David Morrill

What even is this?? "I apologize for not holding them accountable, but really they were just doing what Josh taught them, and what they did is understandable because you are a meddler, and also you're just as bad as them. Maybe worse. So there."

Jesus explicitly taught that repentant prostitutes were entering the kingdom of God ahead of self-righteous religious leaders (Matthew 21:31–32). Paul reminded the Corinthian believers, "And such were some of you" (1 Corinthians 6:11). We do not defend prostitution or sexual sin. We defend the gospel's promise that sinners can repent, be forgiven, and become new creations in Christ. If you insist upon permanently identifying a repentant Christian by sins Christ has forgiven, your quarrel is not with Protestia. It is with the Christ Himself.

Joel has taken a personal dispute over speech, declared his opponent guilty of slander, and then thanked God that the civil government has silenced him through an entirely unrelated immigration proceeding. Notice the progression: Joel's personal judgment becomes a purported offense against God's servants and church (whom he clearly believes he is speaking for), and Sey's immigration detention becomes an occasion for celebrating divine vindication. Yet no court has adjudicated the alleged slander, no ecclesiastical judgment has been established, and the immigration authorities certainly weren't adjudicating Sey's criticisms of his opponents. This is the very confusion of jurisdictions that Romans 12–13 prevents. Christians are forbidden from taking personal vengeance, while civil magistrates are authorized to administer justice within their lawful jurisdiction. But Joel effectively appropriates the magistrate's action as vindication of his own personal grievance. And the free-speech irony is remarkable. Warlords of the CN digital ghetto depend on broad protections for their own controversial speech, including harsh accusations against their opponents. Yet when someone directs similarly controversial speech toward them, they declare it slander, invoke the Ninth Commandment, and treat the critic's unrelated legal troubles as an occasion for thanksgiving that his mouth has been shut (which of course, is only temporary). Such a connection is self-righteous, pagan superstition, not biblical consequence. The right to criticize others does not establish the truth of one's criticisms (nor does Sey being "shut up" establish the falsehood of his), and the right to be offended by criticism does not confer authority to adjudicate it as slander. And if all this wasn't bad enough, Joel has incorporated this entire disputed moral judgment into a performative public prayer, effectively inviting his audience to affirm before God the sanctification of Joel's superstitious connection between his hurt feelings and Samuel Sey's detention. The civil government enforces immigration law. Churches address genuine sin. Individuals criticize one another. But these jurisdictions are not interchangeable, and God's providence cannot simply be conscripted as a vindication of our personal disputes.

This ridicules the suggestion that Sey's Christian identity should have any bearing on appeals for governmental mercy. Yet at the same time, it rejects the proposition that lawful naturalization makes someone genuinely American. Taken together, those claims suggest a conception of nationality that is not reducible either to shared Christian faith or to legal citizenship. But what, then, is the necessary ingredient? Despite Sey's opponents' appeals for a "Christian nation," his Christianity is apparently insufficient not only as an appeal for special legal consideration, but to brotherly charity as well. And of course, Protestia is gUiLty!! for encouraging charity when it could later be found out that Sey was at fault (and according to Matt. 18:21-35, we must insist brothers pay the full consequences of their guilt, especially those who've personally offended us). And apparently, even upon taking the oath and being conferred actual American citizenship, Sey would still not be a "real" American, just like an easy-believing, aisle-walking prayer repeater is not a "real" Christian (of course, if God handed certificates of heavenly citizenship to each prayer repeater, I'm not sure we'd suggest they weren't real Christians). And so the question remains, what would Sey lack in terms of American identity? Genetic lineage? The correct ideological views? Sufficient honor rendered to the riverboat captain-bearded brigade of the LARPing online right? Sey would pledge allegiance both to Jesus and the flag, but could never become a real American by just saying some stuff... I mean, if only guys like Sey were more like White Christian Brother™ James Talarico, we wouldn't have an issue at all, amiright??

Pro tip: Saying "so-and-so said such-and-such" is not equivalent to saying, "such-and-such is true." You'd think this wouldn't need explanation.

🚨🤣🤣🚨 I've been exposed, finally!

"God, I thank You that I am not like other men—liars, lawbreakers, deceivers, or even this publisher who raised money for that sinner's family." The discussion surrounding Samuel Sey's detention and impending deportation has been some of the most disgusting I have ever seen around here, and that's saying something. Protestia initially reported what sources told us (and, obviously, what we hoped was true): that Sey's detention stemmed from an immigration paperwork problem rather than his error. When DHS contradicted that account, we updated our reporting. Ordinarily, no big deal. Outlets update info all the time. And whether or not Sey was at fault, and no matter his legal status, his family is clearly in serious financial need. Yet what do we see? Supposed Christians demanding apologies/retractions for our directing potential donations to Sey's family because the claim that he was here legally is being contradicted. Some people are suggesting that his family is profiting from this somehow, or that Protestia was "fundraising for a lawbreaker." Since when did Christian charity become conditional upon innocence, ideological agreement, or personal approval? What Bible are you reading? Christ commands us to love our enemies (Luke 6:27–36). Paul commands us to feed them when they're hungry (Romans 12:20). James condemns those who withhold material assistance from needy brothers (James 2:15–17). Proverbs 24:17 forbids rejoicing when an enemy falls. Yet we seem to have no end of online professing Christians (including pastors!) seemingly delighted by Sey's predicament and demanding financial assistance for his family be shut off. And here's the particularly grotesque irony: Many of these men acknowledge that their black, Ghanaian-born theological opponent is their brother in Christ, while carrying on as if Scripture has nothing to say about this. But the household of God isn't segregated by ancestry, no matter how much some seem to want it to be. And Galatians 6:10 commands us to do good to all, especially those of the household of faith. Sey's wife and children didn't violate immigration law. And even if Sey knowingly broke the law, that doesn't disqualify him from Christian charity. If the fundraiser contains inaccurate information, correct it. Donors deserve the truth. But don't pretend that wrongdoing (even deliberate, which has not yet been demonstrated) eliminates a family's needs. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23). Yet some of you are so eager to "gotcha" Sey for apparently breaking the law that you've forgotten the law of Christ, or that you can uphold immigration law without abandoning Christian charity. Protestia will always err on the side of Christian charity. We have a history of financially supporting people who don't like us (and have openly lied about us) when they truly need it. In this case, I'd argue that if your support for the Sey family's obvious financial need turns on whether the immigration problems were his fault, you should probably keep your money. God doesn't want it.

Does anyone else think this guy should protect my good name rather than accuse me of "extremely sinful slander" for reporting what DHS has said?

It looks like @SlowToWrite overstayed his legal residence in the US by years. And apparently, he may not be legal in Canada either, as DHS has described him as "from Ghana." He is now voluntarily deporting. Does he deserve this? Yes. The difficulty for his family is on him - not our immigration laws, nor on his theological or political views. The GiveSendGo fundraiser's claim that he is a legal resident is false. Yet, he only "got what he deserved" in terms of his facing the legal consequences for his failure to follow immigration laws, not because his views or his color warrant removal.

Jokic *is* the Nuggets, and has earned some leeway here. He was clearly defending his @nuggets teammates.

Social media back-and-forths on Christian Nationalism-related matters suffer from a seemingly insurmountable problem: participants routinely conflate words and opinions with actions and violence. But instead of issuing trigger warnings and demanding safe spaces, we cry "slander!", issue a Ninth Commandment proclamation against our foes, and self-righteously demand that the rest of the Internet enforce our verdict. It's a peculiar form of Christianized speech policing, where criticism, disagreement, rebuke, or even an uncharitable interpretation is elevated from something we dislike into a moral offense against God Himself. And once we've declared ourselves the victims of such an offense, we assume the authority to adjudicate the matter, pronounce judgment, and demand that everyone else recognize the guilt of the accused. Of course, genuine slander exists. Bearing false witness is sinful, and Christians are obligated to speak truthfully about their neighbors (Exodus 20:16; Ephesians 4:25). But criticism is not inherently slander, disagreement is not violence, and even poorly formed, unfair, or materially false speech is not automatically evidence of malicious intent. The moral evaluation of someone's words requires considerably more care than simply announcing that we have been wronged. The tell is when public Christian figures begin treating criticism of themselves as actual material harm—a kind of violence or violation of their rights—rather than speech to be answered, corrected, or, when appropriate, rebuked. This pious pre-adjudication does something rather convenient: it rhetorically transforms an opponent from someone who might be mistaken, unfair, or even genuinely sinful into a morally disqualified enemy. And once someone has been placed into that category, apparently all bets are off. The critic is no longer simply wrong. He's a liar, a slanderer, a wicked man, an enemy of righteousness. His arguments need not be represented accurately, his motives may be freely presumed, and his character can be reduced to whatever contemptuous category best serves the occasion. Caricature, ridicule, insinuation, and crass generalizations become permissible because, after all, look what kind of person we're dealing with! The initial accusation of slander thus becomes the mechanism by which we grant ourselves permission to slander. The designation of an enemy becomes the mechanism by which we excuse treating him in ways Christ expressly forbids. And this is where the whole exercise becomes especially absurd. The Ninth Commandment does not cease to apply to us because we believe someone else has violated it. Scripture condemns not merely lying, but malicious speech, false accusations, and the misuse of the tongue (James 3:5–10; Colossians 3:8–9). We are forbidden to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17), commanded to avoid reviling in return when reviled (1 Peter 3:9), and explicitly instructed by Christ to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44). Notice that none of these commands contains an exception for opponents who have actually wronged us. Indeed, loving one's enemies would be a rather meaningless command if it applied only to people who had never treated us unjustly. Even a genuinely slanderous opponent is not thereby rendered "fair game" for our own sinful behavior. We may correct him, rebuke him, expose his falsehoods, and demand accountability where appropriate. But we may not abandon truthfulness, fairness, or Christian charity in doing so. The fact that someone has sinned against us does not confer upon us the right to sin against him. Ironically, the very people demanding painstakingly charitable interpretations of their own words will sometimes offer their opponents nothing of the sort. They insist upon precision when describing their own positions while indulging sweeping, dehumanizing categories when describing everyone else's. They demand that their motives be judged favorably while confidently assigning the worst possible motives to their critics. It's a remarkable asymmetry, particularly among Christians who profess to believe that God's moral law is universal, objective, and binding upon everyone. Somehow, we've convinced ourselves that thin skin is actually toughness, that indignation is discernment, and that responding to every criticism with the imprecatory finality of God Himself demonstrates spiritual courage. We condemn the therapeutic culture's obsession with emotional injury while adopting its central conceit: that being offended or wronged grants us special moral privileges in how we treat others. But it doesn't. The Christian response to injustice is not to manufacture a class of people toward whom justice is no longer required. Nor does Scripture permit us to replace Christ's command to love our neighbors with a friend/enemy distinction in which our friends receive every benefit of the doubt and our enemies receive none. "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). That command is not suspended when the evil is directed at us. Words are not violence simply because we'd like the emotional and rhetorical advantage of calling them that. Criticism is not slander merely because it stings. And even when genuine slander occurs, the person committing it does not forfeit his claim to truthful, just, and Christian treatment. If our defense of the Ninth Commandment requires us to violate it, perhaps we weren't defending the commandment in the first place.

It's okay to be thankful for and supportive of the law while still being sad that someone you care about is suffering the consequences of breaking it — even if the person who broke it and is being justly punished is us. Not sure how many of us realize this.

Alright, one more speculation if you'll allow me. It's highly unlikely that Samuel Sey, who has written extensively about the righteousness of borders and immigration enforcement, has been knowingly violating immigration laws. My money's on this being a misunderstanding.

Yes, we're aware of Samuel Sey (@SlowToWrite) being detained. Yes, it's likely related to immigration (he is a Canadian citizen, as far as I know). A detainment record is not proof of wrongdoing. At the risk of being too speculative, my understanding was that he was traveling to TN to appear with @JeremyDBoreing, but didn't. Quite possible he was stopped, couldn't provide evidence of legal residence in the US, and was brought back to Butler County (who contracts with ICE for detainment services). Let's hope it's a misunderstanding rather than wrongdoing. We'll report when we know more.

Should the contributors and subscribers to G3 (and perhaps its now-former pastor-theologians) be told where these liquidation proceeds are going?