Russell and Duenes

The Taste of Black and Tan

with 2 comments

Douglas Wilson has been indispensable in helping me to think through the implications of Jesus’ lordship for all arenas of life. To that end, I am greatly enjoying his little book, Black and Tan: Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America. This quote gives you a flavor, and hopefully entices you to read Wilson more widely:

The culture wars we are currently engaged in are real and consequential, but those on the “traditional values” side of the conflict are consistently outmaneuvered because they refuse to go back to first principles. They do not see that unless Christ is acknowledged as Lord in the public square (but first in the church and home), then every manner of rebellion and disobedience must be tolerated there. Given that Christ is our only possible Savior, how is it that Christians believe that Christ can be banished from our public life, while simultaneously believing that sin and disobedience can be kept out of our public life by some other means, some other savior? How can we reject Christ in this way and not have homosexual marriage? (20-21)

Indeed. Acknowledging Jesus in the public square is what gets my juices flowing when I think about law school. I won’t change the world; only Jesus can do that. But, by His grace, I aim to acknowledge, honor, and submit to him in the public square, out in the open, in what I say and do, in all arenas and venues of life. He is worthy!



Written by Michael Duenes

May 9, 2011 at 8:50 pm

Posted in Duenes, History, Literature

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It at least entices me to have a black & tan at my earliest opportunity.

    Andy M

    May 10, 2011 at 8:15 am

  2. Precisely, D. I know we all keep harping on homosexual unions because it’s a hot topic currently, but in fact it’s not the real issue; it’s only a late symptom of the real problem.

    I wonder whether you would enjoy my friend Glenn Peoples’ blog. He is a New Zealander with a Ph.D in philosophy, and his dissertation, if I’m not mistaken, was on the topic of “Religion in the Public Square”. He argues, of course, that religion has a place in the public square. If you’re into podcasts, he has produced a very good series of them. Here’s one, entitled (naturally) Religion in the Public Square:

    [audio src="" /]

    From one of Glenn’s posts (I can’t get the a href=””>hyperlink to work, unfortunately):

    One issue that I’m writing on at the moment is the following claim: We should only advocate policies in public that rest entirely on assumptions and convictions that can be defended in such a way that we could reasonably expect that our fellow citizen should take those assumptions and convictions seriously, and if we cannot defend those assumptions and convictions, then we should not support those policies. Therefore, we should not advocate any policies that depend on religious beliefs.

    That’s it, premise and conclusion. I could comment on the premise, but that would be a different subject altogether for now. I want to ask, is there anything missing from the above argument? Well yes, there’s a second premise which is apparently so obvious that it doesn’t even need to be stated, let alone defended. here it is: “no religious assumptions and convictions are such that they could be defended in such a way that we could reasonably expect that our fellow citizen should take those assumptions and convictions seriously.”

    So there you have it, religious citizens. In order to be good citizens, a number of left leaning liberals tell us (e.g. Rawls, Gaus, Macedo, and to an extent Robert Audi) , you just have to accept that your religious beliefs are indefensible.


    May 11, 2011 at 6:04 am

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: