounded in God's pattern set in the creation week, it is only commanded to man as part of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8-11), which is the opening and summary text of the Mosaic Law. The word Sabbath first appears when manna is given (Exodus 16), much like the first Passover is described a few chapters before it is instituted as part of the Law (Exodus 12). When God finishes his initial law giving in the book of Exodus, he calls the Sabbath the sign of the covenant (Exodus 31:13), just like circumcision was given as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17).

The Gospels show that Jesus was a faithful Jew who kept the Sabbath, but even in Jesus' teaching there are hints that something is changing (Luke 6:1-11). The rest of the New Testament explains this change by teaching that the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ, along with all of the Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:17-29, Colossians 2:16), In a similar way, Jesus hints that dietary and sacrificial laws would change (Mark 7:19, Mark 13:1), but he leaves it to his Apostles to explain it fully. Paul instructs Christians to graciously accept brothers who still practice the Sabbath (Romans 14:5), but he is clear in the same passage about the reality of Christian freedom from Mosaic Law (Romans 14:14).

The Christian practice of faithfully gathering on the Lord's Day is related to the Sabbath, just like baptism is related to circumcision and the Lord's Supper is related to Passover, but this relation is one of shadow giving way to substance (Hebrews 8:5, 10:1). There is continuity and discontinuity between Old and New, but we need some guide or rule to understand it.

The Westminster Confession of Faith describes a tri-partite division of Mosaic Law in chapter 19. The moral part of the Law is binding in all ages, while the ceremonial and judicial parts of the Law were temporary, only for the Old Covenant age. While this system has some value in distinguishing continuity and discontinuity, it doesn't actually help distinguish which individual laws are in each part. The Sabbath seems ceremonial, like the monthly and yearly festivals, but Westminster assumes it is part of the moral law, likely because of its placement in the Ten Commandments.

Instead, I believe the teaching of Jesus, as contained in the whole New Testament, is the Christian's guide to understanding the Old Testament. Some say that where the New Testament is silent, the Old Testament is still binding. But I find the New Testament is not silent in any matter that binds the conscience. The simple principle is that we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law, which has been made obsolete, but are under the Law of Christ (Hebrews 8:13, 1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 5:18). In a similar way, an American citizen sees great continuity between his country's laws and British common law, but he is clearly only under the jurisdiction of the former. The Old Testament is still the infallible and authoritative Word of God, the revelation of his character and purposes, but it must be understood in submission to Christ, which means we always read it in the light of the New Testament.

The one passage in the New Testament that explicitly calls for continued observance of the Sabbath actually commands the New Covenant fulfillment of faith in Christ, not Old Covenant practice. Hebrews 3 and 4 quotes from Psalm 95, "Today if you hear my voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion...As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'" The author reasons that the Psalm describes the Israelites refusing to enter Canaan under Joshua (3:16), yet it was written by David hundreds of years after that event (4:7). He then argues that there remains an ongoing command and opportunity to believe God and enter his rest (4:8). And then he says, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest." This Sabbath rest has the same precedent in God's creation week, it's related to the Mosaic Sabbath rest, but it is a rest from keeping the Mosaic Law by instead trusting in Christ who is the better mediator, better high priest, better sacrifice and better temple. If this one reference to the Sabbath establishes a continuation of Old Covenant practice, it makes no sense of the immediate context or the argument of the entire book.

Finally, how does this affect my practice? I have no trouble being in close fellowship with Christians who practice a Sabbath day. I would never want to flaunt my freedom. I highly value the gathering of the church on the Lord's Day and the wisdom of taking a break from work and using the time to worship God and studying his Word. I'm even writing this blog post on a quiet, easy Sunday afternoon. But I don't call it Sabbath keeping. Christ is my Sabbath and I have entered into his rest by faith.

Covid and Climate Change

To speak with authority on the COVID-19 pandemic or on climate change, you generally need some academic credentials or professional experience. These are complex scientific topics. Yet it seems that both covid and climate change have a lot in common, and the list of experts who are well-qualified to speak on both must be very small. Our scientific age of hyper-specialization has created a conundrum for the common man to untangle.

Both covid and climate change involve risk analysis. How dangerous is it? How does the danger of a new coronavirus variant compare to other dangers like social isolation, putting people out of work, or shutting down schools? It took time for data to come in and these varying risk levels to become more actionable. Likewise, how does the danger of warming two degrees Centigrade compare to the danger of third world poverty? What kind of timeframe is needed to make this judgment? When anyone argues that there's no more time to debate, my skepticism grows.

Even with some agreement on the danger, both covid and climate change involve a cost/benefit analysis for mitigation. What can actually be done about it, at what cost, and who gets to decide? After three years of mask mandates (finally ending February 2023), it became clear that there was no point in discussing the effectiveness of the mask. It had reduced to a sign of compliance. Some may think the mask is an effective and effortless way to reduce risk. Others see the mask as useless and authoritarian. Whatever your opinion, the sign is primary and the effectiveness is secondary. This reminds me of the recycling bin and a curious incident at my company years ago. At an all-hands townhall meeting, the CEO would often answer questions from the employees. One employee was concerned that our cleaning staff regularly tossed the contents of the recycle bins and the trash bins into the same dumpster. The CEO responded that we shouldn't worry because the recycling gets separated out at the waste facility. I've never looked at the sign and significance of the recycling bin quite the same again.

Both covid and climate change involve a tension between public policy and personal responsibility, which maps neatly to our left/right party lines. Governors of New York and California issued strong mandates to control public behavior. Governors of Florida and South Dakota issued strong statements that individual citizens should remain free to confront the problem as they thought best. The virus knows nothing of state lines, so we have no clear-cut way of measuring who was right. Carbon emissions also know nothing of state lines, so the effectiveness of climate legislation in California can't really be measured.

Both covid and climate change pit the developed West against developing Asia. The virus originated from China, possibly from Western-funded lab research gone wrong, and it spread rapidly out of Asia with Western-driven globalization. The Asian-style response of lock downs and masks also spread with it to the West. If the burning of fossil fuels has been the decisive factor in rising temperatures, that innovation arose in the West as well. And yet it's Asia that is now burning the greatest amount of fossil fuels to lift multiple billions of people out of poverty for the first time. Asia is going to burn what it needs to burn in order to get there, and who in the West can say no?

Finally, both covid and climate change show the dangers and benefits of modern science. We may have created that virus, and we may have created this global warming. But we also quickly created a vaccine and new medications, and we have smart people who can figure out how to produce and consume energy in new ways without the old risks. I don't have much faith in government mandates, but I do in human ingenuity.

The Neglected Qualification

The Neglected Qualification is a book by Douglas Wilson about the Biblical requirement, found in Titus 1:6, that pastors/elders have children who are believers. The parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3 doesn't have this particular requirement, but repeats the general principle that a man is only qualified to lead the family of God if he has demonstrated that he can lead his own family. There is much wisdom and sound reasoning in the book, but I disagree with the main point to which it seems the book drives.

I want to list the ways in which the book is wise and helpful before addressing my disagreement and offering a counter proposal.

The qualification of the state of the pastor/elder's family, both wife and children, should surely not be neglected. "When we are looking at a man's family, we are looking for what we want to see duplicated - for Paul tells us that it will be duplicated" (p30).

The wise elder will leave the 99 of the congregation to pursue the one wandering sheep in his family.  In doing so, he is not only not disqualified, but is actually demonstrating the qualities of Jesus (p13). We should not embitter our kids by having any and every problem in the church outrank their problems (p42).

Wilson offers procedural wisdom, saying we "should let the simple requirement drive the majority of your cases, and deal with your exceptional cases as they arise" (p20). And that when an elder has a difficult situation, "in such tangles those most closely involved should not be judges in their own cases" (p9).

Wilson makes a helpful distinction between selecting a new elder and retaining an existing elder. "Before he is in office, views about his family are a judgment call. After he is in office, they are a charge" (p35). This allows members to go with their gut on installation, but it protects the elder and his family from unreasonable scrutiny. The analogy of picking a wife vs. remaining married to that wife is apropos (p34). This distinction best fits the presbyterian model (elder for life), but can be applied to a congregational model with terms. The elder resuming another term after a required hiatus is largely continuing his role as elder.

But all of this is preamble to his central recommendation for church governance at the end of chapter 8, "If a natural child of an elder or minister, having grown up in his father's house, is lawfully excommunicated by the church, the resignation of his father will be required at that same time" (p47, also stated similarly on p9). 

First, let me clarify two minor things in this recommendation. I don't like the distinction between the natural child and the adopted child or step child. Adopted children often struggle with the profound loss of their birth parents and their sense of identity, and step children have been scarred by a death or divorce they didn't cause. These extenuating circumstances must be considered. But there are also extenuating circumstances for natural born children that must also be considered, and making this distinction between types of children doesn't help with that.

Also, "lawfully excommunicated by the church" implies a formal proceeding in a local church in which child and father participate. But Wilson later clarifies, "If we adopt the policy I am suggesting in the larger church - that of asking elders and ministers to step down if their children are excommunicate (or the moral equivalent)..." (p55). So any unbelieving or grossly sinning child, regardless of church membership or proceeding, is in the equivalent state. I don't believe Wilson intends that the child be present in the local church where his or her father is serving in order to apply this rule.

Overlooking those points, how do I disagree with this recommendation without also "neglecting the qualification"?

First, Wilson's recommendation does not capture his distinction between making someone an elder and retaining that man as an elder. He only addresses retaining the elder.

Second, Wilson's recommendation doesn't state that when a child is known to be unbelieving the office of the father must be reevaluated by a qualified board. It simply says the resignation is required, and it is discussed elsewhere that discretion might be applied to override this requirement.

Third, Wilson argues that "children" must equally apply to young children in the house and to grown children out of the house or capable of being out of the house because young children cannot be accused of debauchery and rebellion (p44). No, two year-olds cannot. But 16 year-olds can. And a 22 year-old who went to college as a credibly professing believer, but fell under the influence of secular philosophy and atheistic science, is in some sense a rebellious child, but he or she is also a responsible adult. This all too common and tragic situation should never be neglected. It may reflect a flaw in the father's training or ongoing care. It should be considered, especially for a new elder, and even in the case of retaining a current elder, but I don't see how this recommendation captures any of that wisdom. Wilson says Eli's and David's sons should be regarded as responsible adults (p24), but his culminating recommendation doesn't incorporate that.

Finally, Wilson persuasively argues that Titus 1 is patterned after Deuteronomy 21. Execution of a disobedient son in Israel and excommunication of a disobedient child in the church are similar. Both Israelite and Christian parents are called to train their children to know the Lord and children are to obey their parents and follow their model of faith. Wilson says, "This is for all of us. But since we are supposed to learn the harvest of all Christian living from those who are given spiritual responsibility for us, it makes sense that Paul would begin by requiring this of church officers" (p54). The elder is required to have a complete harvest among all his children, without exception, into adulthood. If the father raises 10 children to know the Lord, all entering adulthood with credible professions of faith, and then one marries and later divorces and is unrepentant, I do not see how an expectation of covenantal harvest extends to an automatic resignation of the father from his elder/pastoral work. Surely he should not neglect the qualification. He should pursue his adult son. He should take the case to his fellow elders to see if he should step down for a season or forever. But Wilson is arguing for something more strict and automatic.

And so, now it comes to what really matters. Wilson should be commended for offering a recommendation, and if all I do is tear it down, I'm not building up the church. So I humbly offer my own recommendation to address the Neglected Qualification, much of it based on Wilson's own teaching: 

If a new elder candidate has an unbelieving child in his home, the church should presume he does not meet the Titus 1:6 qualification unless proven differently. If any elder, new or existing, has an unbelieving child of any age and living situation, he should humbly submit himself and his situation to the judgment of the other elders, they should consider what has been revealed about the spiritual maturity and reputation of that elder, and whether he remains in office or not he should pursue his child with a greater urgency than his work for the congregation.