Hammer-and-nails Christians

Be ye followers of me, brethren, and observe them who walk so as you have our model. For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping), that they are enemies of the cross of Christ; Whose end is destruction; whose God is their belly; and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things.

— Philippians 3:17-19

Surely you’ve heard the news of a few legislative attempts to prevent entrepreneurs from being legally harrased into material complicity with evil by servicing gay “weddings” — gay “weddings” which, mind you, are not even legally recognized in many of those states (yet).

That’s not especially alarming, or new, anyway; the free and equal new man cannot tolerate any restrictions on his liberty, even those imposed by the mere existence of the reactionary untermenschen who periodically crawl out of the sewer to contradict him. What alarms me is the extent to which Christians have thrown in with this particular anti-Crusade. In the last three days I have personally dealt with the libels of no less than three Christians, at least one of them an ostensibly “good” Catholic, daring to claim that a Christian baker refusing on principle to bake a cake for a gay “wedding” is morally deficient and contrary to Christian love; and my girlfriend (at least as fierce as me, but nowhere near as accustomed to leftist vitriol) has had to deal with several more, to her great distress. (Get it? You can’t “judge” — i.e., not be 100% on board with — sodomites for what they publicly and repeatedly say and do, but you can surely read and know the hearts of far-away small-business bakery owners on the basis of third-hand reports of their conversations.)

Let us be clear; if your position is that the “love” which we mean when we say “God is love” or “God so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son” obliges you to sell needles to heroin addicts or to let children eat sugary cereal for every meal, then you are setting yourself against the plain letter of Scripture, the unanimous witness of Christian history, and the dictates of basic human reason. If your position requires you to view faithful Christians as crucifying Pharisees and aggressive, unrepentant sodomites as the hapless sinners who dined with Christ, then you have got absolutely everything backwards. If your position is that the Constitutional-rendering-of-the-moment has higher Magisterial status than the unbroken opinion of all saintly Christians for all of time everywhere, then maybe you should replace that little metal cross hanging around your neck with a stylized hammer and nails.

12 thoughts on “Hammer-and-nails Christians

  1. The “Civil Rights” mentality has extended beyond reason and into absurdity. I now have a civil right to your goods and labor. If you bake cakes or take photos you will be forced to provide goods and services to homosexuals or else be personally destroyed by the government. Perhaps it will soon come to pass that if you write about family issues (i.e. Focus On The Family) you will be forced to focus on writing about homosexual marriage issues too.

  2. If your position is that the Constitutional-rendering-of-the-moment has higher Magisterial status than the unbroken opinion of all saintly Christians for all of time everywhere, then maybe you should replace that little metal cross hanging around your neck with a stylized hammer and nails.

    Well said Proph. Conservatives seem uninterested in questions of the good they would rather talk about freedom and the Constitution. I also found it interesting that Mr. “Family-Values” Mitt Romney came out against the Arizona law. I am glad he lost.

    • Do you think the whole issue would be circumvented if Christians set themselves up as religious non-profits? Make themselves and their friends from church board members. Hire your employees as independent contractors. Grant yourself a huge salary but donate whatever is excessive back into the business to keep the financials attractive in case you want to do fund raising. Maybe just forget about fundraising and operate as though you won’t raise any funds. Build your ethics/mission statement around Christian Kingdom building, upright Christian living, and working out your salvation with fear and trembling through the non-profit specifically as a religious ministry.

      So, using a tax prep as an example, I set up my non-profit tax prep as described above, I get a homosexual couple filing jointly, I turn them away for not fitting the mission statement of my ministry, and am immune from discrimination. What do you think? Would this work with all Christian businesses?

      • There are two things wrong with this. First, non-profits (at least the ones who get tax advantages) are required to have missions which fit into one of a small number of categories (education, health care, etc). Second, it is illegal to incorporate as a non-profit and then pay yourself a big salary—non-profits are not just forbidden from “distributing profits,” they are also forbidden from distributing profits.

        Normally, the IRS is pretty lax about enforcement of this kind of thing, but I doubt greatly that it would be pretty lax in this particular case.

        I should probably resist pointing it out here, but this is a besetting mistake of right-wingers—it is a kind of map-territory error. There is no trick. There is no loophole. There is no way to pass a legislative fix. Because there is no “rule of law” in the sense right-wingers want there to be. The people in charge, the people with the power, are against us. That is the problem. The only solution is to have people who are for us in power. Nothing else will work.

      • I just finished reading James Burnham’s The Machiavellians, in which two of the major themes are the iron law of oligarchy and the circulation of elites. As you say, there is nothing that we can do so long as the present elite is in power, since, as Burnham writes: “no societies are governed by the people, by a majority; all societies, including societies called democratic, are ruled by a minority.” We have to wait for a social revolution, which is the replacement of one elite with another. Towards the end of the book, Burnham summarizes the reasons elites lose power. They are: (1) a manifest failure to cope with some technological or social innovation; (2) a turning from the rigors of rule to the pleasures of artistic creation or sensuality; (3) nepotism, the aristocratic principle, or the unwillingness to admit talented individuals from outside the ruling class; (4) a failure of nerve and a loss of confidence that power is theirs by right; (5) unwillingness to use force to restrain their enemies and an almost exclusive reliance on manipulation, compromise, deceit and fraud.

        If our present elite has a weakness, I would say it is (3), since they put ideological conformity before talent in their evaluation of people. They are, of course, the authors of some social innovations that will eventually become unmanageable, but that’s in the future. It’d say (4) is rock-solid and (5) is waxing strong. Do you see any fatal weaknesses?

      • No, I don’t see any fatal weaknesses. I agree with your assessment. They are nepotistic and their children are decadent, relative to their parents. So, their worst weaknesses at present are 2 and 3. But neither of these weaknesses are all that bad. People climb up into the elite by being smart, hard-working, and compliant with the dominant ideology all the time. There are scads of people at or near the elite who come from non-elite backgrounds. The intergenerational decline in discipline and accomplishment is there, but I don’t see how it is a big enough deal. They don’t seem all that much worse than their parents to me, and they tend to be dealt with wisely—unable elite types get sinecures in foundations or safe seats in legislatures or no-show government jobs, or trust funds & heroin, or whatever. As you say, they are rock solid on 4 and 5. If the Neo-Nazis took over the Mall in Washington, you can be sure Obama would clear it with machine guns to the uproarious cheering of the rest of our elite. He’s no Yanukovych.

        1 is kind of hard to evaluate. For a social or technological change to get them, it has to sneak up on them in a blind spot, somehow. They have blind spots, for sure. For example, they seem supremely confident that Muslims are about like Christians and are corruptible in similar ways. Maybe, pace Charlton, the Muslims will just walk in and take it away from them. Even the obviously smart ones seem to believe that feminism benefits women and that women will persist in believing this. Maybe, then, women will conclude that feminism is actually a bad deal for them and will start overtly preferring more traditional social arrangements. Maybe both will happen at once, with high status women converting rapidly to Islam to find decent husbands. They seem genuinely incapable, even the smart ones, of seeing that white males are getting screwed materially, morally, and spiritually. So, maybe the opposite of the previous scenario will happen. Traditional social arrangements will continue to decay, and we will get a continuing growth in basement-dwelling neckbeards. Or a growth in George Sodinis or Anders Breiviks. Who knows? The policies they are following seem likely to generate messed-up but reasonably capable white men with nothing to lose.

        I think the more likely form of 1 is some overstep on their part which their ideology blinds them to the effects of. Ronald Reagan was caused by school busing. The elite really seem to have believed that white people were going to just placidly go along with having their kids bussed to the ghetto. A similar thing won’t happen again with race, though. They know the score there.

        A similar thing could happen, though, with homos. You can imagine a world in which our elite reduces age of consent while outlawing any discrimination against homos and simultaneously inventing some farcical “right” of minors to fornicate with whom they please. So, your 14 year old son’s gym teacher is a chicken hawk. Which is not illegal. Which he may not be fired for. And it is “none of your business” and “just about sex” what your son does with his gym teacher. I find this scenario plausible. And it could potentially provoke a response stronger than they are ready for.

      • @ Dr. Bill

        I think the best thing to do would be to hasten the decline that the liberals want and then rebuild a traditional society upon the ruins.

        Think about the writings of Spengler and the Traditionalist School/Perennialists but without the complete fatalism. As in, sure America will have to collapse but strive to be the ones who stumble and crawl out of the ashes to build something new, something better, something orientated towards the Good.

  3. I know we are all conservatives, which means we should be packing our things and preparing to retreat to the next ditch, but before we do, I would like to say a few unkind words about this ditch we are about to abandon. I do not think the state should compel Christian bakers and photographers to serve, when requested, at same-sex weddings, but one has to wonder what sorts of bogus weddings these Christian bakers and photographers have been happily serving for years. Have they baked cakes for weddings in which the vows explicitly repudiated male headship? Have they photographed brides in white dresses, or cakes topped by their tiny facsimiles, when there was not a virgin within ten miles of the church? What about couples who had no intention to be fruitful and multiply, or to be faithful, or to observe the promise “’till death do us part.” Let’s face it, traditionalists, we’re marking this as a significant moment in our long retreat largely because we can not even pretend that these are Christian weddings.

      • ” Sodomite “marriage” isn’t the camel’s nose in the tent: it is the camel’s hindquarters.”

        LOL. Did you phrase it that way on purpose?

    • In their defense, it’s easy not to know whether the couple you’re making a cake for are virgins, if they believe in male headship, or if they intend to have children. It’s impossible not to notice that they are of the same sex.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.