christianity and culture

Gospel Issues: An Open Letter to Western Evangelicals

/ William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

With a small amount of interest, I have occasionally turned my gaze on the provocative happenings in the world of Evangelicalism. Just to be fair, by a very loose definition, I would be considered an Evangelical, though I prefer the term Protestant or, even better, Reformed Baptist. Read me right, though. I’m not bashing the movement. As one whose hope is set intently on the inheritance being kept for me, which works to embolden my faith in Christ Jesus, I have a love and fervent concern for all the saints (Col. 1:3-5). However, I grow weary when exposed too long to the internet sensationalism surrounding much of Western Evangelicalism. I trust that many of our readers can relate.

Gospel Minimalism

Evangelicals, at the very least, are marked by a central concern for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By this definition of Evangelicalism, I consider myself among the fold. However, many in recent days have taken to a minimalistic practice of Evangelicalism in which Christians are encouraged to focus almost exclusively on the Gospel, with very little emphasis on other very important doctrines in the Christian faith. Within this same fold are those who, wanting to minimize all non-Gospel issues as far secondary, have taken to labeling every issue under the sun a “Gospel issue.” So, they minimize all Christian doctrine that is not the Gospel while, at the same time, broadening the Gospel so that it encompasses far more than what the Bible teaches.

This is an understandable position to take if you are a Gospel-minimalist. If all issues are unimportant, or of minimal significance, unless they touch the Gospel in some way, you must demonstrate how any issue that is important to you touches the Gospel. As a result, Gospel-minimalists seem to be bending over backward to demonstrate how their pet issues are Gospel-issues. This hermeneutical technique requires such interpretive gymnastics in order to arrive at the intended conclusions that it can easily leave onlookers’ heads reeling.

I’m not arguing that the issues in question shouldn’t come under the umbrella and influence of the Gospel. They should, and all issues in that sense are Gospel-issues. Everything for the Christian, to a certain degree, is subject to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether we’re talking about race relations, the environment, gun control, taxes, family life, work, etc., etc., etc., the Gospel impacts every area of life. The problem arises when someone comes to endorse one particular solution to one of these issues—a solution that is not the direct result of their study of the Gospel—and then they claim that, because the issue itself is a “Gospel-issue,” Christians must without exception adopt the same solution to addressing the issue that they do.

Gospel-Issues or Gospel-Solutions

This line of argumentation fails to account for certain very important nuances within the Christian community. To say that racism is a Gospel-issue is not an incorrect statement. However, to say that only one approach to alleviating the church of racism is the correct “Gospel” approach is dishonest at the very least. Nor is it incorrect to say that orphans and widows are a Gospel-issue. However, to say that others don’t have a proper handle on the Gospel because they are convinced of the merits of a different solution than you is disingenuous at best.

The difference is a categorical difference. Simply because a brother in Christ has a different approach to solving the problem, which you both recognize as a problem, does not mean that he doesn’t recognize the implications the Gospel brings to bear on that issue. Rather, it means that his culture, his education and, more generally, his life experiences bring him to vastly different conclusions as to how to solve this Gospel-issue.

The issue itself is a Gospel-issue insofar as all things in the life of the Christian touch the Gospel at some point. However, the approach to solving it may not be shaped by the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel message itself often offers no practical, “how-to” solutions for the woes of society. It simply exposes them as woes in the minds and consciences of believers. The Gospel will often compel us to act without giving us the necessary guidelines on how to act in every particular instance.

Gospel Zeal

For instance, we understand that the two Great Commandments teach us to love God and love our neighbor. As a result of the regenerating work of the gospel and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christians are now enabled to recognize where we need to grow in our love for God and love for neighbor, and we are now enabled to act out of love for God and love for our neighbor. The grace of God makes us zealous for good deeds (Tit. 2:11-14), but zeal without reason is foolhardy.

Christians are to temper our zeal with sound judgment. The gospel and the grace it bears emboldens Christians with a godly zeal necessary to live lives that are pleasing to our Father in heaven. However, without the tools for navigating the nuances of cultural discernment, many of us will fall into pitfalls and commit our Gospel-fueled zeal to unprofitable ends. We recognize that the Gospel emboldens us to take action and be “salt and light” in the world, so we ride off into battle without the proper weapons and armor of our warfare.

As a result, we call for action that does the opposite of what we intend. We don’t rightly understand economics, so we call for actions on the part of the government that we think help the poor when really they are the very things doing them the most harm. We don’t rightly understand the best means for preserving human life, so we call for measures to be put in place by the government that we think will minimize violent crimes and death, but those very measures make people more vulnerable to violent criminals and devalues human life. We don’t rightly understand the biblical teaching on ethnicity, so we call for measures from state and church authorities that encourage deeper divisions rather than promoting unity across ethnicities. And those are just three issues of concern.

The Gospel Hammer

Worst of all, many who promote these counter-productive solutions seek to reinforce their arguments for them by appealing to the Gospel. They (rightly) recognize that every Christian must come under the shadow of the cross when considering the issue about which they are concerned. Subsequently, they recognize that this issue touches the Gospel, in one way or another, the moment a Christian comes to consider it. Wrongly, though, they assume that their approach must be the only Gospel-centered approach to solving their issue.

This approach to addressing issues within our cultures and within our local churches has an undercurrent of gracelessness. It assumes, “If someone else’s approach to solving this Gospel-issue is different than mine, this person is not as Gospel-centered as I am.” Allow me to play the role of peacemaker, here, and call for a little more Christian charity and mercy in regard to these issues.

Simply because someone recognizes the Gospel compels us to act on an issue does not make their subsequent action necessarily right. Just because someone disagrees with your action when you were the first to point out the fact that the problem at hand is a Gospel-issue does not mean the person in question is not Gospel-centered. You don’t have the right to use the Gospel as a hammer to bash your brother in the faith simply because he endorses a different solution to the problem you both recognize. So allow me to call for a moratorium.

A Call for Gospel Grace

Let’s stop saying issues are Gospel-issues, as though not all issues should come under the authority of the cross in the Christian life. Let’s recognize that all issues to one degree or another are Gospel-issues, which means none of them are Gospel-issues in the way Western Evangelicals use (more appropriately: abuse) the term. Let’s stop telling Christians they have to endorse the exact same solutions we do, or they aren’t Gospel-centered enough. The world is more nuanced than that.

We should feel free to point out problems in our world, but then we should be humble enough to ask, “What can be done about this?” rather than shouting one another down when we have difficulty arriving at a consensus. Wasn’t it our Savior who said: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy”? Let’s endeavor to show one another a little more mercy. Let’s stop using the Gospel as a hammer to bash one another when we disagree on how to solve problems. Rather, let’s commit to listen to one another, pray, submit ourselves to the Gospel, educate ourselves so we can make the most informed decision possible, and commit to following our consciences in the zeal God has granted us by His grace.

Soli Deo Gloria

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology: Two Kingdoms in Luther

/ theroadofgrace / 40 Comments

Read the first two posts here and here.

______________

 

 

In the previous article, we discussed Augustine’s classic work City of God as a means of demonstrating how the Church interacts with the culture in the public sphere. Now, we will examine Martin Luther’s development of Augustine’s ideas.

Much of Luther’s public theology can be examined by interacting with Luther’s 1523 essay Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed. In this essay, Luther taught that the temporal authority (i.e. the civil state) exists by divine ordinance (cf. Genesis 4:14-15; 9:6), having existed since creation and having been confirmed by Moses, John the Baptist, and Christ Himself. Luther divided the human race into two groups, one belonging to the kingdom of God and the other belonging to the kingdom of the world. Luther argued that the citizens of the kingdom of God need neither law nor sword, whereas the citizens of the kingdom of this world need both. In light of this need, God has established two governments (one spiritual and one temporal). The spiritual government is for the Holy Spirit to produce righteous Christians under Christ’s rule, and the purpose of the temporal government is for restraining the wicked and non-believers by the sword.

Kingdom vs. Government

It’s important to note here that Luther introduces an important distinction between kingdom and government. The two kingdoms are mutually exclusive (reminiscent of Augustine’s Two Cities), but the two governments are not mutually exclusive. As Luther articulates the idea of the two governments that rule these two kingdoms, Luther makes clear that the temporal authority, which executes the legal and coercive government of the earthly kingdom, brings Christians and non-Christians under its sway. In Luther’s thought, we have a supplement to Augustine’s doctrine of the Two Cities, which David VanDrunen describes this way:

To some degree, Luther’s adding the nuance of two governments to the two kingdoms template accounts for the constructive development of Augustinian thought. For example, Luther’s two governments framework gives the two kingdoms an institutional expression – in church and state – that lurks just below the surface in the City of God but is never unambiguously expressed (Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought, pp. 60).

Moreover, by means of this added nuance of the two governments, Luther taught the validity and legitimacy of Christians participating in civil government, something not clearly articulated by Augustine. Consequently, according to Luther, Christians ought to heartily embrace their roles in the civil realm as an expression of their Christian love. For Luther, public society was a forum for the expression of Christian love and duty. In continuity with the medieval tradition, Luther taught the existence of natural law, of which the Ten Commandments is the primary summary; however, Luther moved beyond the medieval tradition by stating that natural law is the source, judge, and standard of all human laws.

Vocation in Luther’s Thought

It’s important to note that Luther’s Two Kingdom approach to public theology belonged to an entire theological system built around the Reformational doctrine of sola fide. The two governments (spiritual and temporal) relate to two kinds of righteousness (the righteousness of faith and civil righteousness), each of which in turn relates to gospel and law, respectively. Faith directs us upward toward God, while love drives us outward toward our neighbor. As persons we stand before God, while we hold various offices in the world as we live before others. One important application of Luther’s public theology was his doctrine of vocation. Luther saw that non-religious vocations (such as the baker, the shoemaker, and the soldier) came to be seen as equally God-pleasing as religious vocations (such as preachers and clerics). The various callings in human society, ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical, could now be fulfilled under God and His Word, and alongside one another with equal value.

Some modern advocates have interpreted Luther’s Two Kingdom doctrine as a justification for a twofold ethic for Christians, one for the spiritual government and the other for the temporal government. For example, one can find Luther saying that if a person is called to be a courageous soldier, that person must obey the summons, not as a Christian, but as a citizen subject to the state. In this view, there would be no such thing as a “Christian soldier” since the ethic of this occupation (associated with the temporary government) is distinct from Christian ethics (associated with the spiritual government). It is our contention that historical accuracy requires a more nuanced and careful analysis of Luther’s 1523 essay; in particular, it’s important to consider large sections of Luther’s teaching, which point to the integration of Christian faith and public service.

Luther’s Counsel for Princes

Consider the following discussion in Luther’s essay, in which he discusses the proper conduct of a Christian prince:

What, then, is a prince to do if he lacks the requisite wisdom and has to be guided by the jurists and the lawbooks? Answer: This is why I said that the princely estate is a perilous one. If he be not wise enough himself to master both his laws and his advisers, then the maxim of Solomon applies, ‘Woe to the land whose prince is a child’ (Eccles. 10:16). Solomon recognized this too. This is why he despaired of all law-even of that which Moses through God had prescribed for him-and of all his princes and counselors. He turned to God himself and besought him for an understanding heart to govern the people (I Kings 3:9). A prince must follow this example and proceed in fear; he must depend neither upon the dead books nor living heads, but cling solely to God, and be at him constantly, praying for a right understanding, beyond that of all books and teachers, to rule his subjects wisely. For this reason I know of no law to prescribe for a prince; instead, I will simply instruct his heart and mind on what his attitude should be toward all laws, counsels, judgments, and actions. If he governs himself accordingly, God will surely grant him the ability to carry out all laws, counsels, and actions in a proper and godly way.

According to Luther, the Christian prince must govern by trusting in God, praying constantly for a right understanding found in divine wisdom that enables the implementation of human laws and counsels in a “proper and godly way”. As a side note: Notice also how Luther not only offers his counsel as to how a prince ought to rule, but even sets himself up as counsel to the prince in question. He writes: “…instead, I will simply instruct his heart and mind on what his attitude should be…” Not only did Luther see that it was right and proper for a Christian to serve in public office but, in the instance that a “so-called” Christian comes to hold public office, Luther saw it necessary for him as a pastor to offer counsel to such a man. Now, one may raise the question: “What is the proper and godly way for a ruler to govern?” This “proper and godly way”, according to Luther, is by following the example of Jesus Christ. Luther continues in his essay:

First. he must give consideration and attention to his subjects, and really devote himself to it. This he does when he directs his every thought to making himself useful and beneficial to them; when instead of thinking, ‘The land and people belong to me, I will do what best pleases me,’ he thinks rather, ‘I belong to the land and the people, I shall do what is useful and good for them. My concern will not be how to lord it over them and dominate them, but how to protect and maintain them in peace and plenty.’ He should picture Christ to himself, and say, ‘Behold, Christ, the supreme ruler, came to serve me; he did not seek to gain power, estate, and honor from me, but considered only my need, and directed all things to the end that I should gain power, estate, and honor from him and through him. I will do likewise, seeking from my subjects not my own advantage but theirs. I will use my office to serve and protect them, listen to their problems and defend them, and govern to the sole end that they, not I, may benefit and profit from my rule.’ In such manner should a prince in his heart empty himself of his power and authority, and take unto himself the needs of his subjects, dealing with them as though they were his own needs. For this is what Christ is to us [Phil. 2:7]; and these are the proper works of Christian love.

Throughout this portion of his essay, Luther appeals to Scripture for instruction on attitude and approach, for example, and for encouragement to rule well as a Christian prince. The same principle would naturally apply to Christian mayors, councilmen, and other Christians in political office. For Luther, “love and natural law” must guide the rule above and beyond all law books and jurists’ opinions for the Christian prince. Although love is a universal norm and love corresponds to deeds that conform to natural law, both love and natural law require the illumination of Scripture. This is not true only for Christian politicians, but for Christians in numerous other vocations. Consider the following thought from Luther

The book [Scripture] is laid in your own bosom, and it is so clear that you do not need glasses to understand Moses and the Law. Thus you are your own Bible, your own teacher, your own theologian, and your own preacher. If you are a manual laborer, you will find that the Bible has been put in your workshop, into your hand, into your heart. It teaches and preaches how you should treat your neighbor. Just look at your tools—at your needle or thimble, your beer barrel, your goods, your scales or yardstick or measure—and you will read this statement inscribed in them. Everywhere you look, it stares at you. . . . All this is continually crying out to you: ‘Friend, use me in your relations with your neighbor just as you want your neighbor to use his property in his relations with you.’

Conclusion

When one surveys Luther’s writings, the overwhelming impression is that for Luther, the Christian faith did not exist alongside public life, but came to expression and functioned within public life. Luther knew how to distinguish between the spiritual government and the temporal government, but he never separated them. Luther entered the world’s domain in the name of God with the Word of God. In this way, Luther’s public theology is thoroughly Augustinian. It is true that one cannot rule the world with the gospel, just as much as the City of Man cannot be transformed into the City of God. However, this does not mean that that Christians are permitted to ignore instruction from the Scripture, like the exhortations from the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount touches a person’s heart and conscience, but from this inward life flows outward conduct so that true humanity finds expression in public life.

In our next post, we will examine how the Reformed, from Calvin to the English Particular Baptists, developed these ideas in brought their own nuances into the development of Public Theology.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology: Augustine’s Two Cities

/ theroadofgrace / 44 Comments

Read the Introduction here.

 

______________

Augustine wrote City of God as an apologetic in response to those who were crediting Christians with the downfall of Rome. They argued that Christianity as a religion weakens cultures and makes them susceptible to overthrow by foreign powers. Augustine argued to the contrary that, whereas faithful commitment to the God of Scripture has always brought about flourishing in particular cultures, increased rebellion against Him has always resulted in their downfall. Within these cultures, Augustine recognized that there were two types of citizens: those of the City of God and those of the City of Man (also known as the city of this world or the earthly city).

A Necessary Dichotomy

Augustine distinguished the City of God from the City of Man. These two cities are organized societies with citizens who are respectively distinguished by the standards by which they live. Citizens of the City of Man live by the standard of the flesh, whereas citizens of the City of God live by the Spirit (cf. Galatians 5:13-26). Augustine emphasizes that what ultimately distinguishes the two cities are their loves: “We see then that the two cities were created by two kinds of love: the earthly city was created by self-love reaching the point of contempt for God, the Heavenly City by the love of God carried as far as contempt of self.” (Book 14, Chapter 28).

It’s important to emphasize that, for Augustine, there is no dual citizenship – in other words, each individual member is a member of one city, and one city only. Augustine reiterated Jesus’ teaching that while Christians live in the City of Man, they do not belong to the City of Man (cf. John 18:36). Their presence in the earthly city is like that of strangers sojourning in a foreign country (cf. 1 Peter 1:1-2). The City of Man is not our true home; rather, our citizenship is in heaven (cf. Philippians 3:20) and it is to that Heavenly City that we owe our affections and our ultimate loyalty.

As some have rightly observed, Christians are in a very similar situation to that of the church during the period of the Assyrian Dispersion and the Babylonian Exile. We remain citizens of Zion while we sojourn in a foreign land and seek, in our occupations and conversations, to enable flourishing, both our own and that of those around us. As part of our goal to aid in the flourishing of the land shared by these two competing cities, the City of God necessarily speaks the truth in boldness when addressing the City of Man.

Augustine’s Critique Centered on Virtue

Some have interpreted Augustine’s words as a justification for the withdrawal of Christians (and a Christian worldview) from the civil and political sphere of society, but this would be a misreading of Augustine. Augustine strongly believed that the blessedness of civic life would be enhanced if the majority were to hear and embrace the Christian precepts of justice and moral virtue. Consider the words of Augustine in Book II, Chapter 19 of The City of God:

If ‘the kings of the earth and all nations, princes and all the judges of the earth, young men and maidens, old men and children’ [Psalm 148.11f.], people of every age and each sex; if those to whom John the Baptist spoke, even the tax gatherers and the soldiers [Luke 3.12f.]: if all these together were to hear and embrace the Christian precepts of justice and moral virtue, then would the commonwealth adorn its lands with happiness in this present life and ascend to the summit of life eternal, there to reign in utmost blessedness.

Augustine also emphasized that the City of God and the City of Man are competing, intermingling loyalties within the same culture. It is at this aspect of the City of Man that Augustine’s critique is most pointed.

The City of Man always seeks stability, if for no other reason than to maintain its own power, and as a result, it legislates at the level of the minimal standards needed to preserve society. The City of Man, therefore, emphasizes tolerance of differences (as long as they don’t interfere with the government’s power) in order to avoid conflict. For the City of Man, this passes for peace, albeit distorted by greed and selfishness. The City of Man is dominated by self-love and built around the lowest common denominator in society, which is self-indulgence. Virtue is absent since the citizens of the City of Man love themselves more than others, though good behavior may be enforced by social customs or by coercion by the state. In this environment, the state is necessary to restrain evil. Herein lies the dilemma: the problem is, the government itself is part of the City of Man and is itself dominated by self-love. The State is more interested in self-promotion and power than it is in promoting the good. In the City of Man, the State is nothing less than organized oppression, and maintains its power through violence and threats.

In contrast to the City of Man, the City of God is built around love of God and therefore love of neighbor. Because of this focus on love, all true virtue resides in the City of God. The City of God also seeks peace, though of a different and more profound sort. Whereas the City of Man uses terror to compel good behavior and to protect good people from the wicked, the City of God relies only on penitence, grace, and mercy, not compulsion, to advance its goals. Augustine emphasized that the City of Man cannot accomplish its penultimate ends (i.e. safety, peace, etc.) if its ultimate ends, means, and motivations (i.e. domination, pride, and self-love) are fundamentally disordered. This is a reality that is understood by citizens of the City of God and because of our love for our neighbor, we have a responsibility to speak this truth in boldness to citizens of the City of Man. In this way, the City of God can influence citizens of the City of Man by addressing the moral conscience of the City of Man. In this role, the citizens of the city of God become a prophetic voice to the State – forth-telling the God’s truth as revealed in Scripture.

In the next blog, we will consider how Augustine’s Two Cities has been applied throughout Church history by examining the thoughts of Martin Luther on the subject as well as the modern advocates of Two Kingdoms theology.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology: An Introduction

/ theroadofgrace / 45 Comments

Disclaimer: The present series is a presentation of the thoughts of two Reformed Baptists (Gabriel Williams and William Leonhart) on the relationship between kingdom and culture. This series is to be taken neither as the view of all Reformed Baptists nor as the view of all contributors to CredoCovenant. Reformed Baptists are a diverse group with a wide variety of perspectives on this issue.

____________________

 

Paying attention to the news, one will have noticed that 2015 has been a year marked by numerous stories that have deeply affected American cultural life in the present and will doubtless have many ramifications in the future. The following list is a quick rundown of just a few major stories that have gained attention in 2015 (so far) throughout social media.

A cursory examination demonstrates that many of the news stories mentioned above involve matters of social justice and politics. This raises a significant question for Christians to consider: What is the proper Biblical approach regarding matters of social justice and politics? This question is one that addresses fundamental aspects of public theology.

Considerations

Before answering it, we’re compelled to acknowledge the complexity of the question. Its answer demands a discussion on the relationship between the Church and State, the relationship between individual Christians and the institutional Church (i.e. a discussion of ecclesiology), and an honest discussion regarding numerous Biblical passages. Moreover, this discussion will also lead to a discussion on economic theory and political theory.

The purpose of this blog series is to present a biblical approach regarding matters of social justice and politics using Reformed and Baptistic presuppositions and to apply this biblical approach to a number of pressing issues within our American context. Our position on this matter can be summarized by the following ten points:

  1. Christians are truly citizens of the Kingdom of God and we owe our affections and our ultimate loyalty to the Heavenly City where righteousness dwells.
  2. Christians live in this present, evil age and our presence in this earthly city is like that of strangers sojourning in a foreign country.
  3. The Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this present, evil age are competing, conflicting, intermingling loyalties within the same public sphere with antithetical worldviews.
  4. Unbelievers are truly citizens of this earthly city with a nature that is governed by the flesh, rather than the Spirit, and thus have a nature that is antithetical to the Kingdom of God.
  5. Because unbelievers have disordered affections, they cannot have properly ordered penultimate ends (such as peace and justice) and thus, it should not be expected that they will rightly exercise citizenship in the public sphere.
  6. Because this present, evil age is set in opposition to the Kingdom of God, Christians cannot “redeem the culture” or transform the earthly city into the Kingdom of God.
  7. The Kingdom of Grace is already present in the invisible church, while we await the ultimate fulfillment of the Kingdom of God in glory (William Collins, “The Baptist Catechism,” Q.109).
  8. Christians are called to engage the citizens of the earthly city in the public sphere as those who have been transformed by the Spirit and to serve as a prophetic voice to our culture, forth-telling the truth of God as revealed in the Scripture.
  9. Within our American culture, if we desire to speak prophetically to the ruling class of our day, we must do so by going directly to the people, for they are the ruling class in America.
  10. The separation of Church and state means that the state is not permitted to intrude into matters of conscience nor matters of church government.

The Approach

In this blog series, we will examine the biblical warrant for each of these ten points. We will begin by discussing historical perspectives on this topic. The knowledgeable reader will recognize that our ten points are strongly grounded in Augustine’s insights into public theology. It is our contention that any discussion of how the Church interacts with the culture in the public sphere must start by interacting with Augustine’s classic work The City of God.

We will discuss various perspectives from important historical figures (such as Martin Luther, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd) and from modern voices (such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, David VanDrunen, D.G. Hart, and James K. A. Smith). After conducting a historic survey of Christian thought on this issue, we will also conduct a survey of Scripture to examine biblical theology and biblical precedence on this matter. Finally, we will discuss how our position can be applied to various contemporary issues involving social justice and economic justice.

The Desired Tone

Our goal in this series is not first-and-foremost to critique other views on Christian social theory. While we may respectfully disagree with many of our contemporaries in both the theonomist and the modern Two Kingdoms camps, we will place more emphasis on the respect than on the disagreement. We do recognize that we cannot establish one position without discussing its disagreement with other positions. However, we recognize those with whom we disagree as our brothers in Christ.

As such, our goal is to enter the conversation with a positive argument for our position. It is not our goal to engage in a heated debate with a negative argument against the positions of others. We have respectfully chosen to leave that debate for another time and another place. While we do not mean to discourage debate from those who disagree with us, we do ask that you hear us out in full before responding in the comments section. There are several posts to come.