American Vision

Syndicate content American Vision
a Biblical Worldview Ministry
Updated: 3 hours 55 min ago

Dominion and Halloween

Fri, 10/31/2014 - 20:19

A few words on Halloween from Joel, interviewed on local radio, WLBB 1330 am.

Categories: Worldview

What Would Jesus Do? Not what this liberal says He would do

Thu, 10/30/2014 - 08:17

There is no doubt that many people, including many Christians, imagine a Jesus that never existed. And usually, the Jesus they imagine so often looks just like them. And it goes on today, all the time.

This problem only begins with the classic images—Jesus the long-haired, blondish Florentine—by which we have been traditionally bombarded. Those images, historically accurate as they may or may not be, exist because they arose amidst a particular culture at a particular time, and the people who produced them were creating a Jesus that looked like them—or at least their patrons. But that it illustrative of the problem. We do the exact same thing—on both individual and social levels.

Beyond Jesus’ mere appearance—of which we actually know very little—we do the same thing regarding His person, manners, beliefs, and teachings. It’s a great (as well as cheap and lazy) way to bolster our own beliefs and culture with divine authority, without the trouble of so much comparing them to the records of Jesus in the Bible.

A great example of this appears in a recent column on HuffPost, by a liberal religious writer Mick Mooney. He asks, “What Would Jesus Do? Do You Really Want to Know?,” assuring us by implication that he really knows and we don’t—and the truth is about to shock us!

Then follows a modern parable: a mother gives her child a WWJD bracelet and implores him to live by it. He promptly begins to behave in ways that shock her sensibilities and values:

A week later she was shocked to see that her son had become friends with prostitutes, was hanging out with ‘sinners’ — even buying people who were already drunk yet another round of beers!

Worse still, he had walked into their church the previous Sunday and tore down the book store, overturned the tables and threw the cash register through the window, he then made a whip and chased the pastor out of the building, declaring he was turning God’s house into a den of thieves.

Most shocking was what happened when his mother went to picket the local abortion clinic. To her embarrassment, her son was also there, but he was standing with the women who just had an abortion, and yelled at the protesters: “You who are without sin, throw the first stone!”

Then, in an awkward and ironic attempt at a sermonette, Mooney brings in the twist. The mother then fashions a new bracelet to get the lad to act the way a good conservative fundamentalist is really supposed to. Out with the WWJD, and in the WWAPD. That stands for “What Would a Pharisee Do?”

Usually, the liberal intellectual elite are a bit more subtle and sophisticated. I was disappointed here. But back to the story. That new bracelet straightened things right up:

Since her son has been wearing the new wristband, looking at it to help him make his decisions, he has become a dedicated tither, a public prayer warrior, an active condemner of ‘sinners,’ a passionate defender of the Old Covenant law, and has a great reputation as a godly young man amongst other religious people.

Like I said, it is a bit awkward.

And of course, there’s a bit of truth here and there to it. I can grant to a certain degree that Jesus produced wine for a party that had by implication already “drunk freely” (John 2:10). I can certainly grant that He gave the moneychangers in the temple a bad day (twice actually). (Indeed, I reported the only known non-canonical eyewitness account of that event.) I can even go so far as to say that Jesus would show compassion to certain sinners—perhaps in some situations even to abortive mothers after the fact—whom many are naturally inclined to condemn.

But would Jesus have bought and paid for drunkenness? Would he have denounced church bookstores and cash registers wholesale (no pun intended)? Do Christians really picket abortion clinics targeting mainly those walking out (or is it rather trying to stop those walking in, and those running the place)? These and other questions need to be qualified before undertaking such a liberal crusade.

The overwrought analogies are bad enough, but with the twist of the alleged “Pharisee,” the liberal becomes more transparent than he wishes. The only accounts we have of Jesus are in the Bible. These accounts are situated within the context of Old Covenant history. Jesus was the culmination and fulfillment of—not the abolition or negation of—all Old Covenant law and promises. Yet the good Jesus in Mooney’s story looks doesn’t look very much like the law and promises; He looks a whole lot like a modern liberal. Why it just so happens that this Jesus’ values line up exactly with those we would expect of a liberal writer like Mick Mooney. Hmm.

It is here that the punch line goes from clumsy to ironic. What was the sin of the Pharisees after all? It was adding to the word of God. It was nullifying the law in the name of their own pious culture: being wiser, purer, or even more compassionate, than God Himself (see Matt. 15; Mark 7:1–13). The irony is that in the name of condemning alleged Pharisees, it is Mooney himself who has become the self-righteousness one.

And the worst part of this self-righteousness is that for Mooney, the alleged Pharisee is “a passionate defender of the Old Covenant law.” Unfortunately, many people, including many conservative Christians, are conditioned to think that high esteem for God’s law equals Pharisaism. But this is as far from the biblical record as Florence is from Jerusalem.

Think about it: Jesus did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it (Matt. 5:17–18). Where do you think His teachings came from? Was His teaching about love a new thing? Here’s what Jesus taught:

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:35–40).

On these two commandments (about “love”) depend—literally “hang”—the entirety of the Old Covenant law. What’s the hook? The hook is that both of these commandments themselves come straight from the heart of “Old Covenant law.” The first is from Deuteronomy 6, and the second is from the dreaded Leviticus, chapter 19 verse 18.

Jesus did not rebuke the Pharisees for dwelling on God’s law, but for not dwelling on all of it—especially its most important parts: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Matt. 23:23).

According to John’s Gospel, Jesus did not rebuke the Pharisees for following Moses; He rebuked the Pharisees for not following Moses: “There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (John 5:45–46).

And we could go on. Despite the derisive parable of our subject liberal, Jesus Himself was a passionate defender of Old Covenant law, and He commands us to be also.

So what would Jesus do? Not what this liberal says (dreams) He would do. Jesus would “do” Old Covenant ethics. Anything else is more like what a Pharisee would do. To be sure, modern conservatives are often quite Pharisaic in their personal and political ethics. That hardly means liberals, humanists, have the solution. Theirs is usually far worse. Let’s not fashion a Jesus after ourselves, but ourselves after God’s Word.

Categories: Worldview

Common Core revolt, or legitimizing the trap? TAC needs to wise up.

Wed, 10/29/2014 - 10:15

A writer for the Tenth Amendment Center lauds Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett for defying Common Core testing standards, but the writer does not notice the real problems: the money, and the strings. This is not a story about effective decentralized power; it is a story about how unpopular efforts at centralization become legitimized.

The TAC post follows a Politico report, “Common Core revolt goes local,” arguing that the CEO’s stance “shows bottom-up change is effective.” From TAC’s post:

Politico reports that Chicago, the nation’s third-largest district, students will not “take the federally funded PARCC exam, which will debut next spring in 11 states, including Illinois.”

Her defiance was striking in a district that has long been viewed as a national leader in test-based accountability. It was also rich in symbolism because Chicago public schools were once run by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a huge cheerleader for both the Common Core and the new exams, developed with $370 million in federal funds.

The hope is that such “defiance” will go viral:

More important than the political backlash of rejecting the program in the home turf of the education secretary is the domino effect it could create:

Chicago’s stance could well inspire copycat insurrections in other districts, analysts said — and that could undermine not just the Common Core, but more than a decade of public policy that relies on standardized tests to hold schools and teachers accountable for helping kids learn.

This shows the power that individuals can have in taking on the federal and even a state agenda. Without our compliance, their programs have an extremely difficult path forward.

And here’s the author’s final pitch:

Federal programs desperately need state and local help to succeed. Without that support and compliance, they’ll run into a brick wall.  Getting active and involved locally can make all the difference in the world.

So pick an issue important to you, contact your state and local politicians and urge them to do something about it.  Contact us if you are looking for help with model legislation for your area.

While I certainly support genuine Tenth Amendment resistance and defiance, there’s a proverbial 900-pound gorilla in the room here. What has been missed? For starters: the money. The state and local authorities have already taken the money. This in and of itself has legitimized Common Core. Any gripes and moans about the system in light of this are just window dressing.

But it’s worse now. Any gripes and moans now from within the system, about particulars of the system, only serve to further legitimize the system. This is the classic next step in the centralized takeover of public education. The first step, as I have argued, was to dangle the money. That step has largely been a success. The bait has been swallowed and the hook set. The bait is no longer the issue; it is swallowed; it is out of sight. That’s why it does not appear in this part of the debate. It is assumed as a given.

The second step is merely the reeling-in process. The fish tugs and pulls, and the fisherman tugs and pulls back, slowly winning. The local school districts complain about the details of the standards. There will be some form of push back or slack from the other side. It may come in the form of threats to pull funding, or it may come in revised standards. Either way, the complaint gives the central authority an opportunity to voice itself as the authority. The complaint itself assumes that the central authority is the central authority—i.e., it legitimizes that which it is complaining against.

Before long, this fish will be in the boat. When this step has been completed, Common Core will be the new normal, and any problem locals have with the Core they will automatically appeal to the central authority for reform and change. The only difference is, real fish would rather get away. Public school fish love their captors. I’ll bet that by this time the central agency will a nice acronym by which local affectionately refer to it: like “Central Agency Reforming Education” or C.A.R.E.

TAC’s mission is supposed to be “focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power as required by the Constitution.” But the Tenth Amendment is null and void the moment a state or local government agrees and accepts the money. You take the money, you have voluntarily entered a contract with the central government, and you have voluntarily accepted the strings attached. Rearranging the strings a bit does not solve the problem, and does not decentralize power. It rather encourages and justifies it.

The TAC author here does point to that original Tenther philosophy, stating that without our support and compliance, federal and state intrusions will “run into a brick wall.” Now the writer just needs to acknowledge where in this issue that wall has already been demolished: when the states took the money. If you want to get real about decentralized government and restoring liberties, you better start here. To omit that premise in this debate is to concede the legitimacy of Common Core. Don’t do that.

You want to stay out of the trap? Don’t take the cheese. For once the trap is sprung, it’s too late to complain about the brand of cheese. Those guarding us against the traps need to be more vigilant.

Categories: Worldview

The Truth about Matthew Shephard

Tue, 10/28/2014 - 10:43

A gay author has debunked the myth of Matthew Shephard. In a new book, The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Shepard, investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez tells the rest of the story that the press and LGBT activists suppressed at the time, much of which was not investigated by police, though known, or allowed into the court case.

According to a fascinating article by Julie Bindel for the Guardian, Jimenez “has spent 13 years interviewing more than 100 people with a connection to the case.” The result is a whole different picture than the now-famous bigoted, anti-gay “hate crime” placarded by the media.

Bindel relates,

When he started he was convinced that Matthew died at the hands of homophobes, but he soon discovered that Matthew’s tragedy began long before the night he was killed.

Jimenez found that Matthew was addicted to and dealing crystal meth and had dabbled in heroin. He also took significant sexual risks and was being pimped alongside Aaron McKinney, one of his killers, with whom he’d had occasional sexual encounters. He was HIV positive at the time of his death.

“This does not make the perfect poster boy for the gay-rights movement,” says Jimenez.

In 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shephard Act, enshrining the legacy of the alleged “hate crime” victim by including sexual orientation as a category of hate crime, thus stiffening penalties, increasing federal intervention, and incentivizing police investigations for crimes allegedly committed due to motivations of “hate” against homosexuals.

Shephard, a slight, blonde, homosexual, 21-year old man, was kidnapped in 1998, beaten, and brutally murdered by two young men who had pistol-whipped him, tied him to a fence, and lit him on fire.

With then-president Bill Clinton’s agenda to include homosexuals in “hate crime” already in place the year prior, local leftist activists wasted no time politicizing the event—literally blaming the fatal attack on the failure to have such legislation in place! And this reaction was immediate. As Bindel says,

[W]hen Matthew’s friends Walt Boulden and Alex Trout heard of the attack they rushed to the hospital. They contacted the Associated Press and a number of local gay organisations that same day. Boulden, a 46-year-old college instructor who says he was the last person to talk to Matthew before he met McKinney and Henderson, linked the attack to Wyoming legislature’s failure to pass a hate-crimes bill. Boulden later said the assault was identified as a hate crime by a policeman.

“A policeman,” maybe, but apparently not one close to the facts. Jimenez cuts through the politicized agenda and focuses on the facts—facts that render the anti-gay motivation doubtful at best, and show a far more powerful and reasonable motive.

Such things include the fact that one of Shephard’s killers was also a former sexual partner.

And the fact that this killer was known by police to be a homosexual.

And the fact that Matthew Shephard was a meth addict formerly involved in buying and selling drugs with his killers.

Yet, “Matthew’s drug abuse, and the fact that he knew one of his killers prior to the attack, was never explored in court. Neither was the rumour that the killers knew that he had access to a shipment of crystal meth with a street value of $10,000 which they wanted to steal.” Also, “The police did not investigate the killers’ relationship to the gay community.”

They didn’t investigate it, but they knew. Despite the alleged anonymous policeman whom the college professor and gay legislation activist cited on “hate crime,” the officer who actually arrested the killer knew better:

After leaving Matthew tied to the fence, McKinney and Henderson headed for Matthew’s home, but on the way encountered two young Hispanic men, Emiliano Morales and Jeremy Herrera, slashing tyres for fun. The men got into a fight, resulting in McKinney cracking open Morales’s head with the same gun he had used on Matthew. Police officer Flint Waters arrived, grabbed Henderson (he and McKinney had run in different directions), and found the truck, the gun, Matthew’s shoes and credit card.

I spoke to Waters, who has since retired from the police, having seen him praise The Book of Matt on social media. “I believe to this day that McKinney and Henderson were trying to find Matthew’s house so they could steal his drugs. It was fairly well known in the Laramie community that McKinney wouldn’t be one that was striking out of a sense of homophobia. Some of the officers I worked with had caught him in a sexual act with another man, so it didn’t fit – none of that made any sense.”

We must thank journalist Bindel for reporting what does make sense. She continues:

Stephen Jimenez is an award-winning journalist and gay man. So why has he put such time and effort into attempting to prove that Matthew’s murder was not a hate crime, especially as it has seen him accused of being an ally to the rightwing Christian fundamentalists who deny the reality of homophobia?

She lets Jimenez tell the story:

“The view was that homophobic rednecks walked into a bar and saw an obviously gay man with money and targeted him and beat him to death for that reason,” says Jimenez. “But that isn’t what happened. Nothing in this book takes away from the iniquity and brutality of the crime or the culpability of his murderers, but we owe Matthew and other young men like him the truth.

“Aaron and Matthew had a friendship. They’d been involved sexually, they bought and sold drugs from each other. That complicates the original story of two strangers walking into a bar and targeting Matthew – someone they [allegedly] did not know – because he was gay.”

Although McKinney has never acknowledged that he knew Matthew, Jimenez found a dozen sources that had seen them together. . . .

I don’t buy new popular books very often, but I will be checking this one out. I not only love investigative journalism when done right, I love it when someone who cares about the truth uproots the entire propaganda machine of the leftist establishment.

While it may seem that mind control has never been easier than it is today, the more important truth is that undermining mind control has never been easier. The government establishment and its propaganda arms, such as the Associated Press, the major University systems, local lapdog newspapers, all the activists disguised as college professors and instructors, as well as most politicians, can be irrefutably overturned by a persistent and sacrificial reporter who has an internet connection and some guts. Major waves can follow.

Matthew Shephard did not deserve to be murdered, nor to be kidnapped or beaten. But the public does not deserve to be lied to and pimped by politicians and leftists whose dream is to exalt perversion and suppress truth and righteousness.

There is also something about standing among one’s own “side” for whose little white lies one is supposed to cover, and instead speaking truth and conscience. That, I know something about.

Even if I don’t agree with the lifestance of the messenger, I applaud those who take risks to fight for the truth.

Categories: Worldview

Party time! Or is it?

Mon, 10/27/2014 - 09:57

A great new article by Bruce Bartlett for The American Conservative makes the case that “Obama is a Republican.” Shocking as that may sound to many conservatives who believe Obama is the worst communist since Stalin, the facts of the case should lead us to consider a deeper problem.

While I agree with the “Republican” measures the article says Obama has either instituted or continued, the real problem is not so much that Obama is really a “moderate Republican” in disguise. The real problem is that on many issues that really matter, there is no difference between the two major parties. And while this in itself is nearly a worn-out meme—true as it may be—articles like this really ought to awaken us to our real political problems. For it is only then that we can begin to plan real strategies for lasting changes (hint: “the next election” is not really a good one).

And this has been true for a long time. Those more experienced in the political system ought to be wiser and more forthright. I remember, for example, when an acquaintance of mine was sent into alarm mode by Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016: Obama’s America. It was the most important and inspiring documentary ever. It exposed the real depravity of the true plans and beliefs of the real Obama. Everyone needs to see this or else we could lose the country! But I smelled a rat.

Sure enough, a day later Gary North published a review of that flick: “A Whitewash of Bush: The Underlying Message of D’Souza’s Documentary, 2016: Obama’s America.” North argued that the propaganda film “misses the fundamental political fact of the last dozen years: the Obama Administration is the operational successor of the Bush Administration. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo, on Wall Street, Barack Obama is George W. Bush in blackface. . . . This fact has been deliberately ignored for almost four years by both the neoconservative Right and the grin-and-bear-it Left. Neither side will admit what I regard as the fundamental fact of this documentary. It is a long whitewash of the policies of George W. Bush.”

His conclusion is right:

So, all things considered, I did not think much of the documentary. It is artistically pretty good, and it gets its neoconservative message across to the assembled choir. But on the issues that really matter, it is either wrong-headed or silent. On foreign policy, it is a defense of the neoconservatives’ version of Middle Eastern foreign policy. . . . On the real federal deficit — unfunded liabilities — it is silent. On the on-budget deficit, it ignores Bush and Congress. The deficit is a bipartisan disaster. To suggest otherwise is not just misleading, it is deceptive. It raises hope where there is none. “If only we will not re-elect Obama!” On the deficits — on-budget and off-budget — it makes not a whit of difference. There will be a Great Default.

He fails to pursue the obvious — the influence Jeremiah Wright — while he promotes his own peculiar thesis of Obama as an anti-colonialist son of his absent father. I kept thinking, “Anti-colonialist? If only it were true. If only his foreign policy were not an extension of Bush’s.”

The movie gets very close to the truth of the history of modern American foreign policy. D’Souza spends time interviewing a Hawaiian historian who identified the turning point in American foreign policy: McKinley’s decision to annex Hawaii in 1898. That was the birth of the American Empire, contemporaneous with the Spanish-American War, which the movie does not mention. Apparently, D’Souza expects the viewers to recoil in horror from the idea that it was a bad idea to annex Hawaii. The movie implies that Obama was taught this when he was in high school in Hawaii. “How could Obama believe such a thing?” I kept thinking, “If only he did.”

North argues the point leading to these conclusions convincingly. I linked the article to the enthralled fellow I mentioned. He is literate. He is not dumb. He is by many accounts a successful entrepreneur. He is a millionaire and political activist. He read it. But it literally did not compute with him. “I just can’t see how Obama and Bush are alike,” he said. He had just read how, but could not think outside the box of his party’s propaganda machine.

So when I read Bartlett’s piece this morning, I thought, “Man, we need a whole lot more of this.” Bartlett had even called it before it happened. How so? Because several former Reagan and Bush officials were supporting Obama already in 2008 as a “classic conservative.” Bartlett writes,

I wrote a piece for the New Republic soon afterward about the Obamacon phenomenon—prominent conservatives and Republicans who were openly supporting Obama. Many saw in him a classic conservative temperament: someone who avoided lofty rhetoric, an ambitious agenda, and a Utopian vision that would conflict with human nature, real-world barriers to radical reform, and the American system of government.

Among the Obamacons were Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff; Charles Fried, Reagan’s solicitor general; Ken Adelman, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for Reagan; Jeffrey Hart, longtime senior editor of National ReviewColin Powell, Reagan’s national security adviser and secretary of state for George W. Bush; and Scott McClellan, Bush’s press secretary. There were many others as well.

According to exit polls in 2008, Obama ended up with 20 percent of the conservative vote. Even in 2012, after four years of relentless conservative attacks, he still got 17 percent of the conservative vote, with 11 percent of Tea Party supporters saying they cast their ballots for Obama.

They were not wrong. In my opinion, Obama has governed as a moderate conservative—essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican before all such people disappeared from the GOP. He has been conservative to exactly the same degree that Richard Nixon basically governed as a moderate liberal, something no conservative would deny today.

Fast forward to today, and Bartlett is able to cite national security policy, terrorism policy, stimulus and deficit policy, health reform, the drug war, transparency, race, and corporatism, among other things, as major similarities.

Like North’s argument above, this list is absolutely correct. But both are fundamentally abbreviated. In 2012, a kid writing for IVN.us noted in detail “100 Ways Republicans are Just Like Democrats.” It is an impressive research effort. It will take you a while just to read the whole list. You will get discouraged along the way and want to quit. You will return only to verify by clicking through the links, and you will be even more educated and perhaps angered. I counsel you to take the time and read through this carefully, read also some of the links as you go.

Among the examples are the obvious: both support NDAA; both support endless wars and extrajudicial drone killings; both support the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics; both increase deficits and national debt, etc. But consider some of the lesser-known facts:

The Republican hypocrisy regarding the trillions of Obama “stimulus”:

33. Republicansand Democrats can agree that the economic stimulus package helped the economy. Romney has stated that he believes an economic stimulus package was necessary and many Republicans have spoke[n] of the success of the Democratic economic stimulus package. Think Progress reports that over half of the opposing GOP — 110 members from the House and Senate — returned to their home states to either claim credit for popular stimulus programs or to tout its success.

And consider how the revolving door of wolves between the federal government and the lobbyists:

32. At least 360 former Democratic and Republicancongresspeople have left office and accepted jobs as lobbyists for corporations or special interest groups who then attempt to influence the same federal government they once worked for. As many as5,400 congressional staffers have done the same in the past 10 years alone. Referred to as the  “revolving door,” members of both parties routinely move between influential private sector positions and policy-making positions in the executive or legislative branches.

This is not a partisan problem. This is an issue of wolves preying upon sheep. It is a problem which will not be solved by either of the beneficiaries—the Republican and Democrat Parties.

And consider the outright war on those who perhaps could help solve it: third parties. There is a veritable “War on Third Parties” waged by the tag team of the Republican and Democrat Parties:

19. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to believe that voting for a third party is equivalent to throwing away your vote while in reality, if everyone voted their conscience and avoided voting for the “lesser of two evils,” which46 percentof those polled said they would be doing this election, the two-party stranglehold may actually be broken.

20. TheDemocraticand Republican parties have both sued third parties to prevent them from appearing on the ballot in key states.

21. Both the Democratic and Republican partiesexcludethird parties from the presidential debates. In 1987, the Democratic and Republican parties founded the nonprofit Commission on Presidential Debates to regulate the presidential debates, which excludes third party candidates from participating in the only nationally televised presidential debates.

22. The Democratic and Republican parties have both been suedfor conspiring to exclude third parties from the quadrennial presidential debates.

It has got to be one of the greatest ironies of American politics that proponents of both parties dismiss third parties are fringe and waste, but then see it necessary to erect a vast array of regulations, laws, double standards, dirty tricks, and subsidies to keep them out of view of the mainstream public.

Now it could possibly be true that the author of this list of 100 traits of bipartisan tyranny is a libertarian youth who smokes pot, watches porn, lives in his parent’s basement, and has never accomplished anything in his life, and therefore we can summarily dismiss everything he has said, including all the evidence to which he has linked. I for one do not believe a single thing he says. I am also almost never sarcastic.

Perhaps for the same reasons I am sarcastic, Bartlett concludes on a pessimistic note:

I don’t expect any conservatives to recognize the truth of Obama’s fundamental conservatism for at least a couple of decades—perhaps only after a real progressive presidency. In any case, today they are too invested in painting him as the devil incarnate in order to frighten grassroots Republicans into voting to keep Obama from confiscating all their gunsthrowing them into FEMA re-education camps, and other nonsense that is believed by many Republicans. But just as they eventually came to appreciate Bill Clinton’s core conservatism, Republicans will someday see that Obama was no less conservative.

Again, I would not put it in those terms. Obama is not so much a conservative as both parties are absolutely sold out to socialism and interventionism. Yes, there are some obvious differences in regard to social issues such as the LGBT agenda, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. But contending about these issues while we unquestioningly perpetuate the decades of entrenched, biblically-proclaimed abominations financial, military, and others, will have no impact. Our moral authority before both God and man is nonexistent until we get consistent.

The kings of the earth take counsel together again the Lord and His Anointed (Ps. 2), and Christians are kissing the kings of the earth instead of kissing the Son.

At this point, the solution will not come through the system. The system is the problem—and the two parties are deeply invested in continuing the problem. The solution will only come through radical alternatives based upon biblical freedoms, radically decentralized, and for which we will probably have to sacrifice in terms of fights with government tyranny and bureaucracy and the state and local levels. Until we’re able to get serious about that, the pessimism may be true.

The glimmer of hope comes in the form of the homeschool movement. It is one such alternative that has already scraped and clawed, fought its legal battles and largely won. As long as it can stay viable and vibrant, and protect itself from being coopted by any single voice, personality, or organization, it can remain a potent force and a true inspiration. But it must remain decentralized and faithful.

Christians need to replicate this effort in a dozen other areas. My Restoring America was a very beginning effort along these lines. We absolutely must break outside of the mental box created by the system (the “we” here includes all millionaire political activists). For the two parties who keep entreating us, the system is like one big frat Party. For those who keep saying “yes” and showing up for it, it’s more like date rape. For those of us wed to Christ, it is spiritual adultery to keep showing up. It’s time to get faithful to Christ and tell the kings of the earth what to do.

Categories: Worldview

Kirk Cameron, Halloween, Christmas, Oh my!

Thu, 10/23/2014 - 11:27

Kirk Cameron has stirred the ghouls and goblins to manifest prematurely this “Hallowe’en” season, especially in the press. The funny part is, he has done nothing but resurrect a fairly traditional view of Halloween, and little more than hint at a deeper theological view of Christmas symbols; and for this, a mad Grinch mob composed of secularists and fundamentalists alike has assailed the man.

The secularists howl because Kirk dared suggest a traditional Christian rationale for Halloween: Christian mockery of the forces of evil that are defeated by Christ. Secularists, like the editors at Raw Story, HuffPost, and the foul-mouthed Jezebel.com, can’t stand to hear Kirk’s view because they know the real history of Halloween—the Celtic worship of death and departed spirits, Samhain. And these Jezebels won’t let that history stay buried, probably because their secularist readers need it to make it feel meaningful when they play Wicca and Ouija boards in their mom’s basement. I mean, black nail polish alone only goes so far.

But behold, a greater than Samhain has arrived. Of course, even the name “Hallowe’en” speaks of Christian influence. It is from “All Hallows Eve,” the evening before All Saints Day on the old liturgical calendar. And while the ancient part of the history is generally true, Samhain (and other similar pagan) celebrations of the dead did precede Halloween, the Halloween interpretations western history remembers are all Christian and infused with Christian meanings. And there’s good reason for that: it’s called dominion.

An excerpt from my book Manifested in the Flesh will help explain how the adoption and reinterpretation of certain pagan rituals was both pastoral and triumphal:

[S]ince these pagan appendages to Christian practice did not come along until the fourth century, they certainly speak of a certain idea of evangelism, and not of any of the earliest formative ideas of the Church.

This hits on the question of why Christianity later adopted certain pagan practices. The simple answer is that the Church remained immovable on essential doctrines, but quite flexible on the outward forms and expressions of worship. The leaders had no problem coopting pagan symbols and gestures where they could be reinterpreted without threatening the purity of the faith. Yale historian Roland Bainton explains that converts from pagan religions would tend to see parallels in parts of the Christian faith as well, because they would bring the baggage of the pagan mysteries with them and interpret Christian doctrine by their experience. He wrote that they would “tend to think of the resurrection as the rebirth of a nature god, and Easter would become a fertility rite centering on eggs and rabbits.” He continues,

Against such misreadings the Church was required to be on guard. Her general principle was one of intransigence at the core and flexibility at the periphery. The cardinal doctrines could not be recast, but there was no objection to setting the celebration of the birth of Jesus on December 25, the winter solstice on Julian calendar, the birthday of the sun god Mithras. By setting the Christian festival on the same day, converts from Mithraism were preserved from relapsing on that occasion.62

Thus the practice was one of pastoral concern for new converts. It is quite possible that a convert would have been at a mithraic meal one week and then in Christ’s kingdom the next. These people required special discipleship.

Add to this that the adoption of some practices was a mark of the triumph of Christianity over the pagan religion. One case in point, the Syrian version of the Astarte and Adonis myth had its own regional peculiarities. Drawing from ancient Canaanite culture, their religion used the term “baal” to describe their gods. “Baal” appears commonly throughout the Old Testament as it was a general title meaning “lord” or “master.” One false “baal” in the Old Testament is “Ashtaroth” (also known by “Astarte” or “Ishtar”). From “Ishtar” it is quite evident that we derive the word “Easter,” but we have no reason to gasp at such a fact. While atheists would love to point to it as “proof ” that Christianity borrowed its religion from paganism, their simplistic understanding needs a bit of basic historical education. Christians did not adopt paganism, but conquered it by using its own symbols. The pagan mysteries are dead and gone for a reason. True, we may have a hard time fitting eggs and rabbits into any mental picture of Christian worship, but we do only think of Easter as a season of the Christian Church. The reason Astarte and Ishtar sound like strange names dug up out of obscure history books is because they are. Christ conquered what those false gods had hold of, and now they have long since gone down the memory hole. The only place they live on is in the fictional works of neo-gnostics and pagans who have to ignore or reinterpret the best parts of history in order to write their books.

Add to that list of conquered pagan superstitions one called Samhain—properly pronounced “Sah-win,” as in “sawin’ off the branch you’re sitting on.” That’s what all non-Christians systems of life and thought do: they are self-destructive in the long-run.

Scary Hermeneutics!

It’s probably apparent, given Kirk’s newfound positive outlook on biblical theology and history—see his movies Monumental and Unstoppable—that this theological view of Halloween reflects the influence of James B. Jordan, as once posted here on American Vision as “Concerning Halloween.” I am not sure I agree with every point Jordan makes there (and certainly not in general), but the general thrust of the dominion of Christ in that article is right. Whether or not certain pagan practices preceded Halloween games makes little difference if they are sanitized and reinterpreted in the light of Christ.

I will let parents decide whether any given game is prudent in this day and age. I personally prefer church-based Reformation Day celebrations, but some neighborhoods may not be too bad for other things.

And James is right: the rise in awareness of pagan “origins” of things like Halloween, Easter, Christmas, etc., is nothing less than a facet of a culture war. Modern pagans want Christianity swept out of cultural practice, and they try hard with every article, news segment, law, encyclopedia article, TV show, movie, etc. Let one movie or article from Kirk peep the opposite, and you’ll see what hissing little witches those secularist writers really are.

But the most surprising (to some) element in the mix is the people who are the secularists’ greatest allies in this pagan reprisal: Christians. These are certain fundamentalist Christians, mostly dispensationalists and premillennialists, who have a form of godliness but deny its power.

For example, one MacArthurite criticized Kirk’s comments on Christmas as “a contrived allegorized reintepretation of Christmas trees.” This critic then picked a Twitter fight with Darren Doane, the movie’s producer, arguing among other things that “Christmas trees have an historical meaning attached to them. You can’t change that.”

Since when can Christians not change meanings in history to reflect biblical theology? The idea is ludicrous, of course, but Christians should understand that it reflects the defeatist, ghetto mentality of premillennialists like this critic, and others who promoted his article. These people believe the forces of evil will prevail in the world. Everything must go downhill. These believers actually want society and all culture to degrade into the hands of the forces of evil because it means their view of prophecy will be confirmed and Jesus that much closer to returning for the rapture.

The worse society gets, the more confirmed they are. Thus, when someone like Kirk comes along with a positive view and announces that there can be legitimate Christian influence in the world, it throws a wrench in the Grinchworks.

Worse yet, when a Kirk or Doane suggests we read the Bible with new, biblically-enlightened eyes, and see aspects of creation through the lenses of biblical theology, the premillennialists flail like they’re lost in space: “Does not compute.” They have confined themselves (on most issues anyway), to an overly-simplistic hermeneutical box in which a tree cannot have any other biblical meaning than a literal tree.

Now that’s about a wooden-literal as it gets.

But then again, these are the type of people who have argued the scorpion-tailed locusts of Revelation are really Cobra attack helicopters; so one can never be too certain where some professing literalists will be coming from. Some believe their literalism to a fault: for example, that the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 will be a literal 1500-mile-high pyramid (or cube, it’s unclear) with Jesus literally sitting on top. That’s no exaggeration; a leading dispensational author wrote that.

These leaders and pundits can’t think outside of their self-imposed box. When coupled with their intense demand of the inevitable demonic dominion of the world, they intensely fear any effort of dominion, cultural renewal, etc. Since, in their minds, the world is given over to the dominion of the Devil, these guys are deathly afraid to touch it. But that’s not what Christ’s New Testament authority is about. The forces of evil do not contaminate us when we they touch us culturally speaking. We don’t have to huddle fearfully into ghettos because some pagan once worshipped trees, or another thought a black cat was a witch. These things don’t harm us—because an idol is nothing, all paganism and humanism is defeated at the cross, and the devil is under the thumb of our Father. The power of Christ flows outward, so to speak, sanctifying that which it touches, and which touches it.

Lose hope, lose members

But in the symbiotic relationship between secularists and dispensationalists, the Christians won’t acknowledge that they are enabling and justifying the dominion of the pagans. It’s not so much that if they disagree with us, they’ll just step out of the way; they think they must stop us so that unbelief may steamroll the world as prophesied (so they construe it). In doing so, they roll out the red carpet for demonic Halloweens, commercialized Christmas, and every other encroachment of paganism around us.

Well excuse us if we acknowledge that God created this world, and Christ redeemed it definitively, such that He announced before His ascension to the throne, “All power in heaven and in earth has been given to me.” And yes, that includes over days, holidays, trees, pumpkins, cotton-tails, lights, and everything else, as well as all men. There is not a single area of the universe over which Christ does not claim, “Mine!” All His followers in any and every celebration should take whatever fun or historical vestige of whatever we like and reinterpret it according to His glory and dominion—pagan hopes and dreams notwithstanding.

And while these dispensational leaders are deathly afraid, many of their followers are beginning to understand the power of Christ and the optimistic projections Scripture actually teaches. The foundations of the old dispensational system are long crumbled. Young people especially are asking hard questions, and they are looking for a more biblical system by which to live their long lives in light of Christ’s declarations of power and direction for living—out from under the oppressive shadows of gloom and superstition. They are leaving dispensationalism. In reality, they are already gone; they are just looking for a more biblical system to help understand why they already see the old pessimism as nonsense.

And it is perhaps this phenomenon that has these premillennialist leaders most alarmed. Years ago they would likely have cared little about a movie on the Christian meanings of holidays and the biblical theology behind them. But today, let a former dispensational face like Kirk Cameron speak up, and they know they will lose more of their audience. Well, let me break the news to you: more will follow. Just as Christ has broken the grip of fear ancient pagans once held on masses of people, so too will He break the grip of fear that bad eschatology and theology hold over Christians within the body. We are seeing it happen. It is only a matter of time and circumstance.

And as for me, I can’t think of a better holiday to celebrate dispensationalism’s passing, when it comes, than Halloween—the day of remembrance of the dearly departed. The theology of these brethren will do its best service ever for the kingdom through its epitaph, R.I.P., in the dark, misty graveyard of bad ideas.

Categories: Worldview

“The defense of godliness”: Calvin on Deut. 13:5

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 09:59

But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst (Deut. 13:5).

Many Reformed Christians have been taught by their pastors and seminary professors to reject or neglect such Old Testament laws as this for various reasons. Mainly we hear that the New Testament has somehow abrogated such laws—perhaps due to the “spiritual” nature of the kingdom of Christ. But Calvin here answers this objection, and his answer is noteworthy for more than one reason. First, it is noteworthy because we so often hear Calvin quoted as an enemy of Mosaic law. And while I argue that he was inconsistent at some points in this doctrine (and I explain why, also), Calvin was obviously at his best and most accurate when he simply expounded Scripture word for word. His commentaries, such as here, are often good examples of this.(1)

Second, and more importantly, Calvin himself often exalted the “spiritual” nature of the kingdom over against certain other constructions. He even acknowledges the point here. Yet despite that, he does not see any contradiction between the spiritual rule of Christ and the administration of justice in the earth according to the law of God. Those therefore who appeal to Calvin’s doctrine of the spiritual rule of Christ in order to abrogate the thrust of the Mosaic judicials have not understood Calvin as well as they think. To those who say “our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law,” Calvin retorts plainly, “I deny that on that account its nature is changed.” He explains,

But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginnings of His kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s kingdom, I deny that on that account its nature is changed. For, although it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed with the Word alone like sheep amongst wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring kings under His subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church. Magistrates at first exercised tyranny against the Church, because the time had not yet come when they should “kiss the Son” of God, and, laying aside their violence, should become the nursing fathers of the Church, which they had assailed according to Isaiah’s prophecy, that undoubtedly refers to the coming of Christ. (Isaiah xlix:6, 23.)

Indeed, when a magistrate is converted and religion established in a land, Calvin argues, it would be “the greatest perfidy and cruelty” not to uphold these penal sanctions. And while many commentators would cite New Testament passages only to justify the magistrate’s only duties as maintaining “peace” or “safety,” Calvin argues that the Old Testament laws against willful, rebellious false prophecy and apostasy are “part of their duty.” He continues,

Nor was it causelessly that Paul, when he enjoins prayers to be made for kings and other worldly rulers, added the reason that under them “we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” (1 Tim. ii:2.) Christ, indeed as He is meek, would also, I confess, have us to be imitators of His gentleness, but that does not prevent pious magistrates from providing for the tranquility [sic] and safety of the Church by their defense of godliness; since to neglect this part of their duty, would be the greatest perfidy and cruelty. And assuredly nothing can be more base than, when we see wretched souls drawn away to eternal destruction by reason of the impunity conceded to impious, wicked, and perverse impostors, to count the salvation of those souls for nothing.

Is it possible that such law could be abused? Yes, but then again, all laws and punishments can be abused. But Calvin replies that no abuse should deter us from following what God has commanded us to follow. Moreover, God has given us checks and safeguards for criminal justice for the sole purpose of preventing abuse. It follows, then, that the law is not to be blamed on account of the abuser, but the abuser on account of the law. The tyrant is condemned by the justness of the law which he does not follow, and the law is exonerated in that it condemns the tyrant for his abuse. Calvin writes,

But, if under this pretext the superstitious have dared to shed innocent blood, I reply that what God has once commanded must not be brought to nought [sic] on account of any abuse or corruption of men. For, if the cause alone abundantly distinguishes the martyrs of Christ from malefactors, though their punishment may be identical, so the Papal executioners will not bring it to pass by their unjust cruelty that the zeal of pious magistrates in punishing false and noxious teachers should be otherwise than pleasing to God. And this is admirably expressed in the words of Moses, when he reminds them that judgment must be passed according to the law of God. I have already said that this severity must not be extended to particular errors, but where impiety breaks forth even into rebellion. When it is added, “to thrust thee out of the way, which the Lord thy God commanded thee,” we gather from it that none are to be given over to punishment, but those who shall have been convicted by the plain word of God, lest men should judge them arbitrarily. Whence it also appears that zeal will err in hastily drawing the sword, unless a lawful examination shall have been previously instituted.

To be sure, Calvin notes the strict guidelines under which such laws should be enacted and applied. Needless to say, he is not unrealistic in the big picture. I’ll comment on this more in a separate post.Endnotes:

  1. The accounts which follow come from Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, arranged in a harmony, 2:77–78.
Categories: Worldview

Back when sermons were not off-limits. . . .

Mon, 10/20/2014 - 10:28

So you think sermons are off-limits, eh? Think they can’t be entered, and to that end subpoenaed, as evidence in a lawsuit? Think it is trampling First Amendment rights to make legal or political hay of a pastor’s sermons? Yeah? Well, I got two words for ya:

Jeremiah Wright.

The year was 2008—before the sleeping giant had awakened, then fallen back to sleep again, and then tried to run in his dream, only to drag along as if through quicksand, but kicked his leg in his sleep such that we thought, for a moment, he had awakened again. In that era, we faced a monumental election the likes of which had the EEOC on the edge of its seat: the potential election of America’s first Kenyan, Muslim, and actually inhaling, president who happened also to be biracial.

In that dark hour leading up to the 2008 election, evidence of the most damning sort surfaced in the media. It could potentially end the bid of this towering community menace, for it was openly treasonous and proved as clearly (and just as effectively) as anything until Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016 that this candidate truly hated America. And it was nothing short of . . .

. . . a sermon.

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of candidate Barack Obama for twenty years, graced the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and more importantly graced YouTube, with the now-scandalously-famous absolute proof of America-hating:

“Not God Bless America. God damn America.”

And for rhetorical good measure, the “God damn America” was repeated with ghusto. He didn’t want us to miss this.

And when this surfaced, conservative politicians and Christian leaders and organizations across the country . . . united to squash the undue politicization of pastors sermons. Right? It was unfair that the media had focused upon a sermon for political reasons. This was an attack on First Amendment rights! I mean, if a pastor is not free to preach his conscience, and falls under political scrutiny, then all pastors and all Christians are under attack.

Except . . . conservatives didn’t unite like that. Instead, they held up the contents of this pastor’s sermon everywhere throughout the conservative media for all of its seditious and hateful glory. In fact, for example, Sean Hannity noted the church had overstepped its bounds with the IRS:

[T]he church is raising questions with the IRS because of how they’re campaigning for Obama at the pulpit. . . . First of all, I will not let up on this issue, Jeanine Pirro. If his pastor went to Libya, Tripoli with Louis Farrakhan, a virulent, anti-Semitic racist, his church gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan. That’s been Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years. And we will continue to expose this until somebody in the mainstream media has the courage to take this on. Do you agree this should be an issue?

His guest—now Fox News fav Judge Jeanine—agreed: “They shouldn’t be politicking from the pulpit. That’s why the IRS is getting involved.”

Forgive me, but that sounds ominously like lesbian mayor Parker’s now-condemned Tweet, “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.”

But perhaps the astute reader will note that while this was politics, true, it was not the government subpoenaing sermons in the same way as with Houston today. Surely the First Amendment protects us from this, no? In my original post on this story, I argued that this was not the case, even if the pastors are not party to the case. Some readers understood this; others were simply confused from hearing the opposite from so many other outlets they trust. Many, however, were downright insulting, defiant, and ugly: I’m apparently not saved and hate America, not to mention just plain stupid, if this segment of the crowd is to be believed. Well, let me put this in language to which we can hopefully all relate:

What if, during that Jeremiah Wright controversy, Barack Obama moved against some conservative pundits somewhere and sued them for defamation for trying to associate him with Wright’s views? Obama would have been unwise to do so, but suppose he did anyway. Such a case would have made Obama the plaintiff and the conservative pundits the defendants. And it would have made the pastor, Jeremiah Wright himself, a nonparty in the suit. Yet he would be relevant to the case because it was his sermons that caused the whole ruckus to begin with. And his sermons would be relevant to the case, because they could contain evidence that support the conservatives’ original claims which are under litigation. Wright would be nonetheless a nonparty in the filed suit.

Now let me ask you the $100k question: in the discovery phase of such a suit, what types of evidence do you think the defense lawyers would be interested in, and would in fact go after? It would probably include a wide swath of communications between Obama and Wright. But whatever the breadth of the requests would be, I can guarantee you one thing it would have included: Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. In fact, an ambitious lawyer would probably attempt to go after Wright’s sermons for the entire 20 years Obama attended there. They may not get that much, or anywhere near it, but they probably would have tried.

And how do you think they would have obtained those sermons? Yes, Youtube is open and free, but suppose most of them, or the most relevant of them, had not been recorded or posted in this way. How do you think the lawyers would get the evidence to exonerate their claims in such a case? Only by subpoenas.

Because at the end of the day, if you want to enter evidence, you must either have possession of it already or you must issue a subpoena to get it. You can issue a subpoena for documents, recordings, etc., or you can issue one for a person to testify. But to get it, you must motion the court to do so.

And I can guarantee you that in such a case, many if not most of the conservative and Christian world—incuding Ted Cruz had he been in office—would have lined up in support of the subpoenas, and called for Wright to be outed and his sermons held up to scrutiny in court.

The simple fact is that almost any speech, except that directly protected by attorney-client privilege or similar matters, if associated with a lawsuit, can be subpoenaed. Leading conservative legal scholars have confirmed this. For example, the now widely-quoted Eugene Volokh: “In principle, I don’t think there’s a First Amendment bar to subpoenaing the text (or video or audio recordings) of sermons, if they are sufficiently relevant to a case or an investigation.”

Now, we can be sure some readers are still fuming and don’t wish the laws to be applied evenly to our opponents. I understand. Some of these will condemn this post for the shameful audacity (can we still use that word today?) to compare our beloved Houston pastors to the dreadful Jeremiah Wright. Please note, I did no such thing. I compared the law and the likely motions of lawyers in two similar cases with the ideological sides reversed. If that upsets you, then God’s word upsets you: the rule of law upsets you (Ex. 21:24–27; Deut. 6; 19:21), equality of all people under one law upsets you (Ex. 12:49; Lev. 19:34; 24:22; Num. 9:14; 15:15, 16, 29), and equal justice according to the law with no respect of persons upsets you (Lev. 19:15; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; James 2).

All of this means, among other things, that if Christians want to make progress in society in the way they seem to in practice (not the way much of their theology dictates that they stay out of it), then they need to take biblical law seriously, and this will mean they have to get to the real hearts of the matters—not the overly emotional wolf-crying in certain media. Instead, there are real substantial problems at the heart of this crisis as with most others—and the big-shot media and activists are often scared to death to go there for fear of bad PR. Among those problems is the way in which Christians and pastors hamstring themselves at the outset with 501c3 status, R2K theology, fear of preaching God’s law, acceptance of bad precedents regarding civil rights and property, government schools, and much more—especially concrete applications of the ones listed.

Hopefully I can talk about this more in the near future. In fact, it might make a good sermon.

Categories: Worldview

Hamfisted on Houston or not?: A response to Tim Bayly

Sat, 10/18/2014 - 14:04

Tim Bayly of BaylyBlog did not appreciate my perspective on the headlines hyping the now-infamous Houston subpoena. For arguing that the conservative media angles read “as if the city has made some move to start monitoring all pastors’ sermons,” Bayly busted me: “McDurmon’s set up a straw man.”

I’d be cool with that, and even with the spirited tone of the rest of it (Lord give us more spirited voices in the church, and thicker skin among those listening!), but I don’t think my argument was a straw man. Mainly because I have enough experience of how and why some of the people who write headlines for the consumption of Christian conservatives write them, and how that audience often understands those headlines and reacts to them, I was fairly certain that the two headlines to which I linked in particular would be taken.

And it turns out, I was right. One commenter on a particular Facebook thread is representative. She rejected my view and said, “I do not see anything Basic or Routine about demanding to read sermons before Pastors preach them.” Did you read that? From those headlines she deduced that Houston was demanding pastors turn in their sermons for approval before they preached them.

And she was not alone. Another wrote,

The city only wants to monitor those sermons of pastors that it disagrees with and who oppose them and their agenda.

And another,

If anyone thinks, for one moment, she isn’t glorying in her ability to monitor sermons, and influence future sermons . . . then someone fell off the turnip truck very recently.

And another,

[T]his “discovery” now becomes quite clearly a persecution of any who see things differently than does this excuse of a mayor.

And another,

With this kind of logic it seems that pastors’ sermons could be subpoenaed in any number of cases.

And another,

The purpose of this tactic is to try to censor pastors from preaching about the sin of sodomy.

And another,

[T]hey will seek to apply the rule to all pastors and especially if they win the case.

Think I created a straw man? The defense rests.

But like I said, I appreciate Bayly’s style, despite the fact that he thinks I work for an organization called “American Values.” Oops. But I can appreciate it especially when his blogging colleague submitted a counterpoint arguing for my case: Bayly showed far more manliness and integrity than most critics I’ve seen when he posted it. I tip my hat to that.

Even in the counterpoint, however, the author, Craig French, is at pains to say where he “diverges significantly from Joel McDurmon,” because “it a gross exaggeration to imply Houston’s request is semi-reasonable.”

But both Bayly and French seem to agree on what Bayly called my “ham-fisted” naiveté. In reviewing their criticism, I agree that there is a straw man in the room—but it isn’t my creation.

Where did I say the subpoenas were “semi-reasonable”? I argued why they are not surprising and are even understandable, but that is hardly the same as the condoning adjective of “reasonable” even if modified by “semi-.” I would not say that. In fact, I said the opposite. Both responders seem to have missed the fact that I said the following in that original article:

There is no doubt that the Mayor and City Council are radical and aggressive LGBT activists trying to advance their agenda against all morality and the will of the people in the actual subject matter behind these headlines.

And,

In my opinion, it [the scope of the subpoena] is unnecessarily broad. In my opinion, the vast nature of demands violates several of the checks and precedents built into the court’s rules for discovery.

. . . which is the exact same position that both Bayly and French expressed.

Bayly also seems to think that I intended to assume the “superior” position of “the smart ones among us who love to correct the simple.” Let me be quick to apologize to Tim for coming across in that way. That was not my intention. It will probably not sound less insulting to say that I had no idea he had written on the topic. I don’t mean to sound insulting here, either, but things happen. Bayly wrote a headline close enough to those I criticized to see himself swept up in the same criticism. I understand the phenomenon. But just because he didn’t mean what I was aiming at with others doesn’t mean my position was a straw man or attempting to act superior to him. I wrote, in fact, for the Christian layman and against those in the media who did write in such a way that laymen could easily be misled.

Not only was I vindicated in this regard by the number of people who did interpret the headlines the way I expected, but Bayly also does not take note of the fact that exactly what I said would happen has happened: the city reissued the subpoenas in a more limited scope. I think it will be even further limited yet, but I’ll say more about that later.

Bayly then lined up a real heavy hitter against me. He notes that a widely respected (and conservative) constitutional scholar and columnist, Eugene Volokh, confirms his case against me because Volokh sees the dangerous potential and overly broad nature of the subpoenas. But again, I noted those things too, as quoted above, so this is hardly a criticism.

What Bayly did not note was that Volokh clearly confirms my positions that this is not an attack on first amendment rights, that sermons are not off-limits to subpoenas, and that what nonsense there is in the subpoenas is remedied by reissuing them in with narrowed demands. Nothing he says contradicts anything I wrote, but actually vindicates a lot of it.

Finally, all of this misunderstanding aside, I would like to say clearly that Bayly is absolutely right when he spotlights the areas of “persecution” here in the U.S. I will write more on this in the near future, but let me just quote him while lending my 100 percent agreement:

At this point the persecution we face here in North America is somewhat veiled to those who prefer to sleep as long as possible. It hides behind state’s Child Protective Services, EEO rules, human resources departments, faculty senates, tenure committees, public school teachers, principals and superintendents, city councils, university diversity policies, military rules, and the legal departments of mayors such as Houston’s own Annise Parker.

Now those are some hard-core discernments on some hard-core issues, and he’s absolutely right. These things need to resound from every pulpit. These things deserve well-funded foundations exposing them across the land. These things deserve our direst efforts and greatest sacrifices. I would be thrilled to see targeted evangelical foci upon CPS and public schools. Thrilled. And I will join Bayly in all efforts to do so. I hope we actually could work together on such things.

Aside from that, I stand by what I wrote, especially since most of it came to pass as I expected, with the caveat that I certainly did not mean to insinuate Rev. Bayly is not doing his pastoral duty or doing it well. This is especially true in light of the list of things just mentioned—things most pastors would never touch on in public. Far from being insulted, I am encouraged by his article for just this reason.

Categories: Worldview

Is Houston demanding oversight of pastors’ sermons? No.

Wed, 10/15/2014 - 11:59

Several people have contacted me over the recent Fox News headline, “City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons.” WND.com was even broader: “Houston demands oversight of sermons.” There is no doubt that the Mayor and City Council are radical and aggressive LGBT activists trying to advance their agenda against all morality and the will of the people in the actual subject matter behind these headlines. But the actual case does not warrant these alarming headlines, and our activists ought to be more responsible.

I write this only to calm some of the unnecessary alarm, and to introduce some reason and understanding into the mix. The headlines read as if the city has made some move to start monitoring all pastors’ sermons, and this simply is not the case. It also gives the impression that this is some out-of-the-blue, general attack tactic by the activists upon the pulpit. It is not. It is not out-of-the-blue, it is not broad and general as far as the implicated pastors goes, and it should not be a surprise at all.

The City is not making a move to monitor sermons. The city is merely responding to a lawsuit against it and using standard powers of discovery in regard to a handful of pastors who are implicated as relevant to the lawsuit. The issue is here: once you file a lawsuit, you open up yourself and potentially your friends and acquaintances to discovery. This is the aspect that has not been reported, but it is an important part of the context.

This is basic court procedure. But the headlines make it sound like a surprise attack by leftists advancing their agenda on unsuspecting Christians.

Even the Alliance Defending Freedom’s (they are representing the plaintiffs who filed suit) write up gives the impression that this is an attack on irrelevant bystanders, saying “the pastors are not even involved.” That’s not necessarily true. The pastors are not a party in the lawsuit, true, but at least some of them are quite possibly “involved,” and that’s a significant point. To the extent they are involved, Texas court rules (like most court rules) give allowance for discovery of evidence in their associations with the parties to the suit and the subject matter of it.

What is “discovery of evidence”? Is this some liberal tactic that has perverted our legal system? No, it is civil legal procedure 101. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but that’s the point: this is basic stuff. Once a case enters litigation, both sides have fairly broad—although protected and defined—allowances to demand papers, communications, etc., related to or potentially related to the subject matter of the case. Why? Because any relevant or related material may produce evidence crucial to the case. It’s a basic legal right that is important to justice in the big picture.

Further, it is not unprecedented at all for people who are not party to the case to be ordered by the court either to testify or produce materials during the discovery phase. That is what a subpoena is. It happens all the time, because even if you’re not actually a party in the suit, you may in fact have interacted with them in such a way and on relevant topics that your interactions are crucial, or at least relevant, to the case.

Let’s consider an example to which Christians can relate. Suppose an openly Christian mayor attended, during office hours, a Day of Prayer event outside the Mayor’s Office Building on a given date. I have no problem with that, of course, but suppose a local atheist group objected and filed a lawsuit. Let’s suppose further that behind the scenes, a Marxist nonprofit group, members of which are friends and colleagues with the atheist group, was possibly helping fund and coordinate the lawsuit for the purposes of destroying the mayor’s reputation and taking over the local city council. Yet the Marxist group is not a party to the suit. Would the mayor, now a defendant under fire, be legally interested in the communications taking place between those groups? Could those correspondences and even group speeches be relevant to the case? Could they exonerate the mayor? Maybe, maybe not. What if, possibly, those communications contain the only evidence that could exonerate the accused? Is it reasonable that those communications could at least lead to the discovery of relevant evidence important to the mayor’s defense? Depending on the nature of the claims filed, absolutely.

Now just flip the ideological sides in the scenario, and you have, essentially, the case before us. The Mayor is an open lesbian and LGBT activist. The City Council recently passed an ordinance that would allow transgenders to cross bathrooms in public. Predictable and rightful outrage ensued from Christians and conservatives. A local group of 400 pastors opposed the measure. Some of them apparently have connections with a petition drive, organization, coordination, and possibly even funding of the petition drive to overturn the ordinance. Then, when the mayor apparently overstepped her authority in rejecting signatures on the petition (that were already certified), a group of Christians and conservatives allegedly connected with this group of pastors filed a lawsuit. Do you think the defendants might be interested in the communications between those groups?

And what happens when you file a lawsuit? You open up yourself and your relevant friends to discovery. Are the correspondences between these pastors and the Christian parties who filed the suit relevant to the case? It is possible that a judge could determine this is the case. That is what this subpoena is about.

And as any savvy lawyer would do, the defendants’ attorneys cast the largest net possible in requesting information. In my opinion, it is unnecessarily broad. In my opinion, the vast nature of demands violates several of the checks and precedents built into the court’s rules for discovery. Even the Houston Chronicle called it “an unusual step.” But that’s part of what’s good about it. Those checks are there for a reason. Let’s be calm and file a demand that they be followed first before we cry end of the world. And sure enough, ADF’s motion to quash, or at least modify the subpoena, cites these very principles and checks. I think it is both perfectly justified and will be upheld by the court.

I think the court will probably not quash the subpoena entirely. I believe it will, however, require it to be modified with a much stricter scope. Of course, this will also depend upon the nature of the charges made in the original suit (which I have not yet been able to access), and the nature of the defense being made against those charges. But I doubt these pastors will ultimately be required to submit anything anywhere near what the defense demanded, if anything.

But what bothers me most here are the fear-mongering headlines. This is not an attack on all Houston area pastors, and no impression should be allowed in that regard. It is a routine court procedure, not even final yet, against a handful a pastors—and only because they are implicated in a court case filed.

But here’s the kicker in this particular case: as with all cases, all parties and their lawyers knew these rules before they filed suit. The city’s move should have been no surprise to anyone. They should have expected it—especially from liberal activists, who as we all know, are ruthless, restless, and play dirty.

So why are the headlines giving a different impression? I don’t know, but I can say that such fear-mongering could be used for some killer fundraising. I hope this is not the motivation.

It also plays into the overarching premillennial narrative of declining Christian influence in society. But actually, in this case, the reverse true. The orderly rules of discovery and evidence we have in place are the heritage of a Christian society which values rule of law and fair play—especially for the accused. Is it the case that miscreants can use these laws to their advantage, or even abuse them to a degree? Yes, but I would prefer that to the alternatives. As Paul Scofield said, for Sir Thomas More, in A Man for All Seasons, “I’d give the devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.”

Fear mongering is not needed, and in fact is unwarranted and damaging to the Kingdom of Christ in general. It is irresponsible to the real task at hand. What we need on this particular issue right now is a bit of courageous patience. It may be worth noticing that a former attempt to defeat the bathroom ordinance in question directly via a separate court order was rejected by the court because it believed adequate remedy was available through the appeals process with the current suit filed. Like it or not, such remedies sometimes take time.

Categories: Worldview

Hall of shame: new critics of Theonomy, same old fallacies

Tue, 10/14/2014 - 12:45

I post the following article in view of recent and vociferous critiques of theonomy and Christian reconstruction made by Reformed Baptist podcaster J. D. Hall. I have secured agreement for a moderated discussion with Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio to discuss the charges Hall has leveled against our position. I will save my own direct responses to him for that date.

As for his specific charges, for now I’ll just say there is a wide disparity between the air of confidence (several actually said “arrogance”) with which he exposed the “Errors of Theonomy” and the substance of what he actually produced. To many of us listening to him, it was obvious he was not very much at all familiar with the literature or actual positions theonomists have taught; as a result he repeats straw men and misrepresentations so obtuse that did we not know he was serious we would think they were hyperbolic.

While Hall did admit he is not an “expert” on theonomy, he also quipped, laughing, it would not be difficult to “read every single book that there is on theonomy,” because there “is not much—there’s not very many books on it because it such a strange, peculiar belief and it’s actually not that old.” Considering that there are over a hundred volumes between North and Rushdoony alone (not even counting all the other authors, articles, and journals), a statement like that only reveals how out of touch with the issue he really is.

Nevertheless, he went on for well over two hours spanning two podcasts (here and here) in order to critique our positions. The result, as I said, was to repeat the worst and most fallacious of errors for which previous critics long ago were refuted. The simple fact that Hall did not even realize the arguments he was making—again, confidently—had been refuted over twenty years ago, testifies to how little homework he actually did on the subject.

And the worst part of this is that he is friends and associates with theonomists who warned him not to do this prior to doing it. They told him he was off base and not representing us accurately: please, read some our actual stuff before you do this!, they pleaded. But he did not listen.

At the behest of some, I moved to secure an opportunity to discuss these things with him on air sometime in mid-December (TBA). And it seems he has already begun to realize just how much homework he has not done, and yet needs to do. Last night he took to a Facebook group of his followers to announce our upcoming “debate” (I have not called it that), and announced his need for help: “I need 2-3 people to help do some research assistance.”

Yes, you do. For the level of argument so far has only repeated old errors, such as these gems from Hall:

1) Theonomists believe that changing culture is the (singular) goal of the faith.

2) Theonomists may say they believe in preaching the Gospel, but that is only secondary to what they really want to do.

3) Theonomists are “obscure,” “abberant,” and “strange” extremists who hide their real agenda like cult members, engaging in “deceit and dishonesty.”

4) Theonomists want to start killing children—to stone to death 10-year-old children who disobey their parents.

5) Theonomists want to reinstitute “slavery.”

6) Theonomists believe in “cruel and unusual punishment.”

7) Theonomists believe in “the letter of the law” such as requiring “rails on top out house.”

8) Theonomists believe in “imposing” Mosaic law.

9) Theonomists teach “heresy.”

10) Theonomy is like sharia law.

11) Theonomy is “eschatologically driven.”

I could go on, but you get the point. There is nothing new under the sun, especially among Theonomy’s eager but unlearned critics. It is for this reason that I offer this morning an excerpt from Greg Bahnsen’s response to critics back in 1991—twenty-three years ago—No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics, which is available in full for free here. (I would recommend Mr. Hall to read it, and its footnotes, closely.)

Virtually all of the points in Hall’s podcast were addressed already directly in this book. Several of them are reproduced below. For the sake of length, I did not include others, but you can find them in the PDF. For example, the arguments regarding the alleged horrors of a theonomic society are addressed on pages 62–65, and arguments from silence (e.g. “The New Testament doesn’t say this.”) on 67–69. But many of the others you will notice are addressed in the excerpt below, from pages 40–54.

It is an absolute shame and disappointment that theonomy’s critics continue in this way. The absurd positions attributed and condemnations leveled—especially in the face of direct warnings and brotherly checks against doing so—speak more of a witch hunt than any serious reflection. But again, we’ve seen this before. As I have always said, 1) our critics don’t quote us, 2) when they do they don’t present us in context, and 3) as a result, they misrepresent our positions. Hall has risen to the level of quoting us in a couple places; but, unfortunately, he has not surmounted the second two besetting sins. The result is what Bahnsen referred to, in part, as “sloganized, ambiguous criticism.”

(I have attempted to reformat as well as possible, but may have missed a hyphenation or character here or there.)

***

Overkill, Vehemence, Name-calling

The critics of theonomy have hardly been a model of restraint in speaking of their opponents. Gary Long has accused theonomy of Judaizing the New Testament; Albert Dager asserts that it is promoting “a modern Phariseeism.”[9]Ice and House published that theonomy should be rejected simply because of the “possibility” that it might be guilty of moralism, unprincipled pragmatism, apostasy, compromise with the world, and permeating the faith with humanism![10]Walter Chantry accuses theonomists of speaking perverse things, of having deformed and distorted views, of propounding a twisted theology which is a threat to the church, of mutilating Biblical doctrine, of being sinister and aberrant. Chantry says we are unlearned. He comes very close to asserting they we do not belong to God’s kingdom at all.[11]I have hardly ever encountered such vitriolic name-calling under the guise of Christian scholarship, unless it was found in Meredith Kline’s review-article of Theonomy.[12]He calls theonomy “a delusive and grotesque perversion” of the teaching of Scripture which has been rejected as “manifestly unbiblical” by virtually all students of Scripture -something which “must be repudiated as a misreading of the Bible on a massive scale.” The “blatantly unbiblical results” which theonomic politics inevitably produces afford a ”startling warning of the utter falseness” of the thesis. “What we are talking about here is not something illusively subtle or profound, but big and plain and simple.” In my “obfuscation of the lucid biblical picture” I miss what is “simple, obvious, all­important” and “clear” in the Bible. Kline charges that I manage to miss a “simple message … written large across the pages of the Bible so that covenant children can read and readily understand it.” In his estimation, I can hardly be a child of the covenant. My “delusive and grotesque perversion” of the Bible must be evidence that I am either a dangerous heretic or someone virtually devoid of common intelligence.

But come now. Could things really be that extreme? Are the critics perhaps increasing the emotional volume and rhetoric to compensate for a lack of cogent analysis and substantial criticism? Are they engaging in proof or pontification? In studying further in this book, the reader can judge for himself. The issues before us ought to be decided on the exegetical and logical merits of the case (made one way or the other) and not encumbered with personal antagonism, appeals to emotion, fallacious tactics of criticism, or caricatures. “Even the Gentiles” who are engaged in scholarly work know better than to behave and speak in the way illustrated above. Those of us who represent the Lord who claims “Truth” as His very own title should certainly maintain at least as high a standard of scholarly integrity, accuracy, and concern for sound reasoning (rather than name-calling) as those who make no profession of following Him. The amazing thing is that you would expect, in the face of the kind of uncharitable and unscholarly lambasting of theonomists as we have seen above, that the refutation of this horrible error would carry a compelling cogency commensurate with the personal condemnations. But such has not been forthcoming (especially from those critics who have been the nastiest in their name-calling). One might think that if theonomy is as ridiculous and misguided as critics wish to suggest, the critics would not have needed to waste time stooping to the weak and beggarly maneuvers of maligning theonomists. They could have simply gone to the heart of the matter and openly refuted the obvious error in the position itself.

The Notable Extent of Counterfeiting

The above call for scholarly integrity goes hand in hand with a demand that our opponent’s viewpoint not be counterfeited by misrepresentation. I realize that anybody who undertakes to be a writer or public instructor of any kind must expect a measure of erroneous reporting of what he or she teaches. This is an occupational hazard. With some grace and a sense of humor, minor occurrences of false depiction of your views can be endured. The problem I have with many, many critics of theonomic ethics goes way beyond that, however. The extent of the misrepresentations and the severity of the falsehoods taken to the general public are so startling (and repeated)—and made the basis for rejecting the position as false—that one must now indignantly criticize the critics for their irresponsibility (both intellectual and moral). The reader should appreciate the fact that theonomists are not crying out against this offense simply because they are thin-skinned. Space does not permit a full detailing here; so let me simply warn the reader to beware of claims which are commonly made about theonomicethics.[13]Read the position for yourself.

Refinement Rather than Refutation

Sometimes theonomy has been criticized for having the “wrong emphasis” in terms of the overall scope of Christian theology or Christian living. It has been faulted for laying stress on socio­political morality and in particular the issue of penology (and most dreadfully, capital punishment). Critics make the point that there are more important things than this in the full range of Biblical doctrine. They have insisted that the life of the believer has more fundamental concerns than crime and its punishment. To be brief, there are two things I would say in reply to this line of criticism. First, I don’t disagree that the issues taken up in Theonomy are of subordinate importance in the Christian life, preaching of the church, range of theological loci, etc. Second, there is no indication (as far as I know) in my writings, lecturing, or preaching which would indicate any other estimate than that. This is a criticism which creates a problem that does not exist. Surely the fact that some Christians take up the question of God’s law and its relation to modern penology—and that some write on the subject—does not mean that they believe that subject is the most vital issue for all believers (or even for themselves).

Another way in which people have attempted to criticize the theonomic position is by accusing it of simplistic thinking—not taking into account how complicated the application of God’s word is to our modern world, or not giving enough attention to related aspects of Christian theology, or not recognizing enough of the situational factors which bear upon the different uses of the law between Old Testament Israel and the New Covenant, etc. Some critics have thought that the argumentation in support of theonomic conclusions is too simplistic. What would I say to these kinds of remarks? Well, perhaps there is some truth to them; I certainly would not want to distort the precious truth of God by mishandling it in an incorrect or oversimplified fashion. But there is some satisfaction in knowing that for over a decade now, not one critic who has leveled this kind of charge has given any example of an overlooked, relevant factor which could not already be found in my writings or lectures. (There may still be some, of course.) Those who have suggested oversimplified reasoning have not pinpointed the fallacious logic or poorly conceived premises (as yet anyway).

These two different kinds of criticism have something in common: namely, neither one of these criticisms refutes the theonomic position, even if the criticisms turned out to be warranted.[14]That is, in the nature of the case, such criticisms do not undermine the truth of the basic theses of theonomic ethics. They simply show that there is more to say about the subject or that it should be given less emphasis. And that is fine. I would simply insist that we say as much as theonomy maintains, when (and where) it is appropriate to deal with God’s law or the subject of the civil magistrate.

Is the Appeal to God’s Immutability Simplistic?

The theonomic approach to ethics has been thought to be too simplistic when it appeals to the immutability of God’s character as proof that the law of God, which reveals that character, is unchanging in its validity. For instance, John Frame writes: “if God’s unchangeability is compatible with changes in the applicability of ceremonial laws, as it is for Bahnsen, why may it not also be compatible with such changes among the judicial laws?”[15]The answer is clear. The only changes in God’s law which are indeed compatible with His unchanging moral character are those which He Himself has revealed. Theonomists find such changes revealed in Scripture regarding the ceremonial laws, whereas theonomic critics do not adduce such Biblical grounding for the changes they propose in the judicial laws.

Moreover, it should not be thought that theonomists move simply from the immutability of God to a definite conclusion about the validity of any particular law without giving consideration to relevant Biblical teaching that might affect the use or application of that law. (That would be a simplistic understanding of theonomy!) We move from the theological premise, giving a presumption of continuing validity, through Biblical exegesis to our applications—or at least we are supposed to! Finally, theonomists recognize (as some critics do not) that the immutability of God is not completely the same thing with respect to His essential character (which the moral law reflects on a creaturely level) and with respect to His eternal purposes or choices (reflected in the plan and accomplishment of redemption, and expressed in the foreshadows of ceremonial law, but realized in the substance which is Christ and His work on our behalf). Frame’s rhetorical question should not be taken as suggesting that there is no underlying rationale for distinguishing the character of judicial laws (presumed to have continuing validity) from that of ceremonial laws (expected to be modified in the course of redemptive history).[16]

Doug Chismar[17] considers the “case laws” (e.g., Exodus 21-22) of the Old Testament to pose some tremendous difficulty for upholding the immutability of God’s commands. These laws were expressed in terms of very specific, cultural details (e.g., goring ox, flying axehead, rooftop railing). Chismar wonders how theonomists can maintain the immutability, not only of the summary laws (e.g., love commands, the Decalogue), but also of these very specific case laws “despite apparent radical changes in application.” He finds the resolution of this problem, however, in my own teaching (and even quotes me). According to Chismar, the case laws epistemically “provide paradigm instantiations of the principles or summary laws. Only the principles, however, are morally binding for all times ….Thus we are not bound to put fences around our roofs today, but we may be bound to put them around our swimming pools.” Do the underlying principles illustrated by the case laws of the Old Testament explicate, qualify, and show us how to obey the more general commands of Scripture, as theonomists say? In his article Chismar admits that they do. They do not reduce simply to the more general commands (e.g., “love your neighbor”), but play a definitional role, illustrating the application of those commands, and thus helping generate new laws from the summary principles. This is just the theonomic position expressed in Chismar’s language.

Chismar correctly notes that there are “massive cultural/technological/geographical differences” between the society of Old Testament Israel and our own- differences which make the translation of Old Testament demands into contemporary applications a difficult and challenging task. Although the difficulty has sometimes been exaggerated, Chismar is right that there will even be some difficulty “in determining which principle is being instantiated” by specific case laws. But what Chismar has pointed out is not a unique hermeneutical problem for theonomic ethics. Such remarks apply to every effort to bring the ancient literature of the Bible (whether from the Mosaic, prophetic, or even New Testament periods) to bear upon our very different, modern age. Relativists insist that it is impossible. The alternative of abandoning God’s ancient, written revelation of His will in favor of modern wisdom may have greater simplicity, but it is treason against the King of heaven and earth. Let us not allow the difficulty of the task make us hesitant to give it our best, sanctified efforts.

The Schoolboy Error of “Direct” Application?

The editors, Barker and Godfrey, charge that theonomy “over-emphasizes the continuities and neglects many of the discontinuities between the Old Testament and our time.”[18] This kind of ambiguous and overgeneral remark is of little help. We are rarely told precisely what discontinuities the theonomist has actually overlooked or how exactly the continuities are overemphasized. A verbal standoff can be created by simply responding that no, rather, itis the case that non-theonomists overlook the continuities and overemphasize the discontinuities! It would be a whole lot more profitable for everybody if theologians (in general) got out of the habit of criticizing each other’s “emphasis” and paid constructive attention to the actual premises and conclusions advanced by each other.

Something which would make the job of theonomic critics much, much easier is if theonomists did not try to draw careful distinctions, qualifications, and detailed evaluations regarding their own basic tenets and the text of Scripture—or if they just did not believe (as they do) in a redemptive-historical reading of the Bible.[19](It would be hard to explain why they write such long and detailed books, though.) Vern Poythress acknowledges: “We do not merely assume that no changes can ever be entertained. Bahnsen instructs us to examine patiently the particular texts and warns us of the complexities involved.” Again: “Theonomy at its best takes considerable note of discontinuities introduced by redemptive history and in particular by the coming of Christ.”[20]

If theonomy can be portrayed as obtuse to these obvious complications in using the whole Bible for socio-political ethics today, it would be a very easy job for the critic to dismiss the position as simplistically appealing to the Old Testament and “directly” and thoughtlessly applying it to the modern scene.[21]For instance, Christopher J. H. Wright has misconceived and thus badly misrepresented the “theonomic” approach as calling for a “literal imitation of Israel” which simply lifts its ancient laws and transplants them into the vastly changed modern world.[22]It amazes me sometimes that some theonomic critics, especially those who have not done their reading, can just assume that they alone are bright enough to be conscious of situational changes which must be taken into account in the use of the Old Testament[23]—or are concerned to read the Old Testament in a “covenantal Christological” fashion.

Theonomists do not practice nor advocate anything like a “direct” move from the unchanging character of God, or the old covenant code, to modern law-codes. As Poythress notes, it is a mistake “to insist on straight-line continuity of application for all the Mosaic laws except those that are explicitly altered in the New Testament.”[24]The assumption of “direct” or “abstracted” application, though, is a linchpin in many arguments against theonomy, making the critic’s job an all-too-easy shortcut to serious interaction and analysis.

Otherworldly Criticisms

Some critics of the theonomic position seem (at first glance anyway) to hold that matters of socio-political morality ought to be of no concern to the Christian—that Christ’s kingdom does not concern temporal, material or external matters. They write that we should simply be strangers and pilgrims in this passing vain world, so that matters of evangelism and personal piety should occupy the Christian’s concern, not cultural and political affairs—as though true spirituality is purely otherworldly in character.[25] Given such premises, interest in the validity of the Old Testament civil laws is impertinent, seeing that God has not called us to reform our societies in the first place. Believers ought to be more heavenly-minded, interested in the church rather than the world.

Despite the intense rhetoric that often attends this kind of criticism, readers must realize that the critics cannot be taken at face value. In most cases, these same writers will turn around elsewhere and admit that, well yes, Christians cannot turn away completely from this world but must live responsibly and righteously with respect to cultural affairs too—thus reintroducing the relevance of theonomic ethics “through the back door” (as it were). It is hard to avoid the New Testament witness that holiness is supposed to characterize not only personal and ecclesiastical aspects of life, but rather “all manner of living” (1 Pet. 1:15), that God’s glory is to be pursued not only in home and church but also in “whatsoever you do” (1 Cor. 10:31). Christ calls His followers to be the salt “of the earth,” not merely in the church! In the end, the critics of theonomy do not renounce any and all Christian involvement in social affairs and political reform after all. At best, their complaint is with the “wrong emphasis” found in theonomic ethics, and at best this complaint is slippery and poorly conceived. We may readily grant that socio-political reconstruction has less urgency than personal spirituality or the church, but this does not bear whatsoever upon the truth or error of the theonomic standard for politics.

Theonomists do not, as theonomists anyway, diminish, under­value or obscure the surpassing importance of personal salvation, a pious walk with God, and the life of the church. We would not for a moment suggest that the New Testament message of the accomplishment and application of redemption to God’s people by Jesus Christ—with a view to the individual’s standing before God and his eternal destiny—is of secondary importance or merely a means for getting to what is “really” important, namely social transformation. We cry out with Paul: “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world” (Galatians 6:14).

This-worldly Criticisms

The thesis of theonomic ethics is not logically tied to any particular school of millennial eschatology. Accordingly, the article by Richard Gaffin in the recent book by the Westminster Seminary faculty opened with a conceptual faux pas by stating in its first sentence: “Essential to the emergence of theonomy . . . has been a revival of postmillennialism.”[26]He adds the equally inaccurate remark that postmillennialism “is plainly integral” to the position, whether logically or psychologically. These claims are factually mistaken. Dr. Clair Davis [Gaffin’s fellow-critic] offers this corrective: “One does not need to share an ‘optimistic’ postmillennial perspective to see the value in theonomy.”[27]Critics trip themselves up by confusing the question of what ought to take place in the world (ethics) with the question of what will in fact take place in the world (eschatology).

Millennial critics (like Gaffin) often make a further mistake by unfairly representing the theonomic and/or postmillennial position as forgetting the theology of the cross and—in “triumphalist” notes of progress or victory—obscuring or removing the constitutive dimension of suffering from the present triumph of the church. The question is not whether the people of God shall suffer in this age (or a time when the ruling powers are more favorable to a Biblical perspective). The questions are rather: (1) do our inevitable sufferings issue in greater or lesser manifestation of Christ’s saving rule on earth, breaking the power of sin, and (2) do our inevitable sufferings as obedient followers of the Messiah deter us from striving to persuade men and societies to submit to His rule (and rules)? Scripture teaches us that our laboring is not in vain and that tribulation is not incompatible with greater manifestation of Christ’s saving dominion. Scripture teaches us that persecution and hardship are no obstacles to the commission that we teach the nations to obey all that Christ has commanded. I do not see how any legitimate charge of triumphalism can be laid at our feet for believing these Biblical truths.

Nevertheless, this sloganized, ambiguous criticism continues. Indeed, the threat of triumphalism in many forms seems to be the unifying concern of the recent book written about theonomic ethics by the faculty of Westminster Seminary. The editors offer this commentary: “Even to some sympathetic observers of theonomy the most troubling aspect of the movement, besides its application of the penal sanctions of the Old Testament judicial law, is the triumphalist tone of much of its rhetoric.”[28]Connected with this is a concern of a few authors that theonomists might be too dogmatic in making their case.[29]Such cautions are well-meant and should be taken to heart by theonomists (cf. Rom. 2:17-20). We all have much to learn, and nobody has all the right answers, to be sure. On the other hand, we must not portray the task God has given us as overly difficult and virtually impossible to do. My admonition is against a kind of functional agnosticism that easily becomes the theologian’s (and seminarian’s) self-inflicted paralysis. We do not want to suggest that the Great Commission is really too great to carry out by the church! So let’s not overstate the case for caution and teachability, and let’s not become disobedient to the task Christ has given His people to do in this world out of concern for a pseudo-danger called “triumphalism” (cf. Rev. 2:26; Matt. 16:18).

Finally, it can hardly be a well-reasoned criticism of theonomic ethics that some “potentially dangerous ideas” could arise from following the holy laws of God in Scripture. We live in a fallen world where adherents of any and every political philosophy (including attempted Biblical ones) will err in carrying out their ideals. That being the case, it only makes sense to err on the side of the angels, starting with the best (indeed, infallible) ideals available to men—the revealed laws of God! Just imagine what “potentially” (no, actually!) dangerous ideas have stemmed from not following God’s law, but rather the human speculations found in worldly philosophers and politicians. The world is a dangerous place—too dangerous for human authorities (or their theoreticians) not to be restrained and regulated by the justice of God’s laws.

(Read the rest.)

Notes:

 

[9] Gary Long, “Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal,” presented to a Baptist Council in 1980, serialized in Sword and Trowel (1980-81), and published by Backus Books of Rochester, New York; Dager, p. 200.

[10] Dominion Theology, pp. 335, 339, 340, 341, 342, 344, 349-350, 356, 374-375, 377, 388, 390.

[11] God’s Righteous Kingdom (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), pp. 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 47, 54, 87, 100, 123.

[12] Meredith G. Kline, “Comments on an Old-New Error,” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. XLI, No. 1 (Fall, 1978), p. 173.

[13] In the “Foreword” to Gary DeMar’s book, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction (Atlanta: American Vision Press, 1988), pp. xiv-xv, the occasion was afforded for me to issue a moral admonition to fellow-believers about the extensive maligning and false claims which were being made concerning the theonomic (reconstructionist) school of thought. It bears reading at this point.

[14] This is repeatedly the case in a recent “critique” of theonomy by certain faculty members at Westminster Theological Seminary. Readers have been given the impression that Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, is a decisive refutation of the theonomic position. Advertisements say that they have “written the book” (the book, not “a book”) on the subject of theonomy. However, much of the book is given to questions of emphasis in Biblical theology, cautions against simplistic hermeneutics, or exhortations that all parties not be lazy but do their difficult homework in properly interpreting and applying the Old Testament law today (e.g., articles by Frame, Poythress) -all of which may be well and good, without demonstrating whatsoever that the distinctive tenets of theonomic ethics are objectively mistaken. The “critique” turns out to be of certain possible dangers that could arise from the position, not of theonomy as a theological position as such. After warning that theonomists (and intrusionists of the Kline-variety) should not be satisfied with their “initial impressions” of a particular text but understand the “whole warp and woof of God’s revelation,” Poythress recognizes that, nevertheless, the theonomic reading of Scripture may be “true as far as [it] goes” (p. 119).

[15] John Frame, “The One, the Many, and Theonomy,” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, p. 90.

[16] House and Ice, chapter 5, have also demurred at the theonomic argument from God’s unchanging moral character. But an analysis of their reasoning reveals that they have only tripped themselves up through lack of conceptual clarity, equivo­ cation over the use of the word “law,” and misrepresentation of the theonomic viewpoint. They declare: “the idea that the unchangeableness of God requires that the specific details of the Mosaic code be transferred to all times and cultures simply does not follow.” But of course theonomists do not argue for transferring “the specific details” of the Mosaic code to all other cultures (e.g., the specific detail of rooftop railings is not relevant to much of modern American culture). For my analysis of the equivocations and contradiction in the position of House and Ice, see House Divided, chapter 6, where among other things I note their tendency to slide from the theologi­ cal concept of God’s essential character to the logically different concept of God’s eternal purposes. The presumption of continuing and universal validity for the moral provisions (underlying demands, not specific cultural details) of God’s law does indeed “follow” from their reflection of His essential and unchangeable character.

The same problem undermines Lightner’s criticism. He says: “The problem, however, with theonomy is that it makes God’s immutability to be immobility” (Robert P. Lightner, “A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 143 Uuly-Sept., 1986], p. 231). This is a linguistic muddle. (We are supposed to believe that God does not “change” but He does “move”?) Lightner goes on to ask, “Why does it follow that since God is unchanging in His essence, He cannot deal differently with His creatures at different times?” The answer should have been obvious. If the two different moral standards both reflect the essence of God, then either God’s essence has an inner contradiction (between one standard and the other), or God’s essence changes (from one standard to the other). Lightner has not sufficiently grappled with the philosophical and theological problem inherent in his dispensational ism.

[17] I pursued the argument from God’s immutability in a lecture delivered at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Toronto in 1981. (A tape of the lecture is available from Covenant Tape Ministry, 24198 Ash Court, Auburn, CA 95603.) Doug Chismar subsequently offered a critique of this line of thought (Douglas E. Chismar and David A. Rausch, “Concerning Theonomy: An Essay of Concern,” Journal ojthe Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 27, no. 3 [Sept., 1984], pp. 315-323). My response to Chismar can be found in “Should We Uphold Unchanging Moral Absolutes?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 28, no. 3 (September, 1985), pp. 309-315.

[18] “Preface” to Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, p. 11.

[19] John Muether, p. 251, tries (simplistically) to dismiss the theonomic outlook for its alleged “unwillingness to make important redemptive-historical distinctions.” He offers no argumentation to support that judgment and gives no indication of what important distinctions theonomists miss from scripture. Likewise, Tremper Longman claims: “Theonomy tends to grossly overemphasize continuity to the point of being virtually blind to discontinuity” (“God’s Law and Mosaic Punishments Today,” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, p. 49). “Virtually blind” to discontinuity? Longman does not tell us just exactly what he sees that is relevant to refuting the theonomic approach, but which theonomists blindly overlook. Longman’s co-author, Dennis Johnson, readily enough corrects this accusation of gross blindness: “Both theonomists and their critics acknowledge continuity and discontinuity between the old covenant and the new…. No theonomist of whom I am aware actually contends that the law’s applicability remained utterly unchanged by the coming of Christ. . . . So the difference between theonomists and non-theonomists is not that one group sees nothing but continuity between the Mosaic order and the new covenant, while the other sees nothing but discontinuity” (“The Epistle to the Hebrews and The Mosaic Penal Sanctions,” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, pp. 172, 173). Johnson easily offers a number of such important discontinuities spoken of in my writings.

[20] “Effects of Interpretive Frameworks on the Application of Old Testament Law,” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, pp. 121, 109. The article by Poythress is not intended as a refutation or critique of the theonomic position itself “in its best form” and calls for no further response.

[21] At two critical junctures in his polemic against theonomic ethics, Dan Mc­ Cartney tries to distinguish himself from his opponents by suggesting that they, unlike himself, want to apply the Old Testament case law or civil law “directly” (“The New Testament Use of the Pentateuch: Implications for the Theonomic Movement,” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, pp. 146, 148). In backing away from the impression his anti-theonomic comments have made, he says for instance: “This is not to say that Old Testament law does not apply to unbelievers”- yet it must not be forgotten: “but only that it does so very indirectly” (p. 148, emphasis mine). The “direct” and “indirect” polemic is a pointless begging of the question, since the terms have no predictable meaning or application. Whatever McCartney does with the Old Testament law will count to him as “indirect,” but surely whatever his theonomic opponents are doing must be the dreaded “direct” use. James Skillen’s overworked and ambiguous criticism of theonomy is that it makes a “direct” move from the character of God, or the Old Covenant code, or Il.rael’s ancient state to modern politics (The Scattered Voice [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], pp. 171, 172, 174, 177, 178).

[22] “The Use of the Bible in Social Ethics: Paradigms, Types and Eschatology,” Transformation, vol. 1, no. 1 Qanuary/March, 1984), p. 17.

[23] For instance, Bruce Waltke chides theonomists: “Similarities between Israel’s anointed kings and uncircumcised pagan kings do not establish their equivalence. One must also note the many dissimilarities between these kings” (“Theonomy in Relation to Dispensational and Covenant Theologies,” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, p. 83)- as though theonomists do not see those dissimilarities! Well then, what specific dissimilarities do these simple-minded theonomists actually overlook? Waltke offers only one (only one!) illustration, the dissimilarity that Israel had special principles to observe for holy war- precisely a leading illustration of uniqueness which is pointed out right in theonomic literature!

[24] Poythress, p. 105. He correctly observes that in some cases where the obser­ vance of Old Testament commands is modified or set aside, the affected law is “never explicitly altered in the New Testament” (pp. 105-106), thus reminding us to use sophisticated hermeneutical (and theological) principles of interpretation rather than “strict wooden” ones. It must be noted as well, however, that there is a world of difference between altering an Old Testament command on the basis of some specific and textually based line of theological reasoning and altering an Old Testament command with no textual tether whatsoever in one’s reasoning (and just a meat cleaver dismissal of Old Testament civil commands as a whole). Theonomy calls for the control principle of what the Biblical text actually says (“ex-plicit”) rather than interpretative frameworks imposed upon the text from outside. The way in which the Biblical text publicly teaches alteration in an Old Testament command, however, need not be by means of explicit enumeration, flagging, or direct comment.

[25] E.g., Chantry, pp. 15, 16, 18, 20-21, 27, 51, 59, 62; Neilson, pp. 19-20; Dan McCartney, Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, pp. 142, 148; Dager, pp. 175, 189; Peter Masters, “World Dominion: The High Ambition of Reconstructionism,” Sword & Trowel (May 24, 1990), pp. 16, 18-19.

[26] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Post­ millennialism,” Theorwmy: A Reformed Critique, p. 197. The same error is made by Robert P. Lightner, “Theonomy and Dispensationalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 143 Uan-March, 1986), pp. 30-31, 142-143; House and Ice, p. 9; Meredith G. Kline, pp. 172-173; Lewis Neilson, where one-fifth of his booklet is actually directed against postmillennialism.

[27] D. Clair Davis, “A Challenge to Theonomy,” Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, p. 391. Davis also corrects another misunderstanding which arises in Gaffin’s article when Davis comments: “Is it impossible to harmonize the theonomic vision of a biblical society and the New Testament picture of a persecuted church? Not necessar­ ily.” Although I expressed my own postmillennial convictions in Theonomy (pp. 191-193, 424-425, 428-429, 432, 486), I also indicate that even premillennial futurists can agree with the ethical point being made (e.g., p. 397).

[28] Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, p. 193. The title of section 4 is “Theonomy and Triumphalist Dangers,” but the whole book is permeated with this theme. The spirit of it all is captured by Bruce Waltke’s plea: “May the church boast in its weakness, not in its might!” (p. 85). Of course, one must be careful not to run to the opposite extreme from triumphalism and seek a kind of spiritual and social masochism for the church!

[29] E.g., the editors, p. 10; Poythress, pp. 117, 123; Frame, p. 99; Johnson, pp. 172, 191. Davis cautions theonomists against portraying their own perspectives as “the only correct ones” in the church; he reminds them of “political ambiguity” in this world (chapter 16).

Categories: Worldview

Ed Stetzer versus the real men of Issachar

Mon, 10/13/2014 - 11:02

I have to confess, I struggle with anger when I read certain posts, especially when they come from men who have as much profile and influence and Ed Stetzer. This latest prophecy of doom, complacency, cultural withdraw and surrender is disguised as a statistically-informed cultural analysis topped with a call for Christians to grow “more committed,” “get stronger,” and have “real hope.”

Stetzer’s piece is a confused ruse of a prophecy that accomplishes three things: 1) it demands Christians give up on social activism and withdraw from influencing law, government, or political activism; 2) it ironically assures the same Christians they are the salt and light of the world around them; 3) it speaks authoritatively that all these things “will” happen in the future.

The main thrust is a demand for withdrawal (which in reality is a call for most of his readers to maintain their status quo). As with most calls of this nature from evangelicals and fundamentalists of this nature, there is enough caveat in the article to deny this charge. He does say, after all, things like this:

I desire for the church and Christians to be examining the Scriptures daily to know the Word of God and also to know the times, the context, and the Spirit’s wisdom to address the culture with the Good News.

Likewise he suggests we should “be more focused on protecting religious liberty.” Doesn’t this all mean we should not withdraw from society? Ostensibly, it could be interpreted that way; but I believe this is little more than plausible deniability.

Why attribute that? Because the whole thrust of the piece is that “Christian influence on culture will begin to wane.” He repeats this phrase more than once. He argues that Christianity once influenced culture in such a way that even the large number of “nominal Christians”—Christians in name only—nevertheless identified themselves as Christians, but this is no longer the case. A growing number of Christians-in-name-only are now revealing their true colors: answering “none of the above” on religious surveys. With this development, allegedly Christian influence will wane.

But then he says what he really means by this:

As the Nones rise in their number, Christian influence on culture will begin to wane. The minority of Christians in a culture will begin to feel even more like a minority when more nominals become Nones. As people no longer claim to be Christians, Christianity will be further marginalized, which should change the way we think about engaging culture. . . .

Those who aggressively fight this as a culture war will find it hard to reach people. . . .

As I see it, some Christians will go down fighting. Other Christians, will go on loving. But either way, convictional Christians will increasingly see they are not the moral majority and will advocate less for the legislation or traditional values and be more focused on protecting religious liberty.

Here are the notes of the swan song of pessimism. If you continue to fight this “culture war,” you will go down fighting. In other words, “prepare for defeat.” And since we are not the majority, we must stop advocating for legislation. We must preach to society about traditional values (i.e. biblical values). Instead, we must merely protect religious liberty.

Here is what this means: surrender the institutions of society to pagan masters, then turn around and plead with those masters to let us practice our faith freely in quiet. Part of such a bargain will be a promise on our part that we will not advocate for any legislation or social values based upon our now-quieted and marginalized religion.

So while there is some language in here that could be construed as a call for standing for the faith in the public square, it is really denuded and qualified by a larger agenda that wants Christians out of legislation and declares surrender in culture.

But here’s why I say this piece is so confused. With small, regional exceptions, convictional Christians have never been the majority. Not even at the high points of American “Christian” history was the majority of the population composed of such convictional Christians as defined here. In all of western history and the heights of Christendom, the majority of the population has always been closer to nominal Christian, if not merely nominal, than convictional. And yet there was never an emergency or need to withdraw from legislation and government, and to focus inwardly.

And what extra good does it do for society to have such a surplus of Christians in name only? Do Christians in name only vote like convictional Christians? Do they uphold biblical values and advocate biblical law? No. And they rarely ever have. Why not? Because they were never Christians. They are Christians in name only—not in worldview. So why all the alarm over a change in the trend of self-identification among people who were non-Christians to begin with?

But worse yet, these pietistic Christians whom Stetzer is calling the true believers, convictional Christians, have rarely been convictional in any sense that made lasting impact on the culture or worldview either. And they will probably not do so in the future. Yet these are the ones—as opposed to those “aggressively fight this as a culture war”—that Stetzer hopes will “stand for the good, advocate for cultural realities that engender human flourishing, and do so in a loving way” (that is, of course, without defining what any of these platitudes means).

But think about it for a moment: Stetzer mourns that a “collapse of nominalism” is evidenced by “no religious preference” responses from college students rising as high as 30 percent recently. But whose children do you think these are? Where did they come from? If we had so much Christian influence in culture in the past, who did we produce a generation of students like this? At least someone of them are the lapsed children of so-called “convictional” Christians, who turned their children over to pagans. They are children whose parents were never really convictional enough to pull them out of government schools that years ago abandoned Christian worldview. These parents and grandparents were never convictional enough to create alternatives of the growth of pagan institutions in society since, say, 1965, let alone 1935 or 1913—all of which institutions these parents depend upon and refuse to change themselves.

The wane of Christian influence in society has been the result of the pietism of the parents and pulpits upon which Ed Stetzer is now pinning the last hopes of the Christian future. These people were never culturally convictional to begin with. They were never salt and light to begin with.

And that’s why I say this whole piece is a ruse. All Stetzer is doing here is confirming, once again, the tenets of eschatology held by the majority of these evangelicals and fundamentalists: gloom and doom, the waning of Christian influence in society, the withdrawal of Christians from the public square, the increase of pagan dominion, and the retreat of Christians into private devotion with their tail between their legs.

And make no mistake, this is indeed eschatologically driven, even if not backed by the classic references of Scripture. The language throughout is not “may” or “could,” it is “will.” In Stetzer’s mind, all of his predictions “will” happen indeed. This is not the language of studied opinion or even scholarly statistics. This is the language of prophecy.

I just so happen to think it is both confused and dangerous to speak like this, although it probably soothes many consciences of Christians dedicated to their own complacency or fear. But it is certainly confused, especially when at the end he attempts to reverse the language he had already used throughout. In the future, he concludes, Christians

will either become a cultural church that allows the societal trends to dictate their ever-changing beliefs. Or they will become a counter-cultural church that faithfully adheres to Scripture and proclaims the gospel in a carefully considered way.

It is the latter on whom he pins the future. But note the change in description. The latter are the retreatists and defeatists culturally that he has been describing. The first group is those that insist on activism in law and government. But this group he describes as allowing societal trends to dictate their beliefs. Ha! The other retreatists and private-only-religion types he calls “counter-cultural” which “faithfully adheres to Scripture.” I think he’s got a few things backward, or is at least leaving out a few key elements.

There is indeed something left out: those who wish to remain faithful to Scripture must indeed find themselves upholding biblical law as societal norms (even if unpopular, as it has almost always been to some degree). Christians who engage—and indeed find it necessary as Christians to do so—in political activism and the public square need not necessarily be guilty of allowing society to dictate their “ever-changing beliefs”—nonsense! We are the ones doing just the opposite: standing for biblical law when the rest of the Christian world is running from the battle, or compromising their beliefs to support neoconservative nonsense at home and abroad.

And on the contrary, it is the Ed Stetzers of the world that are auguring the tea leaves of current events and fashioning their response in kind. For all the talk of standing firm and real hope in this piece, there is no hope except in following the alleged retreat that his reading of society dictates for us.

And that, I believe, is the subtext of this whole piece. Whether consciously or unconsciously, it is designed to keep Christians at bay, out of social influence, and assured that their complacent and pagan-dominated lifestyle, and lack of concern to change it, is the fulfillment of being salt and light.

I just preached this weekend on David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 23:8–39). One of the outstanding features of that group is that they stood and fought even when the rest of the nation fled. Of Eleazar it says:

He was with David when they defied the Philistines who were gathered there for battle, and the men of Israel withdrew. He rose and struck down the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clung to the sword. And the Lord brought about a great victory that day, and the men returned after him only to strip the slain.

Of Shammah, it says similarly:

The Philistines gathered together at Lehi, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils, and the men fled from the Philistines. But he took his stand in the midst of the plot and defended it and struck down the Philistines, and the Lord worked a great victory.

Even if it were the case that the pagans were going to take over, we must be like Eleazar who stood and fought when everyone else fled. We must be like Shammah, and stand alone, fighting even for the smallest things of society—a patch of beans.

And it is here that Stetzer is misguided even on Scripture. In the midst of his view of a cultural retreat, he calls us to be like the men of Issachar, “who understand the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron. 12:32). I have heard this example used countless times, but have never heard the context given as part of the example. Read the context beginning in 1 Chron. 12:23: it was not about retreat from culture; it was not about surviving hostility and persecution; it was about influencing the government and putting David on the throne. Remember, Israel and Judah were divided after Saul died. David had his hands full cleaning up the political mess. Issachar was part of Israel, not Judah. Their kinsmen in the northern ten tribes were averse to David and in part openly hostile—there was a rival throne under Ishbaal, Saul’s son. But these men of Issachar knew that for the advance of the kingdom ofGod, they must stand against the popular trend and support David, support unification under the Davidic throne.

So I would agree with Ed on this point: we should indeed be like the men of Issachar. In the midst of a society of men who think we should turn and retreat, fight at best a rear-guard action, remain separate from the world, or live out the status quo, we should instead stand up and support the Davidic Throne: occupied by king Jesus; and we should pronounce his rule and reign among our society, and we should persuade them to join the nation under that throne, just as the men of Issachar did.

Categories: Worldview

Good cop shows charity is better than coercion

Fri, 10/10/2014 - 08:19

File this one under “random acts of kindness.” An Emmett Township, Michigan, police officer demonstrates the road to a free society: charity, not coercion.

On a routine traffic stop, Officer Ben Hall noticed a 5-year-old passenger was not in a child restraint. Her mother knew she was breaking the law, but she explained she simply could not afford to buy a car seat at the moment. What happened next was a big surprise:

“When I spoke to [DeLorenzo], she was very forthcoming and knew that the child should be in a booster seat,” Officer Hall told FOX 17 News. “She admitted that she was wrong and that she had recently fallen on hard times.”

Instead of ticketing DeLorenzo, Officer Hall told her to meet him at a nearby Walmart so he could buy a booster seat for her daughter.

“It was the easiest 50 bucks I ever spent,” said Officer Hall. “It’s something that anybody in the same position, in our position, would do.”

Hall explained, “I was in a spot where I could help her.”

It is not told whether Mr. Hall is Christian or not, but his actions are a good example of the teaching of Scripture:

Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it”—when you have it with you (Prov. 3:27–28).

Hall added what should be obvious to everyone: “A ticket doesn’t solve the situation. What solves it is the child being in the booster seat like she should be.”

These two ideas together give us a glimpse of the scriptural view of a free society: coercion doesn’t solve the situation; charity solves the situation.

Confrontations, fines, bullying, threats, inquisitions, searches, detentions, invasions, confiscations, surveillance—all of which can be summarized under the headings of legalized violence and theft—do not solve the vast majority of problems pervading society, yet which are found criminal in various ways and details, and penalized every day.

This traffic stop could have easily ended with a fine or worse. Perhaps CPS could even have been alerted and further problems created for the mother. All kinds of anguish and oppression could have resulted—according to the law—and any afflicting agent could have walked away assuring him- or herself they had upheld the common good of society. Yet it would have been evil and unnecessarily so.

And the truth is that just about anyone, anytime can be the victim of such a scenario. If it’s not child restraint laws, it can be any of a myriad of moving or non-moving violations—and that’s just the traffic code. There are a thousand other sections of code that can get you.

As the detective in this now-famous lecture explains, you are guilty of something:

Are any of you guilty of anything? How many of you drove here today? Anybody go above 55 on the interstate? Anybody driving home and go above 55 on the interstate? . . .

Everybody does something they can get in trouble for. . . . When I was a police officer, a uniform, I could follow a car however long I needed to, and eventually they’re going to do something illegal, and I can pull them over—and justifiably illegal to pull them over.

This is not good; this is an evil. Our legal system is not a safeguard of liberty, but a complex and inescapable revenue-generation system designed in part to keep its agents funded by the revenue it generates. A modicum of true criminal justice remains within it almost as a byproduct, but average people live under constant threat, fear, and coercion at every moment as well.

What happened in this case, however, was a good and not an evil. Someone, perhaps even underserving, perhaps even justifiably illegal, was in need, and another person was in a position to do good. That person was an armed agent of the system who could have, justifiably, imposed further affliction, but he did rightly. He withheld the evil and did not withhold the good.

Now, if we can follow Gary DeMar’s suggestion—which is the way of biblical law—and find a way to run the entire system of justice on voluntary payments instead of coerced taxes, we would truly be on the path to a free society. DeMar writes,

Police and fire protection could be financed through a service fee, similar to insurance premiums. . . . A fund could be established by neighborhood charity agencies and church groups to help those unable to pay the fee (God and Government, 2012, pp. 324, 326).

When we begin to think like this once again, we can make some progress and solve situations. Officer Hall’s act of kindness is a small step in that direction, and a small ray of light pointing to a better path that begs us to walk it, if we only will.

Categories: Worldview

Good news: vast majority oppose civil forfeiture laws

Thu, 10/09/2014 - 11:36

There is some good news for the future of civil liberties if Americans can somehow find a way to get their legislators and elected law enforcement to manifest their own esteem for constitutional law. The first piece, however, is in place: a new Rasmussen poll reveals that 70 percent of Americans oppose the legalized theft known as civil forfeiture laws.

According to Rasmussen’s report, “Americans strongly believe someone needs to be convicted of a crime before their property can be seized, even though that’s contrary to current federal law and police practice.”

Many people are not aware of the current law. Of those who do, many are persuaded by surface-level arguments about fighting crime, drugs, etc. They don’t know how directly unconstitutional and unbiblical such laws actually are. Current law is described simply and accurately enough by the Wikipedia entry on “Asset forfeiture.” Read carefully:

Federal civil forfeiture cases usually start with a seizure of property followed by the mailing of a notice of seizure from the seizing agency (generally the DEA of FBI) to the owner. The owner then has 35 days to file a claim with the seizing agency. The owner must file this claim in order to later protect his property in court. Once the claim is file[d] with the agency, the U.S. Attorney has 90 days to review the claim and to file a civil complaint in U.S. District Court. The owner then has 30 days to file a judicial claim in court asserting his ownership interest. Within 20 days of filing the judicial claim, the owner must also file an answer denying the allegations in the complaint. Once done, the forfeiture case is fully litigated in court.

In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; it is possible for the Government to prevail by proving that someone other than the owner used the property to commit a crime.

Interpretation:

1) Police can seize your property without charging (let alone convicting) you with a crime.

2) Your property itself is then considered the property of the agency that seized it.

3) In order even to have a chance at regaining your property, you must file three separate claims, meeting separate deadlines, satisfying separate agencies or courts.

4) Any of the claims can be denied or rejected by the reviewing agency or court. This will complicate the process, and in some cases end it, leaving you without remedy.

5) In the first case, the reviewing agency is also the agency that now owns the property and will keep it if it prevails. This is a conflict of interest.

6) The third claim must prove the innocence of your property, so to speak, which has already been considered guilty and seized, in a court of law.

7) Even if you are personally innocent, you may still not get your property back.

A while back, Reason.com wrote a good exposé on the schemes:

Over the past three decades, it has become routine in the United States for state, local, and federal governments to seize the property of people who were never even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Nearly every year, according to Justice Department statistics, the federal government sets new records for asset forfeiture.

But it’s not just the Feds:

[U]nder many state laws, the situation is even worse: State officials can seize property without a warrant and need only show “probable cause” that the booty was connected to a drug crime in order to keep it, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, owners of seized property all too often have a heavier burden of proof than the government officials who stole their stuff.

(The Economist also has a good piece.)

Local officials, especially police and sheriff’s departments, profit enormously from this practice. I know one gentleman on a committee for one of the major political parties. He told me they were to discuss in one particular meeting a resolution regarding a very minor reform to civil asset forfeiture laws—merely to bring oversight to how law enforcement agencies must report seized revenue to the state. And this was just a resolution—it had no direct bearing on even the party platform, let alone any law. It is during this time, before such a meeting, that concerned partisans can voice their support or opposition to influence committee members’ vote—much like calling you representatives. Before this particular meeting, the only person to contact him in opposition to this resolution was . . . wait for it . . . his local sheriff.

Reason tells us why:

Municipalities have come to rely on confiscated property for revenue. Police and prosecutors use forfeiture proceeds to fund not only general operations but junkets, parties, and swank office equipment. A cottage industry has sprung up to offer law enforcement agencies instruction on how to take and keep property more efficiently.

The main point here is that departments grow dependent upon the increased revenue. Grants and revenues put more officers on the streets, buy new equipment, new tools and new toys, etc. But then the budget for these new boots comes due next year: the chief or sheriff has to keep the money coming in to support this massive force—and the massive force is necessary, after all, because we’re fighting crime. You don’t want a sheriff soft on crime do you? You don’t want the liberals to report increased crime statistics and capture your local offices do you? So the civil forfeiture continues, in the words of Papa Bush, “to put more cops on the streets.”

But here’s the problem: if the laws are tyrannical specifically regarding cops confiscating property; if those cops have a strong financial incentive to confiscate property (else they lose their jobs); indeed, if those cops’ very livelihood is predicated upon continuance of confiscating property even from innocent people—i.e., tyranny; then the only logical outcome in this scheme is that “more cops” equals more tyranny.

In short, if the laws are unconstitutional, then more law enforcement means more trampling of the constitution. And that can only mean innocent people will suffer.

And when the increased revenue also goes to fund “junkets, parties, and swank office equipment,” then we’re on the road to Versailles—our elected representatives have become our feudal overlords and monarchical masters who will rob and plunder us so they can have pretty fountains and balls.

The good news, however, is that the plundered masses aren’t stupid. We know when we’re being raked and shaken down. We know at least the basics of our common rights. As the poll report states:

After all, 84% of American Adults agree with the basic principle of criminal justice in this country that even someone charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% think someone is guilty until proven innocent.

Perhaps it’s appalling that even 11 percent think people charged are guilty until proven innocent (though I’d like to see a correlation between that 11 percent and the percentage of respondents employed by the government, or paid as its agents). Nevertheless, I’ll take the 84 percent any day.

Now the hard part: how to get legislators to listen to the vast majority of their constituents, and law enforcement to comply with better laws—or better yet, to resist the temptation as it is now.

Categories: Worldview

Former sheriff, SWAT man, leads charge against police abuse

Wed, 10/08/2014 - 09:58

As sheriff of Davis County, Utah in the 1970s, William “Dub” Lawrence required every officer and deputy he swore in to take an oath “to respect the constitutional rights of all persons.” He also joined a growing trend at the time, and swore in four of those officers as what would become one of Utah’s first SWAT teams in 1975. “We saw what was happening in Los Angeles at the time,” Lawrence recalled, “We thought we needed something similar if we ever had to face down a shooter, or someone who had taken hostages.” Little did he realize what a monster he had created.

Last week, the same William Lawrence stood before a few hundred people rallying on the steps of the Courthouse in Salt Lake City— against police abuse and crime. He told the attendees, “I’ve been in this struggle since September 22, 2008.”

That was the date that, as Lawrence confesses, “My son-in-law was killed by the SWAT team that I founded in 1975.”

That son-in-law was Brian Wood. Radley Balko reports that Lawrence “watched helplessly as the same SWAT team he helped create over 30 years earlier shot and killed Brian Wood, his 36-year-old son-in-law.”

It was no simple shooting. Wood, who had a history of mental illness, had called-in a false report to 911, then locked himself, armed, inside his pickup truck. William Grigg details,

SWAT operators used chemical weapons to force Wood from the pickup truck in which he had taken refuge, then treated him to a barrage of rubber bullets, projectile bean bags, and pepper-spray rounds, in addition to tear gas and flash-bang grenades. While Wood was prone and helpless, he was shot with a Taser at least eight times by one officer, and an unknown number of times by a second — before being shot at point-blank range by another officer wielding a .308-caliber rifle.

One witness described the onslaught as “horrible — just like someone tormenting an animal in a cage.”

Lawrence was shocked, but jerked to reality: “I told my family, I said, ‘These guys are well-trained. You can trust them to talk him down.’ . . .  I then had to explain to my daughter why this team I helped create — had just told her to trust — had just killed her husband.”

Lawrence had to do a lot of thinking, soul searching, and a lot of homework. He now heads up a movement in Utah to make a difference. He leads legislators and activists to restrict the use of SWAT teams, and to bring transparency to police departments and accountability of officials before the law.

In his speech last week, Lawrence noted that a large part of the problem lies in inequality before the law—a basic failure of what America is all about: “The world has changed since the 70s. The laws have changed since the 70s.” “It’s the laws that have been passed,” he added. By this he means mainly, laws that allow special privileges and immunities for police officers. He explained,

The department’s protocol has, built into it, protections for law enforcement. For example, you as a citizen, when you’re interrogated, if you tell a lie, you’re held accountable criminally. A police officer can lie. If you’re interrogated, the information you use can be used against you even though it was obtained unconstitutionally.

If a police officer is involved in a shooting death, he has 24 hours—he does not have to give a statement for 24 hours. . . .

Police officers can lie, entrap; they can break the law, they can use drugs, they can do most anything that’s illegal, entrap others and prosecute them, and they are not prosecuted. . . .

It’s inequality under the law. . . . Police officers are protected by governmental immunity. Police unions and lobbyists have gotten many laws into place to give them special privileged immunity that you don’t have as a citizen.

He summarized: “We need equality under the law,” and this means for police officers and government officials, too. “We need to challenge immunity for anybody because we are equal under the law.”

A second and more daunting problem Lawrence noted aligns with my work on the executive power in Restoring America: the special privileges afforded from the national level on down due to war powers and emergency powers. You think you have constitutional rights? Think again, Lawrence says: “You declare war, you can forget the constitution. That’s the basic fundamental problem in our society.” With the “War on Terror,” the “War on Drugs,” the “War on . . .” fill-in-the-blank, governments can do nearly anything they wish. Citizens remain ignorant, bullied, and terrified as their rights are stripped slowly away.

Grigg’s conclusions are more pessimistic than I would draw. He states that “in recent decades law enforcement officers have been marinated in the conceit that they are a caste apart from, and superior to, the population they supposedly serve.” As such he believes that Lawrence’s speech “offered a detailed and compelling indictment of the system we now endure, and the privileged dispensers of violence that defend it.” He sees little if any hope of change through electoral politics, and does not believe with Lawrence in a preponderance of good officers or administrators left in the system.

A lot of pessimism and criticism is warranted in regard to law enforcement abuses. Nevertheless, we can still use electoral politics, and there are certainly footholds of conscience and principle among existing law enforcement personnel. But these are never ends in themselves, or meant to be stand-alone measures. Important and lasting social change can only come when there is a change of heart and will among people—enough to make themselves matter, make themselves care, and make themselves sacrifice for change.

If there is to be such change, a large part of it will need to come from Christians and conservatives who perennially seem to exalt all police work as sacrosanct by default, who help vaunt police yearly to the higher rankings of Gallup’s “Honesty/Ethics in Professions” and “Confidence in Institutions” surveys. While we should certainly not swing to utter disdain and pessimism, we should push for the goals people like Lawrence have highlighted: accountability and equality before the law. This will mean standing in opposition to police lobbies, unions, and brotherhoods on many issues.

And it will be important to cultivate the understanding that such a stand does not make one anti-police; rather, a principled stand for equal law and order makes on as pro-police as anyone should ever be. That is, they shall be in favor of law enforcement and peace officers to the extent that our God and our founding documents would have them.

While civil government is certainly here for our good and to punish evil (per Romans 13), it is not here to have special privileges to commit evil itself, and to trample the God-given rights in which we claim to believe, and which we have enshrined in our founding documents of civil government. Rather than protecting abuses and special immunities for systematically law-breaking and lying officials, Christians ought to be leading the charge against such crimes in our land.

 

Categories: Worldview

Restoring America – The Study Guide FREE

Tue, 10/07/2014 - 11:09

You can now download, for FREE, a complete Study Guide to my Restoring America One County at a Time.

This Study Guide was compiled by my friend Barry Sheets, the Executive Director of The Institute for Principled Policy. In conjunction with fellow friend and IPP officer Chuck Michaelis, Barry uses my book and this thorough Study Guide to direct his Institute on the Constitution course, which they hold regularly.

Last summer, I had the privilege of speaking at Chuck and Barry’s Camp American along with such stalwarts as Pastor David Whitney and Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America. Their camp is great, their faith is sound and solid, and their teaching is bold and excellent.

I encourage all of you who have a copy of Restoring America to partake a of a little of their contribution by downloading this Study Guide. You can use it in groups, Sunday Schools, home school curricula, and even for individual benefit.

It’s FREE, so get yours now.

Categories: Worldview

Isis Unveiled . . . and she ain’t pretty (or, how Christians should view New Age conspiracy theories)

Fri, 10/03/2014 - 11:10

Dr. Stanley Monteith died this week. Despite some important disagreements, particularly in eschatology and outlook, I used to listen to “Dr. Stan” regularly back in the day. His shows were always filled with conspiracy theory—some verifiable, some conjecture—and his guests were usually from the fringe, though not always. But anyone with a decent filter could learn a tremendous amount of important and insightful information, most of which they could not find in very many other places. Again, despite certain disagreements, I always enjoyed his show.

Dr. Stan was a tireless fighter against encroaching government, government cover-ups, and the like. His work centered mostly upon exposing the effort of a global elite to create a one-world-order, which is true. The best of his efforts are recorded in his book Brotherhood of Darkness. It is a quick read and is worth reading even if you disagree with parts of it.

Our most serious disagreement would have been over eschatology. There is no denying many of the facts Dr. Stan and his guests uncovered, and I believe there is in fact a tremendous move on the part of many world leaders to form a one-world-order, and I believe it has been inspired in part, or has at least been coopted in part, by New Age teaching. When people of this nature join forces with success, it can seem disconcerting. But if you are of a dispensational or premillennial understanding of the future, it can be downright frightening and disconcerting.

It is here that many of Dr. Stan’s guests over the years were difficult for me to endure. To hear them talk, the conspiracy becomes all-consuming and really all-powerful. The demonic conspiracy in the push for one-world government and one-world religion takes on the attributes of divinity: it is unstoppable, inevitable, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. I’ll never forget hearing one of them once begin a presentation with these words: “I trust you are aware that we’re being controlled in every area of our lives. . . .” By “being controlled” he meant by the global elite. But for me, this type of rhetoric—even if it were just rhetoric—places far too much credit into the hands of men, and even gives too much to Satan. The correct view is this: yes, we are being controlled in every area of life—by the hand of God Himself. This control includes total control over the plans and conspiracies of the worst of sinful men, yea, even of Satan himself, not to mention the New Age nutcases.

I will never forget reading through Calvin’s Institutes for the first time as a young Pentecostal-becoming-Reformed. Calvin’s treatment of Satan was phenomenally inspiring to me (and still is):

With regard to the strife and war which Satan is said to wage with God, it must be understood with this qualification, that Satan cannot possibly do anything against the will and consent of God. . . . Satan is under the power of God, and is so ruled by his authority, that he must yield obedience to it. . . . [A]s God holds him bound and fettered by the curb of his power, he executes those things only for which permission has been given him, and thus, however unwilling, obeys his Creator, being forced, whenever he is required, to do Him service. . . . God thus turning the unclean spirits hither and thither at his pleasure, employs them in exercising believers by warring against them, assailing them with wiles, urging them with solicitations, pressing close upon them, disturbing, alarming, and occasionally wounding, but never conquering or oppressing them. (Institutes 1.14.17–18.)

Satan and his minions are so fully under God’s thumb that even the slightest pretense to power and dominion on their part is a joke. They will go where God wills and nowhere else. They will do what God wills and nothing more or less. They cannot pull off the kind of “control” that so many Christians fear, and so we ought to stop speaking of them as if they do.

I had breakfast with a state representative the other morning. He’s a good Christian man and we talked about good Christian stuff. One of the questions he had for me regarded a documentary he had just seen on YouTube called Aquarius: The Age of Evil. The general thrust of that film is to expose several modern groups, personalities, trends, and other things as New Age exponents underlying a move toward one-word government. Some of the experts in that 2 1/2-hour expose were people I remember hearing on Dr. Stan’s show years ago. I remember at least one as a recurring guest.

My problem with the film and with the whole enterprise of these conspiracy groups is that the unifying message of the whole: the conspiracy will succeed, will dominate the whole world, and will lead to the appearance of “The Antichrist.” Indeed, some already have a bead on just who that figure is: a New Age leader who has been on the earth now for some time. It’s depressing to hear the helpless tone of voice and the despondency before the face of the veritably awe-inspiring conspiracy; for these people, there is no chink in Smaug’s armor, and he has no overlord in our time. It is here that Gary North’s book, Conspiracy: A Biblical View, is a must-read. Christians beset by the union of conspiracy theory and end times madness need to step back and put the whole complex of things—history, Scripture, and the prophetic future—into proper perspective.

One of the good passing facts, however, in that film was the acknowledgement that the faddish documentary Zeitgeist was nothing more than one more New Age swipe at Christianity, rooted in hundred-year-old theosophical hooey and the likes of Madame Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled. I was the first person to publish a refutation of Zietgeist’s farcical nonsense; and my very first book in 2006 was also a response the Jesus “mystery religion” thesis that gained some popularity after The DaVinci Code (but had been around for decades prior in the sewers of long-forgotten pseudo-scholarship that was later replaced by even more fanatic pseudo-scholarship).

That first book, Manifested in the Flesh, sold out last year. We may possibly reprint it, but for now it is available as an eBook. BUT, we would like to extend it to you for a short time at basement prices. My discussion with this congressman made me realize that even well-educated and sincere Christians many times simply don’t come across this stuff very often, but when they do it can seem shocking and perhaps even persuasive.

End-times prognosticators have always had the gift of persuasion. They also have all had in common one thing: they have all to date been wrong. But in a culture of conservative Christians trained—even if only implicitly—by Left Behind theology, such one-world conspiracy theories easily prey upon their fears, especially when they hear them for the first time. The categories created by the dispensational thesis (and others) define the narrative of whatever future events come along, and if the categories are frightful and negative, the interpretation of historical events must necessarily be so, too—even if they were actually positive in certain ways. Whether they are or not, I want Christians to see the greater importance of things like the doctrine of the Incarnation, God’s absolute sovereignty over His creation, and His promises of victory in time and history—all juxtaposed against the futile and ridiculous mythologies of the New Age movement and its pitiful attempts to take over the world.

I want people to see the likes of Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled for the ridiculous bloviating it really is. I want you to know that Isis has indeed been unveiled, and she ain’t pretty. She’s a downright dog. And all Christians need to do is return to the fullness of the Great Commission God has given us uncompromisingly, preach who really has total control over every area of life, and preach what He has taught us about how to live in each of those areas. Quit preaching like Satan has total control of history, and start preach and living like God has commanded us, and like we truly know and worship the great God that He is.

When I look back on the career of the Dr. Stans and others like him, I will remember the great, tireless, fearless fighter for freedom and liberty that he was. That part was as faithful a champion for God as anyone can be and we all should be. I will choose to look past the eschatology, and remember the fight—because it’s in the fight that we see the true eschatology unveiled. Let’s follow that example.

Categories: Worldview

Presuppositions and New Testament Studies

Wed, 10/01/2014 - 11:11

Someone asked me about an intersection I had with a well-known apologist regarding apologetic method and New Testament historical research a few years ago. While that exchange is water under the bridge imo, the topic hardly is. Christians need to be aware of the effects that presuppositions can have upon scholarship—especially our scholarship. We must be careful not to adopt naturalistic or unbelieving presuppositions at the outset of our endeavors—and thus end up reasoning like them. This includes historical scholarship and apologetics.

The following is an excerpt where I have addressed this issue long ago. I wrote this while in seminary. It became Appendix 1 in my first book, Manifested in the Flesh. Given the resurrection (forgive the irony) of  pagan mystery religion claims against Christianity still today, this book is as relevant as ever. This particular chapter, however, is especially relevant to the scholarship issue and has more general applicability. We must be careful in our scholarship even about how we do scholarship.

In retrospect, some of my argumentation herein could be more nuanced, but the whole is relevant in general. I hope you find it as helpful.

***

Liberal and radical scholars always hide behind the mask of science claiming that they have produced works of reason and science over against the fanciful wishes of orthodox believers. They claim to simply report the facts without relying on supernatural interventions like believers do. This is the popular image they promote anyway. At least, in order to keep their university peers happy, they had better put up the front. Claims about faith are bad for business in the scholarly world, you see. The public must be led to believe that the scholars are hard-bent over “evidence” and the latest archaeology. The truth, however, is far from this public face. Dig even just a bit below the surface—like a few taps from the archaeologist’s hammer and trowel—and the whole facade crumbles to dust, and the skeleton of a dead specimen is exposed. The monster of liberal scholarship can be seen in all of its carnivorous glory.

Liberals have displayed a ferocious anti-Christian agenda from their beginning. In the early to mid-1800’s German scholarship began to brood under the nurturing wings of tax funded universities. The flurry of scholarship employed new humanistic methods of interpreting history which denied the possibility of divine revelation and miracles, and therefore of nearly every basic tenant of the Christian religion. Not surprisingly some historians immediately lowered their sights on the early church in order to determine how Christianity “really” developed. The new methods contrasted with established conservative scholarship, and two schools emerged around the study of early church history.

Church historian Philip Schaff, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, notes how this divide has affected historical studies. He writes,

Never before in the history of the church has the origin of Christianity, with its original documents, been so thoroughly examined from standpoints entirely opposite as in the present generation . . .

The two theories of apostolic history, introduced by Neander and Baur, are antagonistic in principle and aim, and united only by the moral bond of an honest search for truth. The one [Neander] is conservative and reconstructive, the other [Baur] radical and destructive . . . The one proceeds on the basis of faith in God and Christ, which implies faith in the supernatural and miraculous wherever it is well attested; the other proceeds from disbelief in the supernatural and miraculous as a philosophical impossibility, and tries to explain the gospel history and the apostolic history from purely natural causes like every other history.[i]

Schaff clearly saw the presuppositions of both sides. He knew that the two interpretations of history were primarily matters of competing faiths—belief versus unbelief—not brute scholarship per se. The sides argue over the same facts, read the same sources; but draw from two very different wells of interpretation: faith in God versus faith in matter. Schaff knew that these presuppositions determined what the scholars wrote, and how they told the story. He said, “The controversy turns on the question whether there is a God in History or not.”[ii]

The controversy does indeed hinge upon such a belief, but unfortunately it has always been the Christians who have been ridiculed for having “faith,” whereas the liberal critics are though of as “scientific.” The truth is that the liberals fall back just as much on faith, though their credo simply begins with anti-theism. Apologist Cornelius Van Til, who expounded the problems of presuppositions throughout his career, explains how differing views of God profoundly affect how one approaches the sciences, and by extension the historical sciences as well. I quote him at length:

[T]he difference between the prevalent method of science and the method of Christianity is not that the former is interested in finding the facts and is ready to follow the facts wherever they may lead, while the latter is not ready to follow the facts. The difference is rather that the former wants to study the facts without God, while the latter wants to study the facts in the light of the revelation God gives of himself in Christ. Thus the antithesis is once more that between those for whom the final center of reference in knowledge lies in man, and those for whom the final center of reference for knowledge lies in God, as this God speaks in Scripture.[iii]

The conflict, therefore, is never one of science versus religion, or facts versus faith. To set the argument up in that way is to assume an atheistic answer from the start. The question is whether the God of the Bible rules history or not; and how you answer that question will determine how you interpret the facts which come along. The facts cannot speak first, but are interpreted via the handler’s worldview. The Christian sees the facts through Christian ethics, the atheist sees facts through the distortion of atheistic reasoning and materialism. Thus it is not the facts only which need checking, but the coherence of the worldviews. In the end, one view must be proven heretical.

This fact drove home to Schaff the point that the radical scholars of his day paralleled the heretics that the early Church in question had to deal with. He explained, “This modern criticism is a remarkable renewal of the views held by heretical schools in the second century.”[iv] The reason the nineteenth century liberals worked so hard to defend the Gnostics and to liberate them from the label “heretics,” was because they loved and identified with that theology. The same can be said for nearly every radical scholar: the various presentations of the “historical Jesus” or the “real Jesus” all oddly seem to look a lot like their authors. Lutheran scholar John Warwick Montgomery comments on this continuing trend: “Yet in the twentieth century there has been a powerful tendency to create Jesus in the image of the time rather than to find out what the documents say about Him.”[v]

The various attempts all revolve around the lust for human autonomy and consequently the methodology has become increasingly Arian. Arius, you will remember, is the arch-heretic of the early church who essentially argued that Jesus was not divine but only a finite creature. This belief appeals to unbelieving hearts (in all ages) which also see Christ as merely human, and so the pseudo-scholarly mills begin to churn, trying to produce a justification of Arian historiography—history written on the assumption that miracles do not happen and that Christ was not divine.

Theology always rules every idea below it and every undertaking of man will show the effect of his theological beliefs at some level. When we read the nineteenth century critics, this is exactly the picture we get: the ultimate commitments of materialism and historical determinism rule the facts. One of the most important popularizers and scholars of the era, Ernest Renan, illustrates this for us: he writes, “That the Gospels are in part legendary, is evident, since they are full of miracles and of the supernatural.”[vi] Did you get that? “Since,” or “because” the Gospels include accounts of miracles, then they must of necessity be legends and myths. No real or true account would included such uncivilized barbarism as . . . miracles. The trap door of the naturalistic mind snaps shut and the case is closed! In their presupposed system, miracle equals forgery; the possibility is denied up front.

The Gospel of John as a Test Case

Many scholars have noted the presuppositional nature of New Testament studies. Leon Morris in his studies on the Gospel of John notes that conservative scholars have been accused of holding “dogmatic presuppositions.”[vii] Liberals do not like our belief in a God Who rules history, you see. But Morris counters with five presuppositions, compiled by J. A. T. Robinson, which have clearly driven liberal scholarship.[viii] He concludes, “[I]t is these presuppositions rather than a careful weighing of the evidence that has usually been decisive.”[ix]

Such bias has had damaging effects on the course of Biblical scholarship. For starters, it has led to the careless treatment of evidences. Morris explains, “An interesting aspect of much recent Johannine study is the refusal to take seriously the evidence that the apostle John was the author. Very few recent scholars make a sustained attempt to grapple with the evidence.”[x] Of course, evidence is not that important when the scholar has already made up his mind that the Gospel in inauthentic and that there is no God who judges history. Evidence can, in this case, actually become a hindrance: not only is combing through facts and evidences boring work, but think what consternation comes from evidence that continually confirms your enemy’s case. The way around such problems is to ignore them, or present elaborate theories of early Church history which essentially act as a smoke-screen behind which to ignore the problem. When one’s assumptions rule the procedure, all kinds of problems can be explained away and then tossed down the memory hole. Morris complains, “For long enough it has not been the evidence but the presuppositions that have decided the matter.”[xi] He laments that modern methods have provided a framework with which to ignore the classic works of historical evidence, such as the work of B. F. Westcott: “Westcott these days is not so much controverted as by-passed.”[xii] Likewise, New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie decries the dismissal of original sources themselves. He writes,

The evidence of Irenaeus has been subjected to searching criticism and many scholars have not been disposed to grant its validity. Their reluctance to do so springs mainly from the fact that Irenaeus’ evidence conflicts with their critical conclusions.[xiii]

Guthrie understands the situation: “It is difficult to approach the problem without preconceptions.”[xiv] In noting the path of Johannine studies since Westcott’s days F. F. Bruce comments that Westcott’s argument was, “cogent enough to those who shared his presuppositions;”[xv] but others soon arose with “other presuppositions” claiming variously: 1) the author created a “fictitious narrative under the guise of an apostolic eyewitness,” 2) the Beloved Disciple was a idealized character, not a real person, or 3) Mark preceded John and therefore any material in John which does not fit the narrative of Mark cannot be historical.[xvi] To Bruce these various permutations of theories are, “more ingenious than convincing.”[xvii]

Liberal scholars have often been as candid, or at least obvious, with their presuppositions. J. Louis Martyn believes that if we can even slightly detect in the Fourth Gospel, “the voice of a Christian theologian who writes in response to contemporary events and issues,”[xviii] then, “it becomes imperative that we make every effort to take up temporary residence in the Johannine community.”[xix] In other words he thinks that if we can perceive a possible theological influence upon the Gospel which we decide is not original with Jesus himself, then that outside influence must become the ruling framework for understanding the origin of the Gospel as a whole. This approach, however, begins by assuming that the Gospel is the work of mere men and purely historical forces, and not the word of God. Ruling God out in this way is a dishonest approach which frankly begs the question; and yet the liberal scholars praise each others’ works as if each page were a revelation from God. Of course, when you do not believe in supernatural revelation, you have to get it somewhere.

In the case of the Fourth Gospel, however, we would do well to consider the statement of Guthrie that, “It would seem at least a reasonable conclusion to maintain that there are no irrefutable historical grounds for rejecting the identification of the beloved disciple as John the son of Zebedee.”[xx] If we can honestly make this claim—and the work of Bruce, Carson, Guthrie, Morris, Westcott, etc., gives us good warrant—then we should not be too bothered by spectacular theories which derive from diminishing or destroying the role of God’s apostle, or which require outrageously intricate webs of historical patchwork to make their case. Further, we should immediately understand that those theories can only arise where the theorist has little or no theological need for infallible revelation: for example, liberals like Martyn, or Roman Catholics such as Raymond Brown. In the traditional approach, as D. A. Carson notes, “We are freed from the suffocating burden of trying to reconstruct the Johannine community out of merely possible inferences . . . and are driven to listen more acutely to what the Evangelist says about Jesus.”[xxi]

New Testament Studies in General

The phenomenon of presuppositional bias lay at the root of all Biblical studies, and affects every area of the discipline. The liberal scholar and mouthpiece Rudolf Bultmann certainly did not hide his radical motivation: “The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character . . . Can Christian preaching expect modern man to accept the mythical view of the world as true? To do so would be both senseless and impossible.”[xxii] This was his selling point to the modern mind, and his starting point theologically: “Miracles are mythical and do not happen in the real world, now let’s understand the Bible this way!” Similarly he rants,

It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles . . . to expect others to do so is to make the Christian faith unintelligible and unacceptable to the modern world.[xxiii]

Of course this understanding fails at the outset: it is only because men have obeyed God’s ethical laws in history that many technological advances have come about. Historical and Biblical studies are no different, even if liberal scholars see no need for God’s “mythical” revelation today. Evangelical scholar George Eldon Ladd finds the same candor in Bultmann:

Bultmann frankly admits his presuppositions . . . As a historian, Bultmann candidly rejects the biblical worldview, which he insists is intolerable in the twentieth century . . . Neither can the modern historian believe in a God who acts directly in history.[xxiv]

Ladd mentions this in the greater context of New Testament criticism as a whole. He critiques the naturalism inherent in much of the field, saying that often,

A scholar is not considered to be truly “critical” unless he accepts the basic naturalist presuppositions of the modern historical-critical method, rejects every trace of the supernatural, and interprets the Bible exclusively in strict historical terms as the word of men.[xxv]

The situation leaves no room for progress between believers and unbelievers in the realm of New Testament studies. There is no neutrality. You must either adopt naturalistic standards, or allow for the supernatural—either assume that no god acts in history, or believe that God can, and has, inspired his holy apostles. Ladd spies well the division between the competing methods: “Between scholars who hold this view of criticism and evangelical scholars, there is little if any common ground for mutual interaction or scholarly debate.”[xxvi]

The presuppositional nature of New Testament studies reminds us once again that the real problem with historical questions and the Gospels is not ultimately intellectual, but ethical. Gary North presents this point clearly: “The real motive of higher criticism is ethical . . . man’s problem is not a lack of knowledge about God, but a lack of obedience to God. The higher critics seek to confuse men by blurring the universal ethical requirements of God’s holy word.”[xxvii] We are reminded that historical judgment, and in fact all judgment, can never be value-free. It will never take place in a truly neutral setting, but will conform to the ethical rules of the scholar’s underlying commitments. New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd noted as much in 1939: he writes,

In any passage of history where the spiritual interests of mankind are deeply involved, the historian, if he is to be more than a mere chronicler, is forced to make judgments of value, explicit or implicit, upon the subject-matter with which he deals, and these judgments will affect his presentation. In the case of the New Testament such judgments cannot be avoided. The report given of the data will show that the reporter either affirms or denies the main assumptions which the New Testament makes.[xxviii]

Dodd proceeds to make it clear that the worldview of the Bible indeed conflicts directly with that of the unbelieving world around it. This battle climaxed in the cross of Jesus Christ, and afterward in the preaching of that cross. Against those who argue that Paul and the other New Testament writers were at home in the pagan world, and propagated pagan myths, Dodd responds,

We have the testimony of the Apostle Paul that after his best endeavors, his Greek hearers still felt the Gospel to be ‘foolishness.’ It is possible, by sympathetically studying, say, the Hermetic writings, to put oneself temporarily in the position of those Greeks, and to feel just how foolish this ‘word of the cross’ must have sounded.[xxix]

The foolishness of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18-31) cuts through all sophistication and gets right to the corrupt heart of the issue. It pulls back the shade from the hidden secrets of the heart and exposes our trifling excuses—so often falsely labeled as “science” or “reason”—for the cowardice and spiritual sloth that they are. A message so simple and so “foolish” as the Gospel, forces the hand of mankind: it makes him choose either God or self. Dodd concludes that the Gospel “might be stated in Hellenistic terms, but it shattered the presuppositions of Hellenistic religion.”[xxx]

Such a foundation as the Gospel forces us to adhere to unmovable standards for what we accept as scholarly progress or not. These standards in turn assure that our Biblical and historical studies remain true to God’s demands and honest about the limitations of bare scientific historical investigation. A method which accounts for the authors’ presuppositions must analyze rival theological commitments in addition to considering evidences; and then compare the theories based on their inherent plausibility along with their interpretations of the data. We will logically have to ask which theological framework is in itself superior before we pursue which one accounts for the evidence best.

On the other hand, if overly critical and skeptical methods have free reign, and a sound traditional views are ignored, a chaotic situation ensues in which the only obvious results are confusion and the abandonment of the authority of the text. D. A. Carson explains that the web of presuppositions and beliefs created by some scholars, “rests on merely possible inferences, not particularly plausible ones, the resulting matrix being used as a grid to eliminate the most natural inferences from both internal and external evidence.”[xxxi] Thus the main result of beginning with humanistic assumptions, he argues, is that the histories and conclusions turn out just as arbitrary and chaotic as the human will itself. The liberal says, “I’ll have the Gospel du jour!,” or rather, “I’ll cook the pot myself!”

Conclusion

While we should be vigorous in seeking progress, we should likewise be wary of naturalistic methods which force us to deny the truth of God and the requirements of His world-order. On humanistic grounds Christian scholars gain nothing unless they are replacing it. This means that New Testament scholarship is as much a war as a dialogue. Bultmann himself knew this. He envisioned his theological coup d’ètat of New Testament studies as a monumental task: “It will tax the time and strength of a whole theological generation.”[xxxii] Conservative scholars would do good to have a long-term vision of comparable weight.

A positive and optimistic view of Biblical studies will place the scholar or student in the midst of the Bible itself while they study the higher critical claims. Only from within that Biblical framework and upon its One Foundation is the kingdom of God built. For too long students have been made to slave over the works of higher critics in order to taste the dregs of unbelieving skepticism (the liberal sacrament!); and the liberals have filled the ullage of Christian ignorance with vinegar instead of pure wine. The endeavor sends students home from seminary having studied a whole lot about the Bible, without having studied the Bible much at all. Then they go fill pulpits and feed congregations . . . ? I propose a return to dependence upon the law and language of God. It is not Baur and Bultmann, but every Word from the mouth of God that feeds us.

In the meantime, let the higher critics “drown in their own footnotes, the way that Arius died by falling head-first into a privy. Let the dead bury their dead, preferably face-down in a scholarly journal.”[xxxiii] Arian theology (denying that Christ is God) leads to Arian scholarship, Arian history books, Arian classrooms, Arian pulpits, Arian governments, and Arian culture. It also leads to the judgment from God that Arianism deserves, in both history and eternity. Our presentation of the New Testament and of early Church history, and our communication of the same to posterity are matters of eternal import. Lest we be found unfaithful teachers, we must tear up faulty scholarship from its corrupt root, and replant the seeds of godliness in its place.

Notes:

[i]Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Volume 1, Apostolic Christianity from the Birth of Christ to the Death of St. John, A.D. 1-100 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996 (Original Third Edition 1890), 205, 208.

[ii]Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Volume 1, p. 208.

[iii]Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology. In Defense of the Faith, Vol II (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, (Orig. 1932)), 9.

[iv]Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, 210.

[v]John Warwick Montgomery, Where is History Going? Essays in Support of the Historical Truth of the Christian Revelation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1972 (1969)), 54.

[vi]Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus (New York: The Modern Library, 1927 (1863)), 33.

[vii]Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969), 216-7.

[viii]Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 217.

[ix]Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 217.

[x]Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 216.

[xi]Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 218.

[xii]Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, 265.

[xiii]Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 258-9.

[xiv]Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 241.

[xv]F. F. Bruce, “Johannine Studies Since Westcott’s Days” in B. F. Westcott. The Epistles of St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), lxi.

[xvi]Bruce, “Johannine Studies Since Westcott’s Days.”, lxi.

[xvii]Bruce, “Johannine Studies Since Westcott’s Days.”, lxiii.

[xviii]J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979), 18.

[xix]Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.

[xx]Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 249.

[xxi]Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 81.

[xxii]Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology” in ed. Bartsch, Hans Werner Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate. tr. Reginald H. Fuller (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961), 1, 3.

[xxiii]Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology”, 5.

[xxiv]George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 47.

[xxv]Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism, 39.

[xxvi]Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism, 40.

[xxvii]Gary North, The Hoax of Higher Criticism, 37-8.

[xxviii]C. H. Dodd, “The New Testament” in The Study of Theology. ed. Kenneth E. Kirk, 217-46 (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1939), 242. I have added the last string of italics.

[xxix]Dodd, “The New Testament.”, 238.

[xxx]Dodd, “The New Testament.”, 238.

[xxxi]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 80.

[xxxii] Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” 15.

[xxxiii] North, The Hoax of Higher Criticism, 52.  I have edited the name Arius in this quote.

Categories: Worldview

Rushdoony on War

Mon, 09/29/2014 - 08:29

In a previous article, I related the teachings of Greg Bahnsen on War. His non-interventionist conclusions are virtually identical to mine—both being gleaning from the continuing validity of Deuteronomy 20. Today we will see similar views, though in a much shorter venue, from the godfather of the Christian Reconstruction movement, R. J. Rushdoony.

These also are taken from comments on Deuteronomy 20. The following notes were compiled a few years ago by a strong proponent and fan of Rushdoony, John Lofton. John was the editor of Michael Peroutka’s The American View. John acceded from the church militant to the church triumphant recently, on September 17, 2014, at the age of 73. I owed him an interview from a long-outstanding promise on which I never made good. I appreciate much of the work he left behind, and his unwavering loyalty to the Christian Reconstruction movement.

I have taken Lofton’s notes on Rushdoony on Deuteronomy 20 and given them some editorial rearrangement for topical purposes, and made minor corrections for typos, etc.

***

Throughout the Christian era, much has occurred in the way of efforts, both successful and unsuccessful, to limit injustices in wartime. Although the history of Western warfare is not good, it still is different from the ferocity of most pagan conflicts, until recently.

In v. 1, God stresses through Moses that He is with them: therefore, “be not afraid of them.” This is a command: to believe in God means to trust in His word.

The army must then trust in God, not in the size of the army. Wars are not outside of God’s providential government, and the most necessary equipment for battle is a trust in God. It is clear from all this that military service was voluntary, not compulsory. The covenant people were to place their hope in God, to use godly soldiers, and to eliminate from the rinks of the volunteers all men who might be for any cause double-minded. . . .

Deuteronomy deals with warfare in chapters 20:1-20; 21:10-14; 23:9-14; 24:5; and 25:17-19. Even a modernist like Anthony Phillips has called the laws “humanitarian.”

In v. 9, the officers speak “unto the people.” Instead of a drafted army, the soldiers are the people, come together to defend their cause or their homes. This is basic in Deuteronomy. Instead of a state decreeing war as a matter of policy, we have a people ready to fight for their cause. Instead of men drafted, made soldiers by compulsion, we have a gathering of the clansmen to defend their cause. The first step before battle is to send home some of these men. . . .

As a result, two kinds of exemption from military service are granted. First, all those whose minds are distracted and preoccupied by their affairs at home, i.e., a new house as yet not dedicated nor used, a bride betrothed but not taken, or a new vineyard finally producing but as yet unharvested. All such men, however willing to fight, are to be sent home, both as a merciful act and also to eliminate distracted minds (vv. 5-7). Second, all who are fearful and fainthearted are also to be sent home. Their presence in the army is a threat to their fellow soldiers.

These exemptions are to be declared by a priest. They are religious exemptions and are therefore to be set forth by a priest. . . . The exemptions applied to all ranks of soldiers. If, therefore, clan leaders dropped out because of some kind of exemption, then captains of armies were to be made out of the remaining men. The officers were thus named by the men of courage. . . .

The captains or commanders were, according to A. D. H. Mayes, apparently chosen on the same basis as were elders in cities and in the temple life of the people, captains over tens, twenties, hundreds, and thousands. The original commandment for this is cited in Deuteronomy 1:9-15.

 

P. C. Craigie’s comments on this text are very telling. He states,

Israelite strength lay not in numbers, not in the superiority of their weapons, but in their God. The strength of their God was not simply a matter of faith, but a matter of experience.

The legitimate wars were godly wars because their purpose was to remain secure in their possession of the land and their exercise of godly dominion therein. Again quoting the admirable Craigie,

The basis of these exemptions becomes clearer against the background of the function of war in ancient Israel. The purpose of war in the early stages of Israel’s history was to take possession of the land promised to the people of God; in the later period of history, war was fought for defensive purposes, to defend the land from external aggressors. The possession of the promised land, in other words, was at the heart of Israel’s wars, and the importance of the land, in the plan of God, was that Israel was to live and work and prosper in it. The building of homes and orchards, the marrying of a wife, and other such things were of the essence of life in the promised land, and if these things ceased, then the wars would become pointless. Thus, in these exemptions from military service, it is clear that the important aspects of normal life in the land take precedence over the requirements of the army, but this somewhat idealistic approach (in modern terms) was possible only because of the profound conviction that military strength and victory lay, in the last resort, not in the army, but in God. . . .

Verse 4 states that “God is he that goeth with you.” This has also been rendered as “God who marches with you.”

We see here as elsewhere that there is nothing outside of God’s government. Work, worship, war, eating, sanitation, and all things else are subject to His laws. He is totally the Governor of all things. The marginal note to this text in the Geneva Bible tells us, “God permitteth not this people to fight when it seemeth good to them.” We are in all things totally under His government.

God’s laws of warfare view legitimate warfare as the defense of the family and the land. Modern warfare is waged for political, not covenantal, reasons. Moreover, nonbiblical wars are waged more and more against civilians, as were pagan wars. Thus, there is a great gap between political wars and those permitted by God’s law.

The rules of warfare are further cited in these verses. In vv. 10-15, distant cities, outside of Canaan, are the subject, and, in vv. 16-20, the Canaanite cities. In the first instance, even though the armies are on foreign soil, it is defensive warfare against a city-state which had attacked the covenant people. In the second instance, it is a war of seizure and occupation against the Canaanite peoples. This warfare was legitimate because God the Lord was dispossessing them as tenants of His earth. Outside of Canaan, only Amalek was to be treated similarly (Deut. 25:17-19). Amalek was God’s enemy also and had to be treated as such.

Apart from these peoples, the practice of total war is strictly forbidden (vv. 19-20). God’s purpose for the earth is that it become His Kingdom in faith and obedience, and He requires that His law protecting all fruit trees be faithfully observed. Only non-fruit trees can be used to build siege works against a city. This law applies to warfare against any people. . . .

The productivity of the earth, in the form of fruit trees, vines, and the like, was not to be a target of warfare. The dominion mandate (Gen. 1:26-28) called for such an exercise of man’s efforts to turn this earth into God’s Kingdom. In waging war against other men, for men to destroy the fruits of dominion by anyone was to wage war against God’s law, and therefore against God. . . .

This law is especially important because an ancient and modern practice of war is to destroy fruit trees. This left an area somewhat unproductive for some years. The Assyrian kings at times boasted of this practice. Roman generals such as Pompey and Titus applied this strategy rigorously. Mohammed destroyed the palm trees of the Banu Nadir, and he claimed to have done so by revelation. Modern warfare concentrates on civilian populations and their food-producing abilities. This law was observed in the conquest of Canaan. An exemption was made, by God’s command through Elisha, in the case of Moab, centuries later (2 Kings 3:19, 25). We are not told the reason for this exception, but it is clear that it was not simply a prediction by Elisha but an order. Apart from this, when war was waged, it was to be against enemy soldiers, not the trees of the field. The future was to be protected by respect for the fruit trees.

In vv. 16-18, the radical destruction of the Canaanite cities and their inhabitants is ordered. These peoples were radically at war with God. They had been a source of disease and death to Israel before their entrance into the land. They were to be put under the ban, to be devoted totally to God. The people could not touch their wealth nor protect the persons of the Canaanites. They were under a ban or taboo. The Hebrew word is herem, which is related to our word harem, a secluded women’s quarter. There are two kinds of bans. First, some persons and things are banned as an abomination to God. Second, others are consecrated to Him and are therefore banned from man’s possession or control.

The following are declared in God’s law to be banned. First, the false worship of God is banned because it is offensive and an insult to God. There is a religious contamination to such false worship. Those under a ban contaminate all things (Josh. 7:24-25). Second, the seven Canaanite nations were banned: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deut. 7:1-2; 20:17). Third, whatever a man devotes or promises to God is irrevocably God’s property, and no man can legitimately promise something to God and then go back on his word.

In the Christian era, a form of the ban has been proscription and excommunication, not always wisely used. The biblical ban has reference to God and His law, not to an institution. Proscription in Western history has been an act either exiling or reducing a man to an outlaw status. Beginning with the Temple in late pose-exilic times, proscription could mean the expropriation by the Temple treasury of one’s assets. But men have no right to assume the power of God in any sphere, not to add to or to diminish God’s law to any degree.

When men are indifferent to God’s ban, and they see no importance in obedience to God and His law, they replace God with a human agency, most commonly now the state. The modern state increasingly places a ban on many of its citizens for very arbitrary reasons. Their properties, money, and assets are confiscated at will. This is less and less by due process of law and more by the state’s fiat will. God’s ban is spelled out in His law. Man’s ban is an act of arbitrary will and hate.

In vv. 10-15, the rules of war laid down by God require that, whatever the aggressive acts of the enemy, on reaching their city-state to besiege it, it was mandatory to offer terms of peace to it. These rules stipulate that, first, these people became thereafter a subordinate state. This meant that they would become part of the Hebrew realm. Second, “they shall serve thee” (v. 11), i.e., there would be labor levies of their men. Such labor levies could be hard, as with Israel in Egypt, or, they could be comparable to the French monarchy’s local levies (not the levies to build Versailles). The people would repair their local roads and bridges as a community venture, usually agreed upon in the local church. Of course, a king like Louis XIV, like Pharaoh, worked to death countless thousands to build Versailles. Thus, the labor levy of a city-state which surrendered could be light or severe. In Solomon’s latter years, they were severe toward his own people.

If they rejected the offer of peace, then, on losing, all the males would be killed. Their women and children, their cattle, and all their wealth, went to the people of Israel.

Similar rules of warfare, coming from Deuteronomy, governed Europe at least through the seventeenth century. Their use was generous or brutal, depending on the generals and their armies.

The city-state that surrendered became a vassal realm. To further its compliance, it could be and often was treated well. According to Hirsch, the word “males” in v. 13 refers to all capable of waging war. Of v. 20, Hirsch noted, “[O]ur text becomes the most comprehensive warning to human beings not to misuse the position which God has given them as masters of the world and its matter to capricious, passionate or merely thoughtless wasteful destruction of anything on earth. Only for wise use has God laid the world at our feet when He said to Man ‘subdue the world and have dominion over it’ (Gen. 1:28 et seq.).”

Warfare is always a brutal matter, and never more so than in our time, when it is waged against civilians, against churches, and against monuments of the past. In World War II, as in Iraq, the U.S. went out of its way to destroy churches.

Verse 18 gives us a practical reason for the destruction of the Canaanites, “That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.” There was virtually no sexual practice which was not a part of the Canaanite worship. Evil was made into virtue. For Israel to tolerate the Canaanite way of life was to reject God. There was no legitimate way to reconcile God’s law-word with the Canaanite lifestyle. Then as now, all too many want to reconcile good and evil, God and Satan. To all such, God’s clear commandments seem harsh because they are uncompromising.

***

From just this brief overview of Rushdoony’s exegesis on War, it is clear to me that I can repeat the conclusions I gleaned from Bahnsen’s and my own:

These laws calls us to war only in just causes, for defensive wars only, with voluntary militias, only after every possible avenue of peace is exhausted, only in measured responses, only when feasible physically and financially, and only where we have legitimate jurisdiction to do so. These laws, according to Bahnsen, forbid standing armies, wars of aggression, and interventionism. Bahnsen’s non-interventionist principle would have us as a nation, most of the time, minding our own business, pursuing peace, and sending missionaries instead of soldiers.

Categories: Worldview

Judge: PATRIOT Act trumps First Amendment protected speech of innocent citizens

Fri, 09/26/2014 - 10:18

With this ruling, the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment mean very little anymore. Of course, the PATRIOT Act has long come under criticism for violating the Fourth Amendment in countless ways, and multiple criticisms have been leveled at the secret courts, surveillance powers, and investigatory powers—not to mention drone programs and the secret “kill list” erected upon them. True patriots and lovers of freedom everywhere know that once constitutional freedoms are compromised, it is only a matter of time before they are further eroded and eventually eradicated. Now that maxim is manifested in legal precedent.

This ruling is a perfect example of that downward path into the ninth circuit of judicial hell. As justsecurity.org reports, alleged protections written into the PATRIOT Act have been blown through like they were not even there. And I would argue it is because they were never really there to begin with. They were promises written in vague language that any crafty lawyer could navigate without difficulty.

That’s exactly what Judge John D. Bates has done: craftily weaved his way through the language so as to circumvent the First Amendment, and by it, the Fourth as well. “No law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”? Ha. “Secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”? Ha. Not if you know someone who knows someone who might know a terrorist. It doesn’t matter whether everything you say and do is protected by the First Amendment or not. As long as the activities of someone else are being investigated, you can be pulled in through some form of guilt-by-association, and the FBI can investigate you and seize your property. Again, this is true now even if everything you do and say is 100 percent perfectly legal and there is no probable cause against you. And this is true, according to the opinion we are about read, even if the court itself concludes that your own personal activities are protected by the First Amendment.

This may sound extreme, but you can read it for yourself. It comes directly from the very words of Judge Bates’s opinion which has just recently been declassified. That (heavily redacted) opinion states,

A more difficult question is whether the application shows reasonable grounds to believe that the investigation of [redacted] is not being conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment. None of the conduct or speech that the application attributes to [redacted]—appear to fall outside the ambit of the first amendment. Even [redacted]—in particular his statement that [redacted]—seems to fall well short of incitement to imminent violence or “true threat” that would take it outside the protection of the first amendment. Indeed, the government’s own assessment of [redacted] points to the conclusion that it is protected speech. . . . Under the circumstances, the Court is doubtful that the facts regarding [redacted] own words and conduct alone establish reasonable grounds to believe that the investigation is not being conducted solely on the basis of first amendment.

The Court is satisfied, however, that Section 1861 also permits consideration of the related conduct of [redacted] in determining whether the first amendment requirement is satisfied. The text of Section 1861 does not restrict the Court to considering only the activities of the subject of the investigation in determining whether the investigation is “not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment.” Rather, the pertinent statutory text focuses on the character (protected by the first amendment or not) of the “activities” that are the “basis” of the investigation.

According to the application, the government is investigating [redacted] not only on the basis of his own personal words and conduct (which, as noted, suggest sympathy toward, if not support of international terrorism), but also on the basis of the admitted or suspected [redacted]. . . .

Justsecurity.org comments,

I think most people, when they cite that statutory language, believe it means that Americans won’t be subjects of terrorism investigations for the First Amendment protected things they say or do.

They would be wrong. Judge Bates’ alternate interpretation allows for Americans exercising only constitutional protected rights to nevertheless be investigated under section 215 so long as there’s an independent, constitutionally unprotected basis for the overarching terrorism investigation.

(Which, we must add, there always will be.)

The takeaway is, Americans are being investigated for their First Amendment protected activity, so long as someone’s else’s related conduct is not protected, even where the relationship between the American and the other party is too attenuated to support suspicion of aiding and abetting or conspiracy.

And, of course, “related” is a matter of opinion of the court based on the “facts” laid before it by the FBI or whoever requests the review. The Tenth Amendment Center piles on due criticism:

In the document, Federal judge John D. Bates wrote an opinion stating that law-abiding citizens are fair game for investigation by the FBI under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, as long as it takes place within the context of a greater international terrorism investigation. This obviously gives a great deal of discretion to the feds to abuse the rights of Americans. . . .

The idea that we can rely on government employees to protect our rights from being violated by other government employees is really a silly concept. It is impossible for politically connected judges beholden to those who put them into prestigious positions of power to consistently defend the freedoms of the people. The situation creates a conflict of interest that usually results in decisions slanted in favor of excessive state power.

Judge John D. Bates was appointed to the U.S. District Court for D.C. by George W. Bush in December of 2001, only a couple months after he signed the PATRIOT Act into law. Fellow W appointee Chief Justice John Roberts later appointed Bates to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2006. This opinion was issued on February 19, 2013. Roberts then promoted Bates as Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts the following July.

JustSecurity.org notes that this opinion is the opposite of what was originally promised by proponents of the PATRIOT Act.

For people who were reassured that section 215’s language would protect law abiding Americans from getting sucked into counterterrorism investigations, this is another tchotchke for your Curio Cabinet of Naïveté. But the FISC, to its credit, declassified this opinion and now Congress and the public have a chance to understand what “law” is actually being applied.

It may be the opposite of what was promised, but it is no surprise. It is exactly what its prescient critics saw coming. It is time to repeal the PATRIOT Act and all subsequent legislation that violates the First and Fourth Amendments.

Categories: Worldview

Your membership & donations make this ministry possible.
If you have been helped please:

Join Us  or  Donate

Contact Us