|
Post by Admin on Jan 11, 2024 21:50:27 GMT -5
FOOD & GOD 01/11/2024 · BY TOBY
The first thing that God pointed out to Adam in the Garden was the menu: all the trees He had created to make food for the man. From the beginning, even in a perfect world, God wanted Adam to think of his relationship to God in terms of food and hunger and satisfaction. When Adam disobeyed and rebelled against God it was eating the wrong food at the wrong time.
Later in the wilderness, Israel wrestled with God, again often with food: complaining about water, manna, and quail. When Jesus came, He fed the five thousand and the four thousand, and He said that He came down from Heaven as the true manna, the bread of life, that whoever ate and drank of Him would live forever. And He gave us the Lord’s Supper so that we might eat and drink and fellowship with Him until the end of the world.
God has always presented Himself to us as our food. There is something about hunger that is meant to constantly teach us about our need for God. This is why fasting and feasting have always been integral parts of walking with God. You naturally think about food and drink multiple times a day. You tend to measure your days by meal times.
All of this is meant to teach us that we need God like that. Just as you feel the physical hunger for physical food, you are to understand that you need God’s presence in your life constantly. How can you fight sin and glorify God continually? By communing with God constantly. Throughout your day, pray things like: “Lord, since you are with me, help me honor you now and always. Lord, grant me the grace to remain in Your presence and help me bring glory to your name in this task. Lord, please be with me now so that all that I do may be an expression of love for You.”
God invites you to think of Him as your food. And therefore, as you think about food, think about God. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. So come and welcome to Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 17, 2024 12:57:39 GMT -5
LIVING IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES 01/16/2024 · BY TOBY
In God’s providence we live in tumultuous times. We are some of the most blessed human beings who have ever lived, with the technologies and conveniences and wealth we enjoy. And we live in corrupt and degenerate times. As Cotton Mather once said, “Religion begot prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother.” God warned Israel of this very thing in Deuteronomy, saying that their great temptation with all of God’s blessings would be to forget God and think they had gotten all their prosperity themselves. And the greater the blessing, the greater the disaster when a people forget God.
And we live in those calamitous times. The madness that we are seeing around us is no accident at all. When you sow the wind, you always reap the whirlwind. We’ve already seen the opening convulsions in 2020, politically, economically, culturally, and 2024 is shaping up to be another rodeo. How should Christians think about this? How should we prepare?
First, remember that human beings are the most precious created resource. Think of preparing for tumultuous times like a Christian. Which means get your heart clean before God first. You will be in no position to be helpful if the wheels come off if your heart is clogged up with all kinds of lusts and bitterness. If you want to see clearly to know what to do, get rid of the logs in your eyes. Then make sure you’re in fellowship with as many people around you as possible, beginning with the people you live with. Confess your sins, get rid of your grudges, forgive freely.
Finally, one of the great lessons of the Old Testament is that God is just, and He does not destroy the righteous with the wicked. He would not have destroyed Sodom if there had been 10 righteous, and he still delivered Lot and later He delivered Rahab and her family from Jericho. God’s judgments fall with laser precision. When there was nothing but darkness in Egypt, there was light in Goshen; when the angel of death passed over, there was blood over the doorposts of those who believed. So do not fear the judgments of God. He is Your Father. He counts every hair on your head. Remain faithful at your stations, serving your people, trusting your God.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 5, 2024 19:32:54 GMT -5
IN WHICH JOEL MCDURMON AND A BUNCH OF REFORMED DUDES DEFEND SLAVERY 02/05/2024 · BY TOBY
Introduction Well this certainly feels a bit awkward. Usually, it’s the Moscow crew that’s being accused of defending slavery, but now the shoe seems to be on the other NAPARC foot. Here I am arguing against slavery just like we always have here in Moscow.
On Friday, I tweeted “A “Reformed” ministry that is not regularly preaching against the bloated idolatry of the state, the self-deification of government programs, welfare, and redistribution of wealth — the pagan shrine of our day — that ministry is not Reformed in any meaningful sense of the word.”
Among many distraught replies, was a thread from Joel McDurmon, quoting approvingly one “Ann” who lamented my tweet thusly: “This absolutely frustrates me because SOOOO MANY in his “camp” receive “welfare” that is obtained through wealth redistribution. I have posted before about being shocked to learn so many in the MAGA crowd, the CREC crowd, so so so many families with stay at home moms and 4+ children are getting government funded healthcare for their children, WIC, food stamps etc…”
McDurmon polished his PhD for a dozen tweets or so in order to clear his throat and point out that in his vast reading of Reformed pastors, very few of their sermons have been taken up with government welfare policies. To which I would simply say that is utterly and entirely beside the point. I doubt one can find many references to iPhones either. The center of “Reformed” theology is the Lordship of Jesus Christ mediated through the supremacy of His Word. Many glorious truths were recovered during the Protestant Reformation, but the central, driving engine for the whole project was the unleashing of the Word of God into every area of life setting men free. In those days, the Great Slaver of Babylon was the Roman Catholic Church, buying and selling the souls men at her pagan shrine of the Mass.
Jesus & the Idols The central proclamation of the gospel is Jesus is Lord, which is a slightly shortened version of Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings. And of course someone out there in my replies (maybe with a PhD) will point out that the Bible does not say anything about Supreme Court justices, Presidents, Prime Ministers, or Attorney Generals. To which, I will smile serenely and carry on like a happy mallard on a placid pond. To say that Jesus is Lord is to say that “all authority in heaven and on earth” has been given to Him. Someone else in my replies will no doubt pop up to say that they’re going to need a citation for that tenuous claim and someone else will arrive breathlessly to say that the Bible says that “nowhere.” Many such puffs of brilliance have appeared in my replies over the last few days. But my primary concern is with those within the Reformed Tradition who want to preach a “gospel” that does not collide with any idols, at least not any idols that exist in our day, not any idols that the idols themselves haven’t given us permission to object to, and certainly not any idols that have any physical manifestation in our world. Perhaps the bravest of my detractors will occasionally stand for a tentative objection to some shadowy idol in somebody’s heart (somewhere), but always phrased with qualifiers like “maybe” or “perhaps” or “consider.”
But Jesus Christ died and rose again in order to set the captives free. The center of that freedom is the forgiveness of sins, the gift of a new heart of flesh (regeneration), and the gift of the Holy Spirit. And for the three Reformed OPC Bros who are about to accuse me of the “Federal Vision” boogey-man: these gifts are irrevocable, are entirely grace (having nothing to do with our works whatsoever) and are not tied to the moment of baptism. But the point is that when this new life comes into existence it immediately collides with the works of the flesh, the machinations of the world, and all the tyranny of the devil. And what are the works of the flesh, the machinations of the world, and the tyranny of the devil? I’m glad you asked. It looks like sin – every want of conformity to the law of God: lack of conformity in sexual ethics, economic ethics, political ethics, theological ethics, and everything in between. “Jesus Christ is Lord” means war with every humanistic impulse: from the toddler’s pitched fit in the Walmart toy aisle to the gyrating drag queen in Dodger Stadium to the concupiscent politician crushing the faces of the poor through confiscatory taxation and so-called welfare programs to the angry ruling elder gnashing his teeth on the social media formerly known as Twitter.
Jesus said that He came in order to bind the Strong Man and plunder his house. It is not “off the point” when the gospel collides with idols. It is not “off point” when the resurrection of Jesus Christ collides with false gospels. The central most blasphemous idol in our land is the idol of the state, the false gospel that the government will save you, the government will provide for you. If “Reformed” means anything, it means the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the necessity of submission to His Word in every area of life. Unfortunately, many in the Reformed Tradition treat the doctrines of grace and the Lordship of Christ as museum pieces to be polished and kept behind glass. But if Reformed Theology is just the faithful systematic summary of the truth of God’s Word, then Reformed Theology is a sword, a weapon, a cannon for firing at all unbelief, every form of humanistic tyranny. The Reformed museum curators have been polishing the Canons of Dort for the last century or two, but it is high time we started firing those babies. But of course we have now come into a different captivity: the church and God’s people are held captive by a new Babylon, our Leviathan Welfare State, our modern anti-Christ.
It’s certainly true that the 16th century Reformers teamed up with their magistrates to throw off the shackles of the Papist Ecclesiocracy. Where the Pope had become anti-Christ assuming totalitarian authority and power over the lives of Christians, the Reformers defied both the theological as well as the social and political claims of that beast. And they often did so by urging civil magistrates to assert their God-given authority. At various points, the earliest Reformers over-corrected, which is completely understandable when you’re in a pitched battle. Yes, I’m fully aware that you can supply me with quotations from Luther and probably Calvin that invite the magistrates to do things the Bible does not actually invite them to do. This is partly because the Protestant churches and families and magistrates needed to team up against the Papal beast (all three were being crushed), and this is partly because Reformation is messy and it often takes time to untangle jurisdictions. I certainly wish they had built some stronger firewalls at various points. But our Puritan forefathers developed the separation of powers and jurisdictions even further in Great Britain, and by the time of the founding of America, the jurisdictions of family, church, and state were far more clarified.
A Few Representative Objections Objection #1: The Bible has no conception of the modern welfare state. Ha. It also has no conception of race-based chattel slavery. So what are we going to do? I would insist that if we can find the biblical grounds for abolishing the latter (which we can), we most certainly have the biblical grounds for abolishing the former.
Objection #2: This is hatred of the poor. No, it is not hatred to preach freedom to the slaves. It is not hatred to see the manifest malfeasance and incompetence of the DMV caring for our elderly, orphans, and widows. If the C0v1d clownery taught us anything it’s that government bureaucracy can only be trusted to lock our grandparents in their rooms until they’re dead. Closely related, I certainly do want to lay a large portion of responsibility for this state of affairs at the feet of families and churches. The church has not preached the whole counsel of God on these topics, and families have abdicated their responsibility to provide for themselves. To Ann’s point above, anybody advocating for large families and expecting them to be supported by the welfare state is just a socialist shill.
Objection #3: There is nothing about welfare in the Bible. Again, I say ha. The Bible teaches that a man who does not provide for his own family is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5). And that is in the context of the church considering the possibility of caring for widows. The first line of defense is the family, and the church is the backup (see also Acts 6). Likewise, Jesus cites the Old Testament death penalty when confronting the Jews for how they had arranged their building fund campaigns to displace the ordinary care of children for their aging parents (Mk. 7). The particular culprit is the “traditions of men” that subvert the Word of God. By that same principle, our modern traditions of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and food stamps have done the same thing. And Jesus calls this a murderous path of disobedience. Again, see Covid nursing homes for Exhibit A.
Objection #4: But if you abolish welfare slavery, the slaves will be homeless and starve. First off, I’m not sure you want to defend slavery like that, but second, I’m not advocating a revolutionary abolition of welfare slavery overnight. I’m advocating that government slaves work for their freedom by taking responsibility for their own families, by working hard, and gradually gaining as much freedom as they can. Many Christians are banding together to help pay one another’s medical bills through healthcare sharing programs and some doctors and surgery centers are beginning to opt out of the insurance pyramid scams in order to provide direct primary care at an enormous cost savings, all part of the great welfare prison break. And in some situations, the Egyptian insurance plan will be your only recourse, but that doesn’t mean you should want to stay in Egypt (or go back). Families caring for their own parents and relatives, with occasional church assistance as needed, is obedience to God and the foundation of true Christian love and liberty.
Conclusion: The Regulative Principle of Power One of the great restorations of the 16th century Protestant Reformation was the Regulative Principle of Worship, the crucial biblical principle that we are only to worship God in those ways prescribed by His Word. While there are certain narrow readings of that principle that I differ with, the principle is entirely correct. Worship should be according to God’s Word.
And we are in dire need of a new magisterial reformation in which the same principle is embraced with regard to all earthly power and authority. If Jesus Christ is Lord of all lords, if all authority and power belongs to Him, then all earthly authority is limited by the Lord Jesus Christ. No earthly power has unlimited authority. That impulse to unlimited earthly authority certainly is anti-Christ, denying that Christ has come and therefore that Christ is Lord. Only Jesus Christ has all authority. This means that all earthly authority is delegated by Jesus Christ – all power is from God. Therefore, every human authority must understand exactly what authority has been delegated to him. To say that you have authority to do “whatever you think is best” as a pastor, a husband or father, or magistrate is to already be on the slippery slope of imperial monstrosity, the certain path of blasphemous self-deification and slavery, even if you do it in the name of conservative or Christian values.
In one of my replies, I pointed out that in the Bible, political power is often pictured as a monster full of fangs and horns. Pharaoh is pictured as a sea dragon that God holds by the tail and wields like a rod (pictured by Moses’ staff). And the kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome are likewise sketched as beasts that rise out of the sea of the nations full of horns and teeth (see the book of Daniel). And of course John sees the same imagery in Revelation. While there are some glorious images of righteous civil rule (see Psalm 72), the humane rule of civil government quickly turns to beastly madness with the flick of humanistic hubris and pride (see Nebuchadnezzar). The righteous duty of civil magistrates is to wield the sword of justice, punishing evil doers, and thereby protecting and delivering the weak and the poor from their “benevolent” slavers.
When civil power is limited by God’s Word, it wields that sword of justice in righteousness, but when that power begins to be abused, usually in the name of “compassion” and “prudence” and the “general welfare,” the beast is beginning to emerge. All human power must be chained to the Word of God. This is the regulative principle of power. The Bible teaches that our submission to legitimate authority is only “in Christ,” and that means in obedience to Christ. But where authorities defy the Word of God, Christians must obey God rather than man because Jesus is risen from the dead (Acts 5:29). Every inch we get away from God’s Word, the more enslaved and less free we become; but the opposite is also true: every inch we can further embrace and apply God’s Word, the more free and less enslaved we become.
Photo by Håkon Helberg on Unsplash
SHARE THIS: Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) RELATED Reformed Singles Some friends are working on a new project called Reformed Singles, an online resource for singles in the Reformed community.
July 9, 2010 In "Family"
Trinity Reformed Church Statement on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity The following will be up on the Trinity Reformed Church web site when our new site is up and running, but since there were a few folks interested in seeing it sooner, I post it here for your convenience. One holy, catholic and apostolic ChurchTrinity Reformed Church recognizes itself as…
August 16, 2008 In "Why I Won't Convert"
What Reformed Ritual Does to Us Reformed Protestants generally adopt only one physical posture in worship -- sitting to listen to a sermon -- and therefore we are trained in only one spiritual posture. We are trained to accept as a matter of course that it is possible to think our way through life, all of…
March 1, 2012 In "Against Christianity"
CULTURE, HARD CORE GOSPEL, JUSTICE & MERCY, POLITICS, PUNK ROCK CONSERVATISM
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 20, 2024 18:02:01 GMT -5
CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM & CHASTENED KUYPERIANISM 02/20/2024 · BY TOBY
Introduction The challenge with these things is naming, which includes actual definitions, plus connotations and denotations. If Christian Nationalism is the QAnon Shaman from January 6th, then no thanks, deal me out. But if Christian Nationalism is simply the idea that among our tasks as Christians is to disciple our nation, teaching it to obey everything that Jesus has commanded – what all Christians everywhere believed until about 15 minutes ago, then every Bible-believing Christian is a Christian Nationalist.
But we need to recognize that our enemies are constantly trying to get us to slip and fall: either by backing into something that is unbiblical or else by backing away from obedience because of our fear of being associated with zealots that wear buffalo hats. So our task is to be obedient and faithful in both directions. We must not back into disobedience, and we must not back away from obedience, even if Simon the Zealot joins our church, and he has two gigantic Trump flags flying off the back of his F-350.
Scottish Presbyterian John Buchan who served as a member of parliament for the Scottish universities and later as the Governor General of Canada wrote in the 1920s: “I believe as firmly as ever that a sane nationalism is necessary for all true peace and prosperity, but I am equally clear that an artificial nationalism which manifests itself in barren separatism and the manufacture of artificial difference makes for neither peace nor prosperity.” This establishes both the credibility of a “sane nationalism,” which we assume would necessarily be very Christian, as well as the possibility of an artificial nationalism that is utterly barren and belligerent.
Bible-believing Christians are behind the eight-ball, and we have our work cut out for us in this land. We are not likely to be in significant positions of power nationally any time soon, although we may have opportunities locally to work for the peace and prosperity of our local cities and counties (and perhaps some states). The first and primary question when it comes to this topic is simply whether Jesus is Lord of the public square. Does He in fact have all authority in Heaven and on earth? If so, that should be publicly affirmed in the public square, and it must not be an empty affirmation. It must mean that whatever Jesus says, we will do. This is nothing less than the Great Commission. To explain away this clear commission as only applying to individuals is simply disobedience. And regardless, what happens when the individual you’re discipling becomes a senator or president?
A Chastened Kuyperianism Jesus says in the Great Commission that our task in addition to preaching and baptizing is teach every convert to obey everything He has commanded. I want to argue that this means that we must embrace what I would call a “chastened Kuyperianism.” Abraham Kuyper Dutch Reformed theologian and statesman of the 19th century famously asserted that there is not one square inch in all of creation over which the Lord Jesus does not cry, “Mine!”
The problem is that some of Kuyper’s descendants (and maybe Kuyper himself to some extent) seem to have had a far too optimistic view of human nature and not enough of a biblical-cynicism (or theonomic backbone) to keep human hubris chained to the rock of God’s Word. Remember, the house that is built on the rock is built by the man who hears the Word of God and obeys; the house built on the sand is built by the man who hears the Word of God and does not obey (Mt. 7:24-29). These houses equally apply to nations, churches, and families.
What Kuyper helpfully pushed forward is the notion of division of powers and sphere sovereignty. The founders of our nation had already established this in our civil government, and this was because they already had a strong notion of the other spheres (family and church). Since Jesus is Lord, all other human authority is derived and delegated power – all power is from the Lord Jesus. And therefore, the particular assignments Jesus gives are essential to obeying Him. Only Jesus has absolute authority. All other authority and power is limited by Him.
While we grant that there will be matters that fall on the line between jurisdictions, or where there are legitimately overlapping responsibilities, the Lordship of Jesus begins with centering our assignments in the clear instructions given by the Word of God. The explicit commands given to the three main governments are as follows: the church is tasked with the government of worship through the Word and Sacraments (Mt. 28:16-20); the civil magistrate is assigned the ministry of criminal justice through punishment of crimes (Rom. 13:1-5); and the family is assigned the ministry of health care decisions, mercy ministry, and education (Dt. 6, Eph. 5-6, 1 Tim. 5). This is a “chastened” Kuyperianism both because it insists on beginning with the explicit commands of Jesus and because it acknowledges that this cannot account for every need of human society and some matters will need to be figured out by “the light of nature and Christian prudence” as the Westminster confession says regarding worship.
Theonomic Federalism Theonomy simply means government by God’s law. Although some caricatures imagine that this must mean copying and pasting Deuteronomy into the local municipal code, everyone who favors some form of theonomy recognizes that the particular laws of the Old Testament code were applied to a particular culture and nation and must therefore be applied as principles or what the Westminster Confession calls the “general equity.”
On the one hand, many theonomic types are more like engineers than pastors, seeming to imagine that if we only get the right laws, utopia will break out, while many among the current Christian Nationalist types seem to be too much like modern politicians than pastors. And the reason why I press the contrast between these and “pastors” is because it is the God-given task of pastors to disciple the nations by teaching them the whole Word of God for all of life. Far too many theonomy types are perfectionistic idealists and don’t understand the real life needs and challenges that face communities, but far too many Christian Nationalist types haven’t spent much time studying biblical law in detail to see what it has to teach modern civics. If we take biblical law seriously, we will arrive at something that will sound a lot more libertarian than many modern conservative statists think is possible, but if we take biblical law seriously it will have plenty of covenantal poison pills for true-blue libertarians who are often just as perfectionistic and idealistic in their own ways. So the church must return to teaching, preaching, and declaring the whole counsel of God (Genesis-Revelation): All of Christ for all of life. No problem passages. No apologies. Obedience to all of the commands of Christ, with the full authority of Christ.
Conclusion: Self-Government & Self-Control Often, the missing element in all our theorizing and theologizing is the foundation of all the governments: self-government or self-control. Part of what often paralyzes Christians with fear and despair is the feeling that nothing can be done. What can ordinary people with ordinary jobs and ordinary families do? But the answer is here: Obey your King. Is He the King of America? Is He King of the World? Than trust Him. Believe Him. Begin with you. Confess your sins to God and anyone you have wronged. Is Jesus Lord or not? Do you want your leaders to change? Do you want them to repent? Then show them how. Walk in repentance.
The joy of the Lord is your strength. And the joy of the Lord flows principally from forgiven hearts and walking in the Light. But you cannot have the joy of the Lord and walk in the light with a backlog of sin and guilt (Ps. 32, 1 Jn. 1). When you are walking in sin, you are walking in the dark, and you can’t see clearly. You can’t see yourself, you can’t see the people around you, and you can’t see our world clearly. Jesus says you have a California Redwood lodged in your eye, and you’re swinging your chainsaw around at other people. First remove your own log. Confess your own sin. And this includes your bad attitudes about other peoples’ sin. If you’re fussing and fuming and angry; you can’t see clearly. Whether it’s your children or your spouse.
Then in that joyful clarity, teach others the way (Ps. 51), beginning with those closest to you, in your family and church and business. And when God blesses those endeavors with growing joy and fellowship and productivity, and you get accused of being “Christian Nationalists” then just grin and shrug. If that’s “Christian Nationalism” then let’s have some more.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 6, 2024 20:09:43 GMT -5
COVENANT FORCE MULTIPLIER 03/06/2024 · BY TOBY
The covenant is a force multiplier. The covenant multiplies blessing or cursing. The covenant is a greenhouse, and whatever you’re growing grows faster and stronger. If you’re growing healthy vegetables and fruit, the covenant multiplies the fruitfulness. If you’re growing mold and mildew, the covenant will multiply that as well.
Of course no one in the covenant is perfect. Only Christ is perfect. But the covenant is a covenant of grace, a covenant for sinners who know they are dependent on God’s grace. And God has always made provision for humble sinners. He covered Adam and Eve in the skins of animals. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Abraham was reckoned righteous because he believed the promises of God. And God brought Israel out of Egypt by His grace and gave them the sacrifices so that they could dwell in His presence. And even though David’s house was not at all perfect, God graciously promised to build him a house that would stand forever. And all of those types and shadows point to the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus.
Faithful covenant keeping is simply trusting the Word of God and humbly obeying. Jesus said, this is the good work that God requires: believing in the One God sent (Jn. 6:29). And so that is the charge and the promise. Jesus said, do this in remembrance of Me, or do this as My memorial. And that simply means, when you come to His table, come believing that Jesus is the Son of God given for your sins so that you might walk in newness of life, so that His grace might multiply your humble efforts. And therefore, do not hide any sins, do not lie about any sins. Jesus is here, and He will multiply whatever you bring: if you come in pride and arrogance, He will resist you. And let me assure you that cannot win. But if you come in humility, determining to repent and obey by His grace, He will lift you up. So come believing, come in faith, and come and welcome to Jesus Christ.
Photo by paolo candelo on Unsplash
SHARE THIS: Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 9, 2024 14:01:12 GMT -5
Old Testament Civics Basic Biblical Principles of Justice
TOBY SUMPTER APR 09, 2024
Introduction
Reformed Civics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
In all the old statues and paintings, Lady Justice is blind. Often she is blindfolded, sometimes blind in the eyes. This is because justice does not fear the face of man. “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor” (Lev. 19:15). “And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it” (Dt. 1:16-17
This was at least the pretext of the Herodians asking Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar: “Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men” (Mt. 22:16ff).
Justice — and therefore civic order — is to be the same for everyone. Lady Justice is blind and holds a set of scales in one hand and a sword in the other. This symbolizes the biblical foundations of civil order. Justice is to establish equal weights and measures and execute punishments equitably for all people regardless of class, sex, race, age, etc. In what follows we consider the basic biblical principles of civil order and justice, as handed down to Israel in the Torah and further established in the rest of the Christian Scriptures.
Lex Talionis
The most basic principle of biblical justice was introduced by the death penalty for murder in the Noahic Covenant: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whose sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:5-6). This principle first stated to defend human life would become known as the lex talionis – the law of retribution, or “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Ex. 21:24-25, Lev. 24:20). “Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition… And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Dt. 19:21).
While this may sound initially vicious or somewhat barbaric to moderns, it was actually fundamentally a limit on vengeance and blood feuds. The tendency of sinful man is to return evil for evil: if someone takes out your eye, your immediate fleshly instinct is to return the favor by taking off his head. The lex talionis required thoughtfulness, careful inquiry, and was aimed at limiting revenge and wrath. The lex talionis is a maximum penalty, and it was to be administered without pity, without partiality, with complete equity for rich or poor, male or female, slave or free, but in many ancient (and modern) cultures, penalties could be severe, disproportionate to the crime, and administered capriciously (e.g. having your hand cut off for stealing or years in prison for selling drugs). If the standard for punishment is not fixed to this law of nature and reason, the scales of justice quickly become distorted and certain crimes come to be seen as worse than others, not because of worse damage, but because certain people are more offended or angry. But this introduces the blood feud into civil society instead of suppressing it. This is what is happening in modern “hate crime” legislation.
The lex talionis principle was also always intended to be the standard for civil judges not a license for personal animosity or vendettas. This was the abuse that Jesus was addressing in the gospels: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Mt. 5:38-39). The same principle is repeated in Romans: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:19-21). But in the very next verse in Romans, Scripture also commends submission to civil authorities who are ordained by God for administering wrath upon evildoers. Putting all of this together, Jesus is prohibiting all personal animosity, but He is not prohibiting self-defense or calling the cops.
Principles of Restitution
Lady Justice holds a balance because that is what human justice seeks to approximate: balance. We see this in God’s instructions to Noah for the administration of the death penalty for murder: “whose sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” The death penalty for murder is one of the basic principles of balance and civil order. When a culture or society begins ordinarily letting murders live (even if in tax-supported cages), an imbalance in justice is being created. And that imbalance will soon cause imbalance elsewhere in the society. The blood of murder cries out from the ground and curses a land (Dt. 21).
This principle of balance is also clearly illustrated in requirements of restitution. The lex talionis requires that all theft and damage be restored and what a criminal intended to be done to his victim is to be done to him (and no more). The ordinary requirement for accidental damage or loss is simple replacement (Ex. 22:5-6, 14). This restores the balance. But if something is intentionally stolen, and what was stolen is found, the restitution is ordinarily double: returning what was stolen and what was intended to be done to the victim is done to the perpetrator (Ex. 22:4, 7). This underlines the significance of intention and is where we get the difference between murder and manslaughter and the degrees of murder (although the basic biblical distinction is between intentional harm or not).
Occasionally, the Bible requires a four or five-fold restitution (Ex. 22:1). This seems to be when the stolen items cannot be found – they have already been sold for profit, thus compounding the crime. So the double restitution is doubled to restore and punish, and perhaps the five-fold applies when the item stolen is of particular need to survive. If a workman’s work truck is stolen and sold for profit, the thief not only took a man’s possessions but also his very livelihood, the means by which he provides for himself and his family. Zacchaeus honored this principle by restoring fourfold in the gospels (Lk. 19:8). On the other hand, the law provides that if a thief repents, the item is restored plus twenty percent (Lev. 6:1-7). I take the twenty percent to be a tithe on the double restitution. The repentant thief is in effect saying that he knows that justice would require double restitution. And when the victim cannot be found, the Lord allows the restitution to be given as an offering (Num. 5:8).
These principles of restitution, if followed, would make prisons virtually non-existent. In a biblical republic, murder and rape and kidnapping would generally be punished with death penalties, high fines would be imposed for other violence or damages and those that could not pay the fines would be required to work them off in various forms of debt slavery. The fines of course would be paid to the actual victims of the crimes. The whole notion of “debt to society” is thoroughly dehumanizing, both to criminals and victims. But when restitution is required, everything short of the death penalty actually allows a criminal to take responsibility for their actions and make things approximately right with their victims.
The Jethro Principle
In Exodus 18, Jethro counseled Moses to choose good men from the people to be judges over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. Here, we see several principles of civil government beginning to develop in ancient Israel: the principle of representation of the people, localism, as well as the principles of accountability, due process, and appeal. The cases that could not be solved at the lowest and most local level could be appealed to higher levels, and the hardest cases would be appealed all the way up to Moses (Ex. 18:22).
Here we are also impressed with the necessity of good men to fill these offices: “Moreover though shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness” (Ex. 18:21). And “Ye shall not respect person in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgement is God’s” (Dt. 1:17).
Written Law
Another principle established in Old Testament law is the idea of a written constitution. This is famously symbolized in the Ten Commandments, but a written law code establishes a foundational principle of Lex Rex – the law is king, although the phrase itself was not popularized until Samuel Rutherford’s book (1644). But the basic concept goes back to the sordid history of the nation of Israel and the rallying cry, “To the law and to the testimony” (Is. 8:20, cf. Jer. 44:23). A nation may have monarchs or presidents or supreme courts and there may be organizational or administrative customs that vary from culture to culture, but justice is an intrinsic and transcendent and unchanging value. Monarchs or presidents or court justices may not “make up” justice as they go along, rather they are to judge according to God’s justice. True justice cannot change, and therefore the basic contract/covenant should be written down. The Magna Carta in 1215 is a modern example of this instinct, and the Scottish illustrated the same principle in 1320 with the Declaration of Arbroath, as did the American colonists in 1776 and again with our Constitution of 1789.
Two or Three Witnesses
The presumption of innocence is instituted by the requirement of two or three witnesses: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death” (Dt. 17:6). “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established” (Dt. 19:15). This principle establishes the notion of innocent until proven guilty because the burden of proof is on the accusers not on the accused.
The same principle is repeated in the New Testament and required in church discipline (Mt. 18:16, 1 Tim. 5:19). This is also the principle that Jesus is appealing to in the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus is not setting aside Torah or biblical justice, rather, He is appealing to it. And when all the potential witnesses of have left the scene, there is no case against the woman (Jn. 8:10-11). More on this in a moment.
This high bar, requiring at least two and sometimes three independent lines of evidence/testimony means that it is better for a society for a true criminal to occasionally go free for lack of evidence or testimony, than for someone to be falsely convicted on the basis of one testimony. It is worth pointing out that the Bible considers material evidence one form of testimony (Dt. 22:15ff, 1 Jn. 5:8). And the practice of trial by jury is based on this principle (as opposed to trial by ordeal or trial by combat). Juries are not witnesses to the crime, but they are witnesses of the judicial proceedings, and a further protection for the accused. The multiple lines of evidence/testimony must be convincing to multiple random citizens.
Upgrade to paid
False Witnesses
The Ninth commandment prohibits false testimony, but “If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong… the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Dt. 19:16-21).
So the principle of equity extends to the trial itself. The judges are required to make diligent inquiry, and Proverbs says, “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him” (Prov. 18:17). These are words to live by, especially in an age of social media.
Diligent inquiry includes cross examining the stories of witnesses and ignoring internet mobs. Anonymous witnesses/testimony are not allowed because they cannot be cross-examined. All of this is why a Christian can serve honorably as a public defender. A godly public defender should not be trying to get criminals off the hook, but he should be fighting for their right to a fair and equitable trial and penalty. A society that ramrods justice (even in cases of true crime) is a society that will soon begin cutting corners on the rights of the innocent.
When Jesus invites those without sin to cast the first stone, He is asking for honest biblical witnesses to step forward. In capital crimes, the witnesses were required to cast the first stones (Dt. 17:6-7). False witnesses were liable to the penalty they would have falsely inflicted (lex talionis), but biblical law also required the death penalty for both the man and the woman caught in adultery. So Jesus is not saying that only the sinless can give testimony, rather, He’s pointing out that a bunch of the witnesses were either false witnesses who had joined a mob or else were true eye witnesses because they had slept with the woman themselves. In either case, they would be liable to the same penalty they were seeking to exact on the woman. And one by one, they all departed, and so Jesus exposed their hypocrisy using the law, upheld the true meaning of the law, and protected a woman, who apparently had sinned.
This is the great gift of blind, biblical justice. And I still don’t know what Jesus wrote on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2024 23:14:56 GMT -5
THREE CHEERS FOR PURITY CULTURE 04/17/2024 · BY TOBY
Introduction One of our increasingly pagan culture’s new favorite punching bags is so-called “purity culture.” Apparently some folks believe that before Joshua Harris published his book “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” that evangelicals believed in impurity. And weren’t those the golden days of yore? But tthe thing to keep front and center is simply the point that Christianity is the target with these attacks. Christianity is a purity culture: Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8). It’s one of the beatitudes. And Hebrews makes much the same point: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).
Sexual Fraud Jesus taught specifically that part of what He meant by purity was sexual purity: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and notthat thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Mt. 5:27-30). Adultery begins in the heart with lust, and it would be better to take drastic measures to fight it there before it destroys your life and drags you down to Hell.
A quick search on X brought up one so-called “sexual educator,” who boasts of being the creator of the “purity dropout program,” who wrote recently, “I’m going to go ahead and say it bc so many people raised in purity culture worry about this: I personally don’t think it’s disrespectful to have private sexual fantasies about people you know. As long as they remain your private thoughts, they are no one else’s business.” Thank you very much for speaking so plainly, ma’am, but Jesus would beg to differ. Jesus says that the end of that road is Hell.
Likewise, Paul famously wrote, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). And elsewhere: “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness” (1 Thess. 4:3-7).
So this is purity and holiness: abstaining from all fornication, every form of sexual immorality. And the reason given is that sexual immorality is a form of fraud that God will judge. Sexual sin is a form of theft. This is why the Bible also admonishes husbands and wives not to deprive one another sexually, calling that another form of fraud (1 Cor. 7:5). You can steal from your brother by taking what is not rightfully yours, and you can steal from your brother by withholding what is rightfully owed.
The Center of Biblical Purity Culture Now a quick skim of some of what is called purity culture includes, apparently, things like purity rings, purity vows, and purity balls, none of which I know much about. And these seem to me to be traditions of men that may or may not do any good. If they’ve helped you, I do not object, but there’s nothing about them specifically in the Bible, so certainly not required. But to the extent that human traditions often tend to get in the way of the simplicity of God’s word, I would insist that we already have all that we need. Christ has given us His mark of our purity, His sign of our allegiance to Him, and the basis for our Christian fellowship: baptism. In some ways, I would generally discourage these extrabiblical traditions for a similar reason to why I discourage tattoos: you are already permanently marked with the name of Christ in your baptism.
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). Take note: the efficacy of baptism is not merely in having gone through the ceremony. The ceremony is objective before God and makes claims on you (whether or not you meant it at the time). But what it objectively means calls you to subjectively, internally embrace and believe, similar to the objectivity of a wedding ceremony and the exchange of rings. You must internally embrace what has objectively been declared. So in baptism, We are not saved by merely having our bodies cleansed by water, but rather, we are saved by having a clean conscience toward God which is only possible by evangelical faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus (1 Pet. 3:21). And that is what your baptism proclaims.
So Christian baptism is the center of true, biblical purity culture. It is the sign and the seal of our purity in Christ. This purity is both accomplished and final through the gifts of regeneration and justification, and it is an ongoing work of the Spirit in the process of sanctification. Because Christ died for all who believe, all who believe in Him are fully and completely cleansed of all their sins, past, present, and future. Full stop. Faith receives this absolute absolution, and there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Did you catch that? There is not a single charge that can be brought against God’s elect (Rom. 8:33). It is God who justifies, and if God justifies, there is not a single hint of impurity that can condemn (Rom. 8:34). This is because Christ Himself intercedes for His people. He stands before the Father for every single one of His people. And who can separate us from His love? This is the center of Christian purity culture. We are pure and holy because Christ is pure and holy. We are accepted because Christ is accepted. We are justified because Jesus is risen from the dead.
Yet Scripture also teaches that this justification, this definitive sanctification is the necessary beginning of truly becoming holy. God declares sinners righteous. God doesn’t declare good people righteous. Christ came for prostitutes and tax collectors. Christ came for pimps and abortion doctors and sodomites and the trans-confused. Christ came for church kids getting handsy in the backseat of the car. Christ came for elders with porn problems. But He didn’t merely come to forgive them. He came to deliver them. He came to cleanse them and to give them His Spirit so that they would walk out of the jail cells of their sins and the sins of their fathers and walk in the Light as He is in the Light. By His death, we are enabled to die to our sin, and by His resurrection, we are raised to newness of life.
Grace and Law With all obedience in the Christian life, there is always the temptation to take what is meant to be grace and turn it into a law-work. This is what Paul came righteously unglued about in Galatians. Beginning by grace, will you now continue by the law? Paul asked, and he answered his own question by saying, Hell no. But the point isn’t that Christians therefore stop caring about obedience and holiness. No, the point is that everything depends upon the engine driving the action. Christians are supposed to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, but only because God is at work in them willing and doing according to His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13). We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, for good works, which He prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).
So with all Christian holiness, from working hard to support our families to serving the poor to evangelism and sexual purity, there is a way of turning the grace of obedience into a whip that really is satanic. But the problem is not the obedience; the problem is human hearts. Having grown up in the Christian church, I’ve witnessed a number of instances of children growing up in Christian homes who cannot wait to leave the church when they turn 18. But it wasn’t “purity culture” that drove them away, it was fear and harshness and hypocrisy.
“There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness” (Prov. 30:12). Pharisees are people who cleanse the outside of the cup but on the inside its full of mold and bits of sewage. And in that state, Pharisees often travel land and sea, from homeschool conventions to courtship conferences, to make their kids twice the sons of Hell than themselves. But the problem in those cases was impurity in the heart and hypocrisy in the home. You cannot give what you do not have. And some parents have tried to hoist purity on their kids with impure hearts. The solution is not to give up on purity. The solution is to actually get clean. But you cannot get this by law. You cannot get this by merely trying harder or coming up with new rules. You cannot make up for your failures. You can only get true obedience by grace. But if these parents who have unclean hearts would simply confess their sins and be truly cleansed on the inside, they would be forgiven and then the work of teaching purity would become a complete relief rather than such a burden.
In other cases, as with Joshua Harris, the problem doesn’t seem to have been hypocrisy and harshness so much as a failure to protect from pride. There are particular warnings about ordaining a man who is too young, lest he be puffed up with pride and fall into the condemnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6), as well as not ordaining too hastily, and the warning is tied to purity: “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). And the same thing applies generally to families and churches that are actually walking in true purity. The central motif in that community needs to be gratitude. Purity is a glorious gift of God, and there is no room for boasting. What do you have that you did not receive? God puts down the proud but lifts up the humble.
Conclusion The last thing to note is that sinners sin. And this is about as profound as saying that politicians lie. But what I mean is that you can find in every Christian community real failures. You can find pastors and elders who have sinned grievously, you can find fathers and mothers who have sinned grievously, and you can find sons and daughters who have sinned grievously. That isn’t really a shock. We are Christians. We believe in original sin, and we believe in the enemies of the world, the flesh, and the devil. But those who hate Christ want to weaponize these real failures against the Church and against God’s people. They say, “See?! That’s what your purity culture gets you! Tone it down. Drop all that abstinence before marriage business. A little bit of lust is normal.”
Those who hate Christ want His people to quiet down and stop talking about purity, blaming our love and celebration of purity for the heartbreaking failures of some. But this is fundamentally because they hate purity. And they hate purity because they hate Christ. They know their own sins, their own uncleanness, their own filth, and they hate the light of Christ that exposes their works of darkness. And in their pride they refuse His grace. They refuse His purity. And ironically, many of the fiercest modern critics of purity culture launch their attacks in the name of protecting women, in the name of fighting sexual abuse. But all they are doing is encouraging more grooming.
So we will not stop. We will not stop because Christ is our purity. Christ is our holiness. We have no purity or holiness apart from Christ, but we have Christ, and we have been made whole. We love chastity, and we love the marriage bed because it points to the perfect and faithful love of Christ for His Bride the Church, whom Christ is cleansing from every spot and wrinkle. So sure, maybe a little less on the purity rings, and a little more on the gift of baptism. Maybe a little less on purity balls and a little more on the glory of Christian weddings and the potency of building faithful families.
So three cheers for purity culture. Three cheers for the purity of Christ. And three cheers for the purity of Christ’s bride. For the few instances of real horrific failure and sin (and there are some gnarly ones), there are many millions of Christians who grew up in faithful Christian families and churches – not perfect families or churches – but communities honestly trusting in Christ, confessing sins, forgiving one another, holding one another accountable, and honoring the marriage bed. I think God is at work, and I think the lines are being drawn, and the modern attacks on purity are driven by a great fear that the resistance is actually quite formidable.
Photo by mrjn Photography on Unsplash
SHARE THIS: Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) RELATED
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 23, 2024 10:05:56 GMT -5
On Sins & Crimes And the Pursuit of Negative Justice
TOBY SUMPTER APR 23, 2024
Introduction One way many well-meaning Christians have actually helped to perpetrate great injustice in our land is through a confusion of the categories of “sin” and “crime.” When something is going wrong in our society, we first need to identify whose jurisdiction it falls under. But for too long, we have often responded to every problem with, “There ought to be a law…”
Reformed Civics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
Witness the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution, prohibiting and then repealing the prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcohol in the United States. There were no doubt many factors driving the prohibitionist movement, but let us grant that at least some of it was real, widespread alcohol abuse, drunkenness, and all of the societal ills that typically accompany those sins. The problem is that while domestic violence is a crime, having the blood-alcohol content that often leads to that behavior is not a crime. A crime, biblically defined, has only occurred when some harm has been done to individuals, which God defines as harmful to society. And only then is it the rightful jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. Only then is a just for there to be a law.
Sins & Crimes The practical significance of this distinction for civics is the limited nature of the civil sphere. Civil magistrates are assigned by God the task of punishing crimes, and not punishing all sins. God is the only One who can punish all unrighteousness. Parents and churches are authorized to discipline for sin, but when a State begins trying to deal with sin, it is arrogantly beginning to try to play God. A crime has been committed where God authorizes the legitimate threat of violent coercion by the civil magistrate in order for restore balance to society. Sodomy, adultery, theft, rape, and murder are all examples of crimes where God specifically grants the power of the sword to magistrates.
In a biblically just society, not all sins are crimes, but all crimes would be sins (assuming the laws are biblically just). So drunkenness would not be a crime, but only a sin. However, if a drunk driver drove into someone else’s car, you would have multiple sins and at least one crime of damage to someone’s vehicle. But in a biblically unjust society, you may also have many so-called “crimes” that are actually no sin at all. For example, for a year or so, you might have received a misdemeanor for not wearing a mask in downtown Moscow, Idaho, but it is not necessarily a sin to go mask free. In this way, magistrates begin acting like God and it is always tyrannical. On the other hand, burning tires in your front yard or dumping sewage in a stream will certainly do measurable harm to your neighbors’ health and property and is therefore a sin and a crime.
Coveting your neighbors Lamborghini is a sin, but it should not be a crime. Likewise, hating your brother in your heart is a sin that can lead to crimes of violence or murder, but the hatred (even racial hatred/prejudice) should not be criminalized, until or unless it manifests in actual harm (or explicit, provable plans and intentions to harm) or public, judicial inequity (e.g. racist zoning laws). However, private individuals and businesses ought to be allowed to use their property and run their businesses as they see fit, even with hatred in their hearts. In the long run, protecting private property and free speech is more important than legislating against sins. “Hate crime” legislation is an attempt to criminalize sinful thoughts and intentions (playing God), but the civil magistrate does not have that jurisdiction. And besides, all sinful violence is “hateful,” how would the magistrate calculate relative hate? Only God can do that. And families and pastors are better suited for working through those sins.
God has established the jurisdiction of the magistrate as punishing evildoers with the sword of justice (Rom. 13:4). As we have already noted, this requires two or three witnesses to establish, and those witnesses must be cross-examined, making sure their testimony is true (Dt. 19:15-21). No witness can testify to sinful thoughts. Individuals are required by God to be honest before Him, and let the mirror of Scripture reveal their hearts (Js. 1:23-25, cf. Prov. 20:5). The word of God may be wielded carefully to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12). And pastors and parents are charged to wield that sword, not the civil magistrate. On the other hand, as we have seen previously, parents are not granted the authority of the sword and must appeal to the magistrate for any civil penalty. And even the priesthood only had the authority to excommunicate, ostracize, and cut off certain persons from the assembly.
Negative, Punitive Law RJ Rushdoony said, “When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all… the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent. But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people.”
The biblical mandate to punish evildoers means that justice is primarily punitive not preventative. It is primarily negative, not positive. What do we mean? “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence” (Dt. 22:8). Now the question is whether this implies that there would have been building inspectors in ancient Israel. A “positive” law view would say that civil government would have a legitimate role in running around trying to prevent bad things from happening. A “negative” law view argues that the civil magistrate’s job is to clearly post the law and then punish actual crimes and require restitution for actual harm done. But this law does not provide for any penalty for failure to put up a fence when no harm has been done. If there was a building inspector in Israel, what would the penalty be for failure to comply? What would justice dictate? What is the “eye” that needs paying for? Other spheres (family/church) can certainly play different roles, and certainly could warn, exhort, and depending on particulars, refuse fellowship for certain high-handed recklessness. But the civil magistrate’s primary assignment is to punish evil not run around trying to prevent all evil.
One of the ways you can measure our statist idolatry is by how little faith we have in God’s means and assignments. God has assigned other governments — the family and the church — to address sins, which would include many activities likely to turn into crimes. Instead of trusting God’s Word and restricting magistrates to their assigned sphere, we have said that we know better than God and filled our legal codes with unjust preventive laws, from building codes to health regulations. Many conservative types rightly object to “Minority Report” thought-crime legislation, but preventative law is on that trajectory. You must have your studs so many inches apart or else you might do something bad. This is also a condescending infantilizing of the general populous, treating citizens like immature children. And then we wonder why our streets are full of such folly.
Rushdoony again: “To credit the state with the ability to minister to the general welfare, to govern for the general and total health of the people, is to assume an omnicompetent state, and to assume and all-competent state is to assume an incompetent people. The state then becomes a nursemaid to a citizenry whose basic character is childish and immature. The theory that law must have a positive function assumes thus that the people are essentially childish.”
The one exception to this general rule might seem to be the prevention of an immediate threat to life. If someone shows up waving a gun around in public, law enforcement obviously need not wait for a gunman to shoot someone before stopping him. Is this “preventative justice?” What harm has occurred if he hasn’t actually shot anyone yet? If the evil intent and threat is clear and obvious, the magistrate may punish that evil immediately. What is that evil? Disturbing the peace, stealing the comfort, free commerce, and free movement of law abiding citizens. It is a measurable harm of theft. In the same way that free speech may be limited when it is stealing someone’s good name and reputation through libel or stealing the rights of individuals to enjoy a movie in a theater, when someone yells “fire!”
But as soon as you admit some role for mere prevention of crimes, penalties for actions where no harm has actually been done, you are legislating injustice. You are threatening penalties or exacting penalties where there is no measurable damage. Lady Justice holds a set of scales and a sword. And we’ve seen first hand where preventative justice can lead. Not too long ago, the mayor of Richmond, Virginia ordered the removal of a Stonewall Jackson statue because it posed a health threat to the city.
Conclusion The Westminster Shorter Catechism famously says, “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” But crimes are those particular sins which God has authorized magistrates to punish, and all other sins are under the jurisdiction of families and churches, and by extension, other private associations and neighbors, etc. The civil magistrate is authorized by God to use violent force to require stripes perhaps for where the harm and damage has been more minimal and harder to measure, but certainly also restitution for damage and theft, exile, and in some cases capital punishment. But biblical justice is negative and punitive, in the sense that it is only authorized to act where actual injustice has been done.
Reformed Civics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 24, 2024 15:14:47 GMT -5
STAINLESS STEEL THEOLOGY, FEDERAL VISION, & THE APOLOGIA CREW 12/04/2019 · BY TOBY
Brandon Adams has written an article that is among the more reasonable, sensible sorts in the recent, what shall we call it, discourse on whether anyone from Moscow, Idaho should be welcomed to any respectable Reformed event. CrossPolitic and myself were honored guests at the Founders Conference last January, and then again at the recent ReformCon sponsored by Apologia Church, and we will also be doing a live show at G3 in January. And the various self-appointed gatekeepers of the “true reformed flame” — defined as, shadow-banning, cancelling, and generally prohibiting admitting any public appreciation for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (but it rhymes with Shmouglas Shmilson).
Now to be clear, I really do appreciate this guy’s attempt to be fair, objective, and not a screecher. This is hard to do in these conversations, and he will no doubt take flak for going easy on us. So props there, but I still think he draws a number of wrong conclusions. He says that he has attempted to do careful reading and research and is willing to be corrected if he is wrong, so taking him at his word, here are a few scattershot thoughts in return.
First, just for the record, CrossPolitic is not the “media arm” of Doug Wilson or his ministry or Christ Church. Anyone who says that doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Please pass the word along. Doug Wilson is my good friend, a fellow elder, our esteemed pastor, and an occasional guest on our show, but apart from an occasional request for input or counsel (the way, you know, you do with pastors), Doug Wilson has no formal connection to CrossPolitic. CrossPolitic is an independent Christian business. Neither does CrossPolitic have any formal connection to Founders, nor are we producing their new documentary By What Standard. If we are, nobody told me, and I have made no decisions about its production along the way, which is a really poor way to produce a film. One member of CrossPolitic is an independent film maker, and he is contracted with Founders directly. It’s true that we are all friends, but it’s simply poor reporting to state that Founders is “cooperating” with CrossPolitic on their documentary.
In the interest of not allowing this post to sprawl like the Palouse hills of my homeland, I will leave specific questions for Andrew Sandlin and Joe Boot and Douglas Wilson to their able care. Neither will I answer the questions about whether Baptists can be FV. I will leave that to the competent baptists in the crowd. And rather than going through the whole article point by point, I want to make a general point about doing theology and evaluating theologians with a few examples and then offer one substantive point that seems to be at least one significant hangup in Brandon’s evaluation.
Titanium Theology So the first general point is that theology and theologians are not made out of titanium. This may seem obvious, but I think Brandon’s analysis suffers from assuming that theology comes in large, prefabricated slabs of metal on their way to Boeing. It is simply not true that someone who quibbles with the language of “Covenant of Works” has necessarily redefined what Justification by Faith Alone (JBFA) means. Now, is that *possible*? Sure, it’s possible, but a lot of careful work needs to be done before arriving at that conclusion, especially when a particular man is insisting that he has not denied JBFA, much less redefined it. While it has been a long time since I’ve read Shepherd, based on the quotes, he listed, I would want to make various and sundry clarifications/qualifications to the Shepherd quotes, and I don’t recall if Shepherd made those clarifications/qualifications in other places. But my point here is simply that I don’t think it’s helpful to think in terms of a stainless steel “system.” I certainly agree that faithful systematic theology is working towards a thoroughly consistent, biblical system of thought, but even a cursory read of church history ought to give us a bit of patience and humility in that project. Count me among those who are very concerned to preserve the doctrine of JBFA. And I’m not talking about some kind of Neonomian redefinition of those terms. I mean the straight whiskey kind of JBFA that Luther would have been pouring during his Table Talks.
And while we’re at it, I’m not sure how he arrives at the conclusion that I am a “proponent” of Federal Vision but I’ve only recently criticized some FV men. What I wrote recently was, “please consider this a retraction of my public and published work that has participated in the Biblical Horizons and Federal Vision muddle… I repent…” I’m honestly not sure how to say it more clearly than that. And for the record, I don’t hold to any of Clark’s five points of FV, although I do believe that John 15 and Romans 11 and Hebrews 6 and 10 are talking about something “real” but no one can ever lose a true, saving union with Christ because Christ is the one who holds us, and He will not lose any of His own. That “real” thing is membership in the New Covenant (someone can be really baptized or really take the Lord’s Supper but not really love Jesus), but I don’t believe anyone can fall from the Covenant of Grace. More on that in a minute.
But back to my objection to titanium theology: I think some of the questions raised in Brandon’s article are fair questions (for Shepherd in particular), but it’s entirely unfair to conclude that since there are some similarities between Doug Wilson’s articulations and Shepherd’s articulations this necessarily means that Wilson is “thoroughly confused” about the gospel or a wolf. This is especially uncharitable given the fact that Wilson has repeatedly, over decades, explained the true, biblical doctrine of JBFA in countless blog posts, interviews, and sermons. This is what I mean about trying to do theology with stainless steel beams. Insisting that Wilson’s parallel concerns/language with Shepherd require him to be confused or duplicitous is just poor analysis. Brandon says he has attempted to do careful research and welcomes correction, and so this is me insisting that Brandon has significantly misunderstood and misrepresented Wilson on this point. I can say with confidence that Doug Wilson and I would both go to the stake happily to affirm that God accepts us by faith in Jesus plus nothing. We supply the corpse. Jesus is our everything. Everything is a gift, including the faith, so that no one can boast. Maybe there’s a reason why Brandon can’t figure out how the imputation of Christ’s active obedience fits into DW’s “theology.” The answer I would submit is that theology is not made out of blocks of concrete.
Different Covenants An important distinction that I would make (and DW would agree with) that might help Brandon is that Adam and Christ were utterly unique as covenant heads/representatives. And as covenant heads, they represented *two different* covenants. Did you catch that? I’m going to write it again just for fun: Adam and Christ were the covenant heads of two. different. covenants. Spread the word. And at bare minimum this means that none of us are in the same position as Adam or Christ. We are all members of Adam (by birth) or members of Christ (by faith). It seems to me that Brandon collapses our faith/obedience onto the same plane as Adam/Christ, but that isn’t true. I’m not keeping covenant on the same terms as Adam or Christ. As the Westminster Confession labors to put it, regenerate believers do not keep the law as a covenant of works to either condemn or justify us. Period. Full stop. God required perfect obedience for Adam and Christ. He damns me for my guilt in Adam, but He accepts me by faith alone for the sake of Christ alone.
To be restored to do what Adam was originally called to do in the Creation Mandate does not insinuate that we are somehow trying to fulfill the requirements of the Adamic Covenant or trying to keep the Covenant of Grace to get to heaven. Adam’s covenant was broken and resulted in damnation for all, and Christ perfectly kept the Covenant of Grace and won salvation for all who believe. When I talk about us getting back to doing what Adam was called to do, all I mean is that we are now freed from the curse of sin to be what God created us for, taking dominion, obeying His law by the working of His Spirit, doing the good works we were created in Christ Jesus to do (the ones prepared beforehand for us to walk in, Eph. 2:10). And these uses of the law are not contrary to the gospel but do “sweetly comply with it” (WCF 19.7).
There are New Covenant blessings and curses (e.g. Eph. 6:2-3, 1 Cor. 10:1-12), just as there were Old Covenant blessings and curses under the various dispensations (Noah, Moses, David, Ezra), but the New Covenant is the final dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. And all of these were not different covenants, differing in substance, but different dispensations of one and the same Covenant of Grace. Those who are truly regenerated are members of the Covenant of Grace and can never fall away from that covenant because the terms of that covenant were perfectly and entirely kept by Jesus alone, and therefore it is entirely by grace, a gift from first to last. But the historical administration of that eternal and unbreakable Covenant of Grace is through the ordinances and historic community of the New Covenant.
Conclusion All this to say, while there are no doubt some secondary theological differences between Moscow and the Apologia guys, Brandon’s proposed debate topic between James White and Douglas Wilson would be rather short and boring. I think Brandon’s articulation of the two different ways of obtaining salvation confuses the distinction between covenant heads and covenant members, but I still don’t think it would be the revealing thunderbolt that he seems to think.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 24, 2024 21:19:01 GMT -5
PAEDOCOMMUNION MASHED POTATOES & THE CREC 04/24/2024 · BY TOBY
Introduction Well, there’s been a little bruhaha on the interwebs concerning my denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches and our common practice of paedocommunion – welcoming young, baptized children to the Lord’s Supper.
The impetus for this I think is two fold, and they are actually related. The first reason is simply the fact that God is blessing the CREC. We are a small denomination punching far above our weight class. I think we are currently around 130 congregations, including 10-15 international churches, and we are having an outsized impact on our culture through classical Christian education, Psalm singing and biblical worship, a growing literature and media presence, and political and cultural engagement. For example, Canon Press published The Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe, and one of the founders of our denomination, Douglas Wilson, was interviewed by Tucker Carlson recently, and word is getting out that there is an association of evangelical churches that almost universally stood up against the COVID mandates and continues to stand up against the woke, DEI zeitgeist.
And in the midst of all of that undeserved blessing, we have had more folks joining us and with this growth, some of our commitments and practices have needed clarification. One of those is our widespread practice of communing young, baptized children. Traditional presbyterian and Reformed churches have baptized infants of at least one believing parent, but the majority have argued that communion should only be received by those who have demonstrated evangelical faith and repentance after being examined by the elders of a local church. This practice of “credocommunion” has widely varied, with some elders admitting very young professions of faith (3-5 years old), while others have insisted on older teenagers, with the majority probably averaging somewhere in the 9-12 year old range.
What the CREC? Something you should know about the origins of the CREC is that it was started by three independent churches who had been coming to Reformed/Calvinistic convictions, with some elders embracing infant baptism (sometimes referred to as “presbyterian”) and others remaining credobaptist (waiting until someone professes faith before baptism). The elders of these three churches determined not to divide over that difference on baptism, and therefore found themselves a poor fit for any existing denominations. The traditional presbyterians wouldn’t take them because they had baptist elders, and the Reformed baptists wouldn’t take them because they had presbyterian elders. So in an effort to pursue unity, the three independent churches united to form the CREC, with a sacramental cooperation agreement, and our constitution for many years read thusly:
“All members in good standing in a local CREC congregation must be received by any other CREC church regardless of confessional differences between the churches. All CREC churches will handle problems arising from differences in how membership is reckoned from church to church (e.g. individual vs. household) with all charity and good faith, seeking to include one another’s members.
In the transfer of members from one CREC church to another, differences arising from issues such as membership, paedo-baptism, and paedo-communion, must be handled with pastoral sensitivity. Receiving churches do not have to adopt or practice such variations, but they should do all within their power to accommodate them.”
Thus, for many years (25 in fact), the CREC has allowed for local churches to teach and practice their confessional commitments with this strong language of accommodating transfers and receiving one another’s members regardless of differences. The cash value of this has been a strong consensus to receive one another’s members with their baptismal and communicant status intact. So, you can be a Reformed Baptist in the CREC and teach the necessity of credobaptism, but if you join the CREC, you are committed to receiving a transfer of membership of a presbyterian family and accept any infant baptisms that have been previously performed. Likewise, a credocommunion church would be free to teach and ordinarily practice their confessional convictions, but in joining the CREC, they agreed to receive transfer members from other churches that may have admitted younger children to the table than they ordinarily would. On the flip side, paedobaptist, paedocommunion churches agreed to receive Baptist and credocommunion families into membership and allow them to ask for baptism and admission to the table according to their conscience.
While on the surface, it can feel like the baptists and credocommunion churches have to flex more, the fact is elders convinced of paedobaptism and paedocommunion are still flexing by welcoming families into membership with different convictions as well. And in some ways, the Reformed baptists and paedocommunionists understand one another better since we all believe that baptism and communion basically go together; we just disagree on timing.
Now, the reason for the hubbub is that some questions were raised over the exact details of this arrangement, and so at our triennial council last Fall 2023, some of the language was revised to make explicit that by “receiving members in good standing,” our expectation was that this would include the governmental actions of fellow CREC churches, specifically with regard to baptism and communion.
There really is a tight rope walk here of honoring the authority and responsibility of local churches to fence and admit to the table, but by the same token, and for the same reason, honoring the authority and responsibility of other churches in the same denomination doing the same. It is not true that the CREC is seeking to undermine the authority of local elders. We believe that the keys of the kingdom are given to the elders of the local church, and what they bind on earth is bound in heaven. It is elders who admit members into the visible church through baptism, and it is elders who admit to the table, not fathers, not mothers, not personal vibes or feelings. This is a great and terrible responsibility that Christ has entrusted to elders. But for that very reason, if what one local body of elders binds on earth, by baptizing or communing or excommunicating, is bound in heaven, what sense does it make for another body of elders to reject that, except on very serious grounds? To reverse or ignore the decision of another duly ordained body of elders seems to us to be a very serious matter. Our sense is that we must do all in our power to honor those governmental actions that Christ Himself has said that He will honor in Heaven. Otherwise, are we not dishonoring Christ by dismissing the true authority He has granted to other elders in His Church?
A Closing Note on Including the Kids Welcoming very young covenant/baptized children to the Lord’s table who are able to otherwise participate in worship has been admittedly a minority position in the history of the Protestant church. For this reason, I believe those of us convinced by Scripture that we ought to practice it ought to be extremely patient and accommodating with those who are unconvinced. This includes cheerfully submitting to elders who request that our children profess faith before communing. And if one of my people were thinking about visiting or transferring to a church that did not practice paedocommunion, that would be (and has been) my counsel. There’s nothing quite so unbecoming as being divisive about communion. And it really doesn’t help your case to say that they started it first.
We do not believe that the grace of the sacraments is a magical juice, but rather the same Spirit who feeds us through the meal, feeds us the same Christ through the Word and prayers and fellowship. This doesn’t mean communion doesn’t matter; it just means it isn’t the most important thing. There is a grave danger in what might be called sacramentalism, thinking that the grace of the sacraments is so unique that children who are not communed until five or six years old are described as being “starved” or something. Children, who are otherwise received as full participants in the church, are being fed Christ in the Word and prayers and fellowship. They are not being spiritually starved. It’s more like they’re getting steak and salad, but no mashed potatoes.
Nevertheless, there are two things that remain a great mystery to me biblically speaking: First, given the scriptural warnings about prayers and worship offered in hypocrisy or ignorance and God’s fierce warnings that He will judge and destroy those who do not pray in faith and with understanding (e.g. Is. 1, 1 Cor. 14), why are young children so often allowed (required?) to join us in the rest of the worship service, listening to sermons, praying, and singing to God? The concern among most credocommunionists is to honor 1 Cor. 11, and the requirement that those who participate in the Lord’s Supper be able to examine themselves and discern the Lord’s Body. I fully affirm this requirement, but I also think that it should be understood in the same vein as many other requirements in Scripture for coming to the Lord. As is often the case, the primary audience is adults (e.g. repent and believe, don’t get drunk at the Lord’s Supper, no going to prostitutes, etc.), but this does not exclude young children learning faith and obedience according to their maturity and capacity.
If we teach young, baptized children to pray and sing to God (who do not fully understand what they are doing and do not have a mature faith), why do we not welcome them to the table? In other words, if there is not some super-special grace in the sacrament, but the same Christ is communicated by the Holy Spirit in the Word and in the prayers, and all must participate by faith and receive those blessings by faith, why not welcome young baptized children to the same Christ in the Lord’s Supper? Won’t God hold your little ones to account for any “Amen” they didn’t fully understand? He will not hold guiltless those who take His name in vain. But of course, I believe that young children should be taught to pray and say “Amen,” believing, as I do, that Christ receives little ones according to their capacity and maturity to know Him and believe in Him.
Finally, one of the key texts for demonstrating the continuity of the covenants is 1 Cor. 10, in which Paul argues that all of Israel was baptized in the cloud and in the sea and all ate spiritual food and drink, and the Rock that was with them was Christ, but they were destroyed in the wilderness because of unbelief. The apostle says that those things were written for us in the New Covenant, that we might not sin like them but believe. Notice that at the very least, old covenant Israel practiced paedocommunion. All of Israel, young and old, ate spiritual food and drink. All of Israel, young and old, partook of Christ in the wilderness. And Paul says that what they had, we have in the New Covenant. All of Israel was baptized, just like us, and all of Israel ate a communion meal in the wilderness, just like us. But the point he presses is not: “so some of you really ought to stop taking communion,” but rather, the warning is to not continue in any hard-hearted unbelief, pride, idolatry, or sexual sin.
“Let him who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). The exhortation is not to keep anyone from baptism or communion until they make some kind of public ritual profession of faith or pass an exam. The exhortation is to repent of all sin, from the youngest to the oldest. And if you can discipline your young child, then you believe they are capable of repenting. And if they are capable of repenting then they are capable of believing. And if they are capable of believing, then they are worthy partakers of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 29, 2024 11:23:03 GMT -5
CHESTER & ESTHER 04/28/2024 · BY TOBY
“There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid” (Prov. 30:18-19).
In Hebrew, the word “wonderful” is the word “phale,” and it can also mean miraculous. In Genesis 18, when God promises to give Sarah a child in her old age and she is doubtful, He asks, “Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?” Is anything too miraculous? The same word is used to describe the plagues that God sent on Egypt: “And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go” (Ex. 3:20). “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Ex. 15:11)
And the Psalmist sings: “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Ps. 139:14). Wonder is a sense of amazement and fear, awe and curiosity – something that seems impossible, something that carries with it some secret, some magic. And often wonder is a sort of collision of unexpected realities. An eagle in the air. A serpent on a rock. A ship in the midst of the sea. A man and a maiden. Moses saw a bush on fire. Jacob wrestled with an angel. Job talked with God in a storm. Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead. Wonder makes you ask, “What is this? How is this possible? Who is this? How do you do that?”
It’s commonplace in our modern culture to insist that you must be true to yourself, and that of course means that you must know yourself. And so popular films often exhort heroes to look deep inside, to follow your heart.
But the Bible consistently tells us something very different. It’s actually in looking outside of yourself that you find out who are and what you are for. It wasn’t until Moses met God in the burning bush that He knew what his mission was. Job didn’t understand what was going on in his life until He met God in the whirlwind, and then realized that it was all too wonderful for him to fully grasp. Isaiah was commissioned after being granted a vision of God high and lifted up, where even the angels veil their faces because God is too wonderful. When the angel appeared to Manoah and his wife, Manoah asked, what his name was – and the angel of the Lord said, it was Wonderful. It was a secret, something they couldn’t fully understand.
Our problem is not that we don’t know ourselves. Our fundamental problem is that we don’t know God. And we can’t really know ourselves unless or until we know God. In His Light, we see light. John Calvin famously said that one true glance at ourselves, and we are immediately turned to God. The gifts of life and thought and beauty ought to immediately strike us as, well, gifts, glories, wonders, streams that must have some magical source. And even our faults and sins point us to God, since we realize there is something wrong with us. And to say that there is something wrong, assumes that there is something right in this universe, an ultimate standard, ultimate virtue, goodness, and harmony.
So wonder comes in the collisions of different, unexpected realities. Wonder springs from a realization of gift and grace and glory, of the impossibility of existence, lungs that breathe, hearts that beat, eyes that see, mouths that taste and talk, lips that kiss – all of creation radiating glory, beauty, and we have eyes to see it, mouths to taste it, and a Holy God giving it, filling it with His Wonder. And at the center of it all, is the God-Man Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, and the prophet said, He will be called Wonderful. He was fearfully and wonderfully knit together, fully God and fully man, filled with the Spirit, come for His wayward Bride. He is the eagle in the air, come to crush the serpent on the rock, riding the ship of the world through the seas of sin and death.
Chester, my charge to you today is to love and lead your wife in this Wonder. You must do this by being continually amazed at the wonder of Christ, His death and resurrection and His world. But one particular piece of His grace to you is Esther, and so cultivate a deep wonder in her glory and beauty and wisdom. But like all wonderful things, there is a particular glory in the juxtaposition, and her glory really shines as you lead her in obedience to Christ. Our world wants an individualistic, autonomous glory, but that really doesn’t exist. You can’t peer deep down inside and find yourself. Glory reflects. Glory shines. And God is giving Esther to be your glory, your crown. And this really is wonderful.
Esther, my charge to you is to likewise seek this wonder, but you are to do it in your respect and submission to Chester. The world is constantly trying to convince you to find your own glory all by yourself, but that is lie. There is no solo-glory for any creature. There is only reflected glory, and that is what makes us stop and stare. You already reflect the glory of your Maker, but today, you are also being assigned the task of crowning your husband. Delight in his delight in you. Let him lead you, and as you do, this will be a wonderful gift to you. And together you will be a real wonder to the watching world, like a city coming down out of Heaven, the wonder of God with His people and all things made new.
In the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 30, 2024 14:58:26 GMT -5
Justice, General Equity, and Natural Law Why Can't We Be Friends? TOBY SUMPTER APR 30 Introduction By the very nature of the concept of justice proper, there can be no variation from place to place or time to time. Murder is murder whether in Babylon, Israel, Russia, or America. Murder is murder whether in 2020 B.C. or 2020 A.D. The applications of justice can and do change since cultures and circumstances change, but the principles do not.
Sometimes people divide Old Testament law into three categories: moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. This is helpful if we understand each one correctly, but it can also tie us in knots if we are not careful. Specific laws may expire or be fulfilled, but we don’t want to find ourselves in a position where we are saying that justice has changed, or that the eternal law of God was revised. God does not change, and therefore transcendent justice never budges.
Reformed Civics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
The General Equity of Israel’s Civil Law The Westminster Confession of Faith states in Chapter XIX, “Of the Law of God,” section IV: “To them [Israel] also, as a body politick, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” The classic text often referenced to explain what this means is: “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence” (Dt. 22:8). This judicial law from the Israelite law code is a specific application of the principle: “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). The application of this principle of justice is specifically a fence around the roof of your house. That particular application has expired with the state of Israel as a nation. But the judicial principle is based on the sixth commandment. This is what is meant by the “general equity” of Israel’s law – the principles of justice that were not tied to a particular culture or historical context. A just modern application of this case law would be laws requiring railings around balconies and fences around swimming pools and liability for harm that results from failure to do so.
Ceremonial Law The ceremonial laws were shadows of Christ’s sacrifice and priestly service: “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore… there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things… But now hath he [Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministry…” (Heb. 7:28, 8:4-6). “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of those things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect” (Heb. 10:2). “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:24-25). While all of the law functioned as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, it is the ceremonial law in particular that has grown up into Christ. We are no longer under the ceremonial law because the full reality of Christ’s sacrifice and service is now in effect. But notice that the principles of the ceremonial law are still in effect. The need for cleansing and sacrifice and a priestly intermediary has not disappeared, rather, we have the fullness of that cleansing and sacrifice and mediation in the priestly ministry of Christ.
We can generally distinguish ceremonial law from civil law where there is no judicial penalty given. As we have seen previously, judicial penalties are carried out by judges and include stripes, restitution, exile, and execution. Ceremonial law simple prohibited drawing near in worship, but most “uncleanness” was cleansed by a simple washing. More persistent uncleanness could require being put outside the assembly, or outside the camp. And high-handed disregard for ceremonial cleanliness had the most serious penalty of being cut off from the people (Gen. 17:14, Lev. 7:20ff), the Old Testament equivalent of excommunication. Again, notice the ancient roots of separation between the governments of church and state. This was not invented during the Enlightenment; it is a Judeo-Christian heritage.
The Moral Law Most Christians have always understood the moral law to be the Ten Commandments. The one exception is that some Christians believe that only those moral laws that are expressly restated in the New Testament are still binding. They often argue that the fourth commandment is the only commandment not explicitly restated. The problem with this is that Jesus expressly says the opposite: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:17-20). Therefore, the fourth commandment cannot be considered retired.
There is also a philosophical problem with saying that some part of the moral law can change. Is the moral law capricious or arbitrary? Did God just make up rules randomly? Or is the moral law a direct reflection of the nature and character of God? The historic orthodox position is that the law reflects God’s eternal, unchanging character: “For I am the Lord, I change not…” (Mal. 3:6). “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). Hell is based on a fixed standard, not a moving target. At the same time, we do not mind acknowledging that there were sometimes ceremonial elements attached to moral laws. For example, the particular ceremonial application of the fourth commandment was a seventh day sabbath with particular ceremonial regulations (sacrifices, work regulations), including the sabbath years and jubilee. Those particular ceremonial elements have been fulfilled in Christ, and that is what Paul is insisting on when he says that we are not to let anyone judge us for whether we keep sabbaths or festivals or new moons (Col. 2:16). Likewise, the unique ceremonial character of the seventh day has passed away, and we need not reckon one day above the rest ceremonially (Rom. 14). As wisdom requires, Christians may rest and worship on whatever day is available to them, once every seven days. Nevertheless, the moral component of one day of rest and worship every seven days remains in force, and given the fact that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, it is most fitting to do so on the Lord’s Day. And it is good and right for Christian nations to acknowledge that, as our constitution does in giving the president Sundays off while considering whether or not to sign a congressional bill.
Natural Law The term “natural law” has sometimes been used in somewhat muddled ways, verging on a belief that non-Christians may come to salvation without Jesus or the Bible. But the Bible teaches that because of sin, while everyone knows that there is a God, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and no one seeks after God on their own initiative (Rom. 1:18, 3:11ff). At the same time, the Bible teaches that all men are made in God’s image and retain a marred but true image of God after the Fall (Gen. 1:27). the Bible also teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1). In fact, when David considers creation, he says it is talking constantly about its Creator in every language (Ps. 19:1-6). The Psalmist goes on to insist that what creation is talking about generally is God’s perfect law found in Scripture (Ps. 19:7-11).
Paul summarizes this point: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:20-21). So there is enough light in nature for a man to be culpable, but not enough light for a man to be saved. The image of God is still present, but it distorts and rejects God’s clear word in nature.
This doesn’t mean natural law is not binding or of no effect: Paul says, “Doth not nature itself teach you, that, if a man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (1 Cor. 11:14-15). And so it’s striking that many elements of God’s law still permeate even pagan cultures: differences between sexes, marriage, laws against murder, theft, etc. So God’s common grace restrains the worst impulses of fallen men, and at various points highlights truth, goodness, and beauty. Natural law is nothing other than what has been clearly explained in Scripture, but some, not having Scripture, do keep some semblance of God’s law since they are made in the image of God and live in His world (Rom. 2:14-15).
Conclusion The “general equity” of the civil law, the moral law, and natural law are essentially the same thing derived from different sources, but all reflecting the eternal, unchanging character of the Triune God. If it was “just” for some rebellious sons to receive the death penalty in ancient Israel, you cannot say that it would no longer ever be just. Did that law answer to God’s character or not? At the same time, reading the entire Bible reveals that only murder required the death penalty; for the others, the death penalty was a maximum penalty.
Because of fallen nature, the Bible is our answer key to natural law – we always want to check our answers there. But natural law is still binding and authoritative to all men. You cannot say that you do not believe in logic, biology, or gravity and last very long in this world. And Christians cannot think of natural law as optional (since we have the Bible). No, natural law gives us language, logic, and biology which the Bible everywhere assumes. We must not retreat from the objectivity of truth anywhere. This is God’s world.
Reformed Civics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 1, 2024 14:11:08 GMT -5
ANTI-WHITE HATRED, THE JEWS, AND EISENHOWER PRUNE JUICE 05/01/2024 · BY TOBY
Introduction So I posted on X yesterday: “Remember: anti-white rhetoric is actually anti-Christian. Don’t take the bait. If white people are Marxists they are allies. If you’re a black Christian, you’ve been colonized. This conflict is not about skin color. It’s about religion and culture. That’s why they also hate Jews.”
And then all the puppies came out to play. I should say many of them were very based puppies, but it has been a little yappy in my mentions over the last 24 hours. At the same time, several reasonable folks asked very reasonable questions, and I’ve been trying to answer them here and there, but it seemed to me to deserve a more thorough response.
Judeo-Christian Peaceniks First, my friend Joel Webbon commented that he was following me until the last sentence. How does hatred of Jews figure into hatred of Christ and Christianity? Jews aren’t Christians, and we’re not collapsing important differences between us, are we?
And of course the answer is “no.” I don’t have any interest in the liberal project of blending monotheistic religions together into some kind of Eisenhower prune juice. That clearly hasn’t worked; it’s just given Western Civilization a bad case of the secular runs. “Judeo-Christian” has often seemed to want to soften differences, and pretend that Jews and Christians are just another version of Baptists and Presbyterians. So, no, count me out of the Judeo-Christian peacenik movement.
But there is something peculiar about the Jewish people, and that peculiarity is well-attested in Scripture, and succinctly summarized by the apostle as: They are enemies as regards the gospel, but beloved for the sake of the patriarchs (Rom. 11:28). And we really do need to hold these things together. In so far as they have rejected Jesus the Messiah, they are more culpable and will receive a greater judgment because they have the Old Testament, which is all about Jesus Christ. And precisely because this is so, God has also determined by His good and holy counsel to keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not only in His fulfillment of those promises in the salvation of the Gentiles, but also in the salvation of the ethnic Jewish people. Like a wayward, prodigal and disinherited son blowing his inheritance on hookers and meth, there is much to be condemned and plenty of fodder for Hell. And yet, he is still a son and so much loved. Both of these things can be true and are.
Closely related is the fact that next to Christians, Jews have been and continue to be some of the most highly functioning people in the history of the world. They often excel at higher rates than other cultures, and let us hasten to add, including excelling in both evil and good. So, you can give 15 examples of foul and heinous Jews, and I can flip it around and give you 15 more examples of Nobel Peace Prize winners, cancer research doctors, scientists, and relatively faithful husbands and fathers. And I would argue that this comes with the spiritual territory of that severed covenant status: enemies of the gospel, beloved for the sake of the fathers. They cannot shake that historic covenant reality. And to the extent that many still read and hear the Torah read, they above many other cultures, are constantly being exposed to the glory of Christ. Paul says that every time the Old Testament is read, the glory of Christ is shining on them, but their minds have been blinded and there is a veil over their faces so that they cannot and will not see Jesus (2 Cor. 3). Nevertheless, there is more common grace available to those who are exposed to the Old Testament than for other cultures. I think this is a massive reality. A monotheistic culture that has some reverence for the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament, warts, perversions, blindness, and all, is a culture that has more light than others, light that will result in more heinous evil in some cases and more astonishing good in others. This will result in hatred for the evil certainly and hatred and envy for all the good.
So back to my original point: why do Leftists hate Jews? Well, what do Marixists hate? They hate private property, marriage, private education, free markets, children, and the natural hierarchies that accompany these things embedded in the created order by our Creator. Why do Leftists hate Jews? Because to the extent that Jews pattern their lives off of Old Testament norms, they are embracing the goodness of those creational norms that Marxists hate. In other words, Leftists hate God, and the way He made the world, that has been reestablished for all time in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We can call the first major iteration of this new world Western Culture or Christendom, if you like, and for the last two thousand years, despite serious differences between us and periodic animosity, Jews have often been included in the outskirts of that project, economically, politically, educationally, and culturally. Despite their rejection of Christ, the Old Testament is still full of the aroma of His ways. And Leftists hate that, and yes, a bunch of Leftists are angry Jews.
Pastoring People through Anti-Whiteness This was also related to my point about skin color. And we really do need to keep this straight in our minds. The hatred of “whiteness” is not really, fundamentally about the skin color. Yes, I am well aware that many are openly saying they hate whites, and I’m sure a great deal of animosity has come to fixate on that superficial feature – just as it has in the history of our country from whites toward blacks. I’m not denying that, but I am denying that we should simply take what people say at face value. For example, why do men sodomize one another? Ask them, and they will tell you because they are attracted to men, they love men, they are gay, etc. But the Bible says that the real reason they do that to one another is because they have rejected God and refused to give Him thanks (Rom. 1:21). There is a theological and spiritual reality driving it all.
One reasonable question came from Josh Daws who wondered if my point was helpful given the fact that people really are being fired or not hired because they won’t meet DEI quotas. Don’t we need to address this white-hatred head on, and help pastor people through it? And yes, absolutely, and that’s exactly why I wrote what I did. The Bible teaches us to think this way. I’ve already cited Romans 1: Why are people full of malice, envy, murder, covenant breakers, and without natural affections (Rom. 1:29-31)? Because they refuse to glorify God and give Him thanks, and their foolish hearts were darkened – professing themselves to be experts in colonization and white fragility, they became drooling academic fools (Rom. 1:21-22). Pastoring people through this dark and cataclysmic moment in our nation’s history means teaching this point. Why do people fornicate and hate? Because they hate God, His Christ, His people, and the cultures we build. The hatred may fixate on the cultural artifacts, but like Amnon coming to hate his half-sister, the reason for the disgust in her physical features had everything to do with his sin and guilt, not merely because he suddenly came to prefer blondes to brunettes, even if he always did after that.
Elsewhere, Paul teaches pastors to do the same: “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will” (2 Tim. 2:24-26). Why do people fight the truth? Because they have willfully suppressed truth in unrighteousness and been ensnared by the devil. Some of those very enemies opposing Paul and Timothy were unbelieving Jews. This is why we must oppose such enemies with firmness and compassion. But it’s important to underline these spiritual and theological realities because if we allow our collisions with unbelief to be reduced to physical features and materialism, we are being seduced into Nietzschean mud wrestling. This is no pietistic retreatism, this is simply full-orbed Christian masculinity. There is a time for peace and a time for war. There is a time for sharp words, and there is a time for soft words. There is a time for appeals to Caesar, and there are times to ignore the warrant out for our arrest and go into hiding. But our struggle is not fundamentally against flesh and blood.
Everything to Do With Christianity One final, question came from my friend Andrew Isker. Part of his objection I’ve already answered above, and I don’t have any problem agreeing that “white” is often being used synonymously for Christian. I would just hasten to add that as pastors, we must keep pressing our people, discipling our Christian followers to see through the racial façade. Nevertheless, Andrew brought up the current Gaza campus protests and says they have nothing to do with Christianity. I understand that many of the protestors may themselves be Jewish, and yes, many see the modern nation-state of Israel as more European colonialism that has displaced brown people. Yes, I get that, and no doubt that is what many would say. But it is a significant pastoral mistake to then conclude and agree with them (despite their claims to the contrary) that this has nothing to do with Christianity.
Despite all the humanistic hubris that has crept into modern European nation-states, and I think we would agree, it is of obscene Jabba-the-Hutt proportions, the roots of the European nations were laid by the Protestant Reformation. It was the magisterial Reformers, Calvin and Luther, Cranmer and Knox who poured their lives out not only for theological reformation and spiritual renewal but for the political ramifications of those glorious theological truths. Their writings are repeatedly directed to the kings and princes of Europe. Whatever one’s appraisal of the establishment of the modern Israeli state, the ancient Christian instincts of Christendom and the crusades were certainly part of that move. And in the same way that ancient Israel became a whore with all the gods of the nations, modern Israel and America have been busy doing the same. But the overarching order is still recognizably the bombed out remains of a Christian cathedral. Muslims hate Jews and Christians with equal vehemence because to them, we are equally problematic in our rejection of Muhammad’s wet dreams. And we can say this, while recognizing that we have many Palestinian Christian brothers and many Israeli enemies.
Conclusion: Equal Weights and Measures At the heart of my concern is actually true justice. Lady Justice is blind. Because I’m a Christian Nationalist, I’m committed to equal weights and measures. This is a thoroughly biblical principle, rooted in Old Testament law, reaffirmed emphatically by our Lord. With the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And what do I mean?
If you allow skin color to become the center of the problem, you are insisting on injustice. If someone tells you a crowd of people broke into a building, and then asks you, what should justice do? If you need to know what color the mob’s skin was, you’ve joined the mob. If you need to know what the religion was of those who own the building, you’ve joined the mob. Which incidentally, is why it was glorious for Rory Wilson to stand against the mob. Justice for all means blind justice for all. The same measure that you measure others with, will be measured back to you. As Christians, we are required to insist that the same measure be used for white supremacists, Big Eva Christians, kinists, Jews, sodomites, based brothers, BLM, and Gaza protestors (but I repeat myself). This is true for judicial proceedings, but this is also true for our personal interactions.
Our enemies want everything to be reduced to physical characteristics and materialism because that gives them a feeling of power and control. They can manipulate, at least a little, their physical circumstances. It also gives them feelings of inevitability and fatalism. But these are the weapons they try to use to fend off the truth, and the truth of the gospel in particular. They want to explain their sin in terms of inevitability and victimhood. I couldn’t help it, white people are oppressors. I couldn’t help it, black people are lazy. I couldn’t help it, Jews are sharks.
But the gospel cuts through all of this. The gospel offers in the first instance the dignity of guilt. No, you are a human being made in God’s image with the power of moral choice whatever your circumstances, and you have sinned against your Maker and your fellow image bearers. Whatever the physical and material factors (and there can be many), none of them set aside our fundamental moral culpability. And it is that spiritual reality that Christ came to deal with. Christ died for sin. But if the problem is genes and blood and skin pigmentation, there is at least a plausible deniability structure. And what we need for that kind of problem is vaccines, surgeries, lockdowns, and ultimately, some kind of gulags. So our job as Christians is to continually bat away those excuses, and press home the point. No, the reason you hate white people is because you hate God, His Christ, and every cultural artifact that reminds you of Him.
The reason we insist on this is because Jesus is Lord. This is not some kind of reversion to a post-World War II secular consensus. This is one of the great foundation stones of Christendom.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2024 12:13:23 GMT -5
THREE CHEERS FOR PURITY CULTURE 04/17/2024 · BY TOBY
Introduction One of our increasingly pagan culture’s new favorite punching bags is so-called “purity culture.” Apparently some folks believe that before Joshua Harris published his book “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” that evangelicals believed in impurity. And weren’t those the golden days of yore? But tthe thing to keep front and center is simply the point that Christianity is the target with these attacks. Christianity is a purity culture: Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8). It’s one of the beatitudes. And Hebrews makes much the same point: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).
Sexual Fraud Jesus taught specifically that part of what He meant by purity was sexual purity: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and notthat thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Mt. 5:27-30). Adultery begins in the heart with lust, and it would be better to take drastic measures to fight it there before it destroys your life and drags you down to Hell.
A quick search on X brought up one so-called “sexual educator,” who boasts of being the creator of the “purity dropout program,” who wrote recently, “I’m going to go ahead and say it bc so many people raised in purity culture worry about this: I personally don’t think it’s disrespectful to have private sexual fantasies about people you know. As long as they remain your private thoughts, they are no one else’s business.” Thank you very much for speaking so plainly, ma’am, but Jesus would beg to differ. Jesus says that the end of that road is Hell.
Likewise, Paul famously wrote, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). And elsewhere: “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness” (1 Thess. 4:3-7).
So this is purity and holiness: abstaining from all fornication, every form of sexual immorality. And the reason given is that sexual immorality is a form of fraud that God will judge. Sexual sin is a form of theft. This is why the Bible also admonishes husbands and wives not to deprive one another sexually, calling that another form of fraud (1 Cor. 7:5). You can steal from your brother by taking what is not rightfully yours, and you can steal from your brother by withholding what is rightfully owed.
The Center of Biblical Purity Culture Now a quick skim of some of what is called purity culture includes, apparently, things like purity rings, purity vows, and purity balls, none of which I know much about. And these seem to me to be traditions of men that may or may not do any good. If they’ve helped you, I do not object, but there’s nothing about them specifically in the Bible, so certainly not required. But to the extent that human traditions often tend to get in the way of the simplicity of God’s word, I would insist that we already have all that we need. Christ has given us His mark of our purity, His sign of our allegiance to Him, and the basis for our Christian fellowship: baptism. In some ways, I would generally discourage these extrabiblical traditions for a similar reason to why I discourage tattoos: you are already permanently marked with the name of Christ in your baptism.
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). Take note: the efficacy of baptism is not merely in having gone through the ceremony. The ceremony is objective before God and makes claims on you (whether or not you meant it at the time). But what it objectively means calls you to subjectively, internally embrace and believe, similar to the objectivity of a wedding ceremony and the exchange of rings. You must internally embrace what has objectively been declared. So in baptism, We are not saved by merely having our bodies cleansed by water, but rather, we are saved by having a clean conscience toward God which is only possible by evangelical faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus (1 Pet. 3:21). And that is what your baptism proclaims.
So Christian baptism is the center of true, biblical purity culture. It is the sign and the seal of our purity in Christ. This purity is both accomplished and final through the gifts of regeneration and justification, and it is an ongoing work of the Spirit in the process of sanctification. Because Christ died for all who believe, all who believe in Him are fully and completely cleansed of all their sins, past, present, and future. Full stop. Faith receives this absolute absolution, and there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Did you catch that? There is not a single charge that can be brought against God’s elect (Rom. 8:33). It is God who justifies, and if God justifies, there is not a single hint of impurity that can condemn (Rom. 8:34). This is because Christ Himself intercedes for His people. He stands before the Father for every single one of His people. And who can separate us from His love? This is the center of Christian purity culture. We are pure and holy because Christ is pure and holy. We are accepted because Christ is accepted. We are justified because Jesus is risen from the dead.
Yet Scripture also teaches that this justification, this definitive sanctification is the necessary beginning of truly becoming holy. God declares sinners righteous. God doesn’t declare good people righteous. Christ came for prostitutes and tax collectors. Christ came for pimps and abortion doctors and sodomites and the trans-confused. Christ came for church kids getting handsy in the backseat of the car. Christ came for elders with porn problems. But He didn’t merely come to forgive them. He came to deliver them. He came to cleanse them and to give them His Spirit so that they would walk out of the jail cells of their sins and the sins of their fathers and walk in the Light as He is in the Light. By His death, we are enabled to die to our sin, and by His resurrection, we are raised to newness of life.
Grace and Law With all obedience in the Christian life, there is always the temptation to take what is meant to be grace and turn it into a law-work. This is what Paul came righteously unglued about in Galatians. Beginning by grace, will you now continue by the law? Paul asked, and he answered his own question by saying, Hell no. But the point isn’t that Christians therefore stop caring about obedience and holiness. No, the point is that everything depends upon the engine driving the action. Christians are supposed to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, but only because God is at work in them willing and doing according to His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13). We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, for good works, which He prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).
So with all Christian holiness, from working hard to support our families to serving the poor to evangelism and sexual purity, there is a way of turning the grace of obedience into a whip that really is satanic. But the problem is not the obedience; the problem is human hearts. Having grown up in the Christian church, I’ve witnessed a number of instances of children growing up in Christian homes who cannot wait to leave the church when they turn 18. But it wasn’t “purity culture” that drove them away, it was fear and harshness and hypocrisy.
“There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness” (Prov. 30:12). Pharisees are people who cleanse the outside of the cup but on the inside its full of mold and bits of sewage. And in that state, Pharisees often travel land and sea, from homeschool conventions to courtship conferences, to make their kids twice the sons of Hell than themselves. But the problem in those cases was impurity in the heart and hypocrisy in the home. You cannot give what you do not have. And some parents have tried to hoist purity on their kids with impure hearts. The solution is not to give up on purity. The solution is to actually get clean. But you cannot get this by law. You cannot get this by merely trying harder or coming up with new rules. You cannot make up for your failures. You can only get true obedience by grace. But if these parents who have unclean hearts would simply confess their sins and be truly cleansed on the inside, they would be forgiven and then the work of teaching purity would become a complete relief rather than such a burden.
In other cases, as with Joshua Harris, the problem doesn’t seem to have been hypocrisy and harshness so much as a failure to protect from pride. There are particular warnings about ordaining a man who is too young, lest he be puffed up with pride and fall into the condemnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6), as well as not ordaining too hastily, and the warning is tied to purity: “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). And the same thing applies generally to families and churches that are actually walking in true purity. The central motif in that community needs to be gratitude. Purity is a glorious gift of God, and there is no room for boasting. What do you have that you did not receive? God puts down the proud but lifts up the humble.
Conclusion The last thing to note is that sinners sin. And this is about as profound as saying that politicians lie. But what I mean is that you can find in every Christian community real failures. You can find pastors and elders who have sinned grievously, you can find fathers and mothers who have sinned grievously, and you can find sons and daughters who have sinned grievously. That isn’t really a shock. We are Christians. We believe in original sin, and we believe in the enemies of the world, the flesh, and the devil. But those who hate Christ want to weaponize these real failures against the Church and against God’s people. They say, “See?! That’s what your purity culture gets you! Tone it down. Drop all that abstinence before marriage business. A little bit of lust is normal.”
Those who hate Christ want His people to quiet down and stop talking about purity, blaming our love and celebration of purity for the heartbreaking failures of some. But this is fundamentally because they hate purity. And they hate purity because they hate Christ. They know their own sins, their own uncleanness, their own filth, and they hate the light of Christ that exposes their works of darkness. And in their pride they refuse His grace. They refuse His purity. And ironically, many of the fiercest modern critics of purity culture launch their attacks in the name of protecting women, in the name of fighting sexual abuse. But all they are doing is encouraging more grooming.
So we will not stop. We will not stop because Christ is our purity. Christ is our holiness. We have no purity or holiness apart from Christ, but we have Christ, and we have been made whole. We love chastity, and we love the marriage bed because it points to the perfect and faithful love of Christ for His Bride the Church, whom Christ is cleansing from every spot and wrinkle. So sure, maybe a little less on the purity rings, and a little more on the gift of baptism. Maybe a little less on purity balls and a little more on the glory of Christian weddings and the potency of building faithful families.
So three cheers for purity culture. Three cheers for the purity of Christ. And three cheers for the purity of Christ’s bride. For the few instances of real horrific failure and sin (and there are some gnarly ones), there are many millions of Christians who grew up in faithful Christian families and churches – not perfect families or churches – but communities honestly trusting in Christ, confessing sins, forgiving one another, holding one another accountable, and honoring the marriage bed. I think God is at work, and I think the lines are being drawn, and the modern attacks on purity are driven by a great fear that the resistance is actually quite formidable.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 6, 2024 9:37:38 GMT -5
WORSHIP IS SURRENDER 05/06/2024 · BY TOBY
The central thing we do is worship, but it’s important to underline what we mean. Worship is not in the first instance praise; worship is surrender. The word often translated “worship” literally means to bow down or kneel, and it is often coupled with other words that mean the same thing: “Oh come, let us worship [bow down] and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker” (Ps. 95:6). Worship acknowledges the holiness of God and trembles before Him: “Exalt the Lord our God, and worship [bow down] at His holy mountain; for the Lord our God is holy” (Ps. 99:9).
Worship means coming into the presence of the King of the Universe at His summons and laying everything that we are before Him: “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service/worship. And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:1-2). In Christian worship, the King of the Universe summons His servants to appear before Him. We are beloved servants, but we are servants nevertheless. He has purchased us with His blood. All that we are, body and soul, belongs to Him. Our money is His, our time is His, our house is His, our children are His, our marriage is His, our work is His. This is what it means to call Him “Lord/Master.” We gather to hear His authoritative Word with reverence and godly fear, and we are sent out to obey.
This is why worship is central. We are servants of the Lord Jesus. We are under orders. He rescued us from sin and death and Hell, and He is worthy. We are here this morning to acknowledge that. We are here to bow down before Him. We are here to say that we are completely at His service. So this is the Call to Worship. We’re about to kneel down in just a moment to confess our sins: do not just go through that motion. Kneel before Your Maker. Surrender everything to Him in true humility and say, like Isaiah, “here I am, send me.”
Worship is central because Christ is the center of the universe. And either we truly bow before Him and seek to obey Him, or else we are traitors, hypocrites, or rebels, and that affects everything.
|
|