On the Civil Magistrate – from Westminster Confession, chapter 23

Note the formatting is uneven in the WCF quotes.  This is not intended to emphasize anything...

1. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good, and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.

 

My read:

There is a realm of civil government that is somehow distinct from churchly or familial authority.  It has a legitimate power of force over church and family in certain situations.

 

 

 

2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasion.

 

My read:

Christians can be part of this civil government, biblically, even to waging war when it is just.

 

 

 

3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.  For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

 

My read: But civil government cannot usurp the realm of the church.  It can and should promote Christianity in various ways, but not tell church rulers what to do in their sphere of authority.

 

 

American Revision of 1788:

3. (Completely rewritten) Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

 

My read: Note the civil government is still called upon to be a nursing father to the church of Christ, just not establishing any certain denomination as the national church.  It adds the duty to protect the civil rights of all people, regardless of religion – a definite innovation and improvement of civil government in the modern world, I believe.

 

 

4. a. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. 

b. Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.

 

My read:

a. Christians must honor the persons in civil office.  (Not just the documents chartering a nation, to the exclusion of the office-holders, as has been recently asserted.)

b. Just because a culture/people becomes atheistic, secular, or equally divided among differing religions doesn’t mean they don’t have a duty to submit to the civil government’s orders.  Church leaders must obey civil rulers, too.  [TO WHAT EXTENT?]  The pope surely doesn’t have authority over foreign civil rulers.

 

 

Conclusion

There must be some middle ground between these two positions:

1.      We must submit to the existing authorities in all things, because God put them there.  Whatever they say, we do, because they are God’s servants and delegates.

2.      We only submit to the civil government when we agree that their policies are in accord with God’s Word.  If we don’t think they are, we disregard them.

Neither of these is right. 

Is there a proper time for the civil government to order the closure of religious services in its area?  YES.  A tornado or hurricane is imminent, e.g.  But when it asserts this authority unreasonably (Covid is still an emergency, 24-36 months on, e.g.), the church can disregard and defy it.

 

Regarding covid-like situations, church leaders are free to set their own health parameters regarding meeting and Communion, following or disregarding guidance or orders from the civil government.  Their default should be to learn from and obey the state, but exceptions must be made if the state is asking people to sin, and MAY be made if the state is calling for unwise things, out of alignment with scriptural patterns of behavior.  Church members should do all they can to submit to church leaders’ policies in such a situation.

Head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11

I really appreciated Adam McIntosh’s article on headcoverings here.  

He isn’t dogmatic and lays out a lot of interesting options and ideas to consider.
 
Here is a bit of interaction with him.  We end up with the same conclusion, coverings are not now required, but disagree on how to get there.
 

McIntosh argues the covering is fabric, not hair, because Paul tells men in 1 Cor. 11:4 and 7 to uncover.  Do they have to be bald, he asks?  But it is a woman’s hair that is given for a covering in 1 Cor. 11:15, not the man’s also.  Verse 15 does not assert universally that human hair is a covering, but that a woman’s longer, feminine hair is her covering.  So there is not a parallel between 1 Cor. 11:4/7, and 15.  Paul is not requiring men to be bald, but to have hair that is culturally masculine, not feminine.  And to not cover their heads in worship.
 
 
“If headcovering was a creation ordinance, it would have to be recorded in God’s law.”
When nature itself teaches something, it may not be an explicit law in the Torah, but it’s still part of God’s design.  My view is that since the headcovering God requires of a woman is her longer hair, that the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 fits nicely:  women, don’t dress (your hair) like a man.  In 1 Cor. 11 Paul says, “Especially not in worship!”
 

McIntosh’s theory that women should cover because of their pastors, the angels (vs 10), is intriguing and possible.  The point would be that we do this for church order, part of which is women not acting out of place in the service.  I agree, but McIntosh goes on then to assert that covering has nothing to do with submission to her husband, when that is clearly implied in the text.  (The ESV translates the Greek “gyne” in vss. 5-6 as not “woman” but “wife.”)  Also, he inconsistently agrees with Doug Wilson’s rule of thumb, as I do, that a husband’s hair should be shorter than his wife’s, so the marital context is clearly in play.
 

McIntosh rejects that “ ‘praying and prophesying’ is code for corporate worship.”  Acts 3:1 and Luke 18:10 disagree.  Scripture speaks in shorthand often like this, of a corporate worship service as simply prayer.  1 Cor. 11:4-5 are very clear that the times Paul is thinking of are when “praying OR prophesying.”  McIntosh wants to say that this means only when she exercises a charismatic gift like speaking in tongues.  But Paul doesn’t say “speaking in tongues” which is a very different phrase from the standard word here for “praying.”  I take "praying or prophesying" to mean, "anytime she goes to church, and especially if she speaks in tongues or as a prophetess."
 

The article’s treatment of hair length is very good.  “It would be sinful if a man was trying to look like a woman, or if a woman was trying to look like a man. Otherwise, there are longer hairstyles for men that don’t look feminine and shorter hairstyles for women that don’t look masculine.”
 

In the conclusion, McIntosh dismisses cultural traditions of the Corinthians, but this is a rejection of the long-accepted, and rightly insisted upon, historico-grammatical interpretation of Scripture.  The exegete must take into account what the text meant to the original audience based on their cultural context.  To dismiss that and focus only on what other Scripture says blinds you in one eye, when there is more to see in the text.  This is probably James Jordan’s often-critiqued “biblicism” coming out.
 
 
In that vein, something I’ve never seen considered on this issue:
In the Jewish synagogue, both men and women would cover their heads with prayer shawls/veils in worship, as I understand it.  I think it likely Paul got a question from Jewish Corinthian Christians, asking if they shouldn’t continue this, and Paul responded with this passage.  The man wore it in conjunction with the prayer robe with tassels on it, commanded by Numbers 15:37-39, to show that he was under the law.  But we are no longer under the law, so the man should uncover his head – he is the redeemed glory of God.  The woman need not cover according to synagogue custom with a veil, but she should wear her hair according to cultural custom that shows her to be a woman, and a modest one.

Steven Wedgeworth also has a good article on this topic here.

Is Easter Pagan?

The celebration of the resurrection of Jesus is not pagan, but many have questioned the name Easter, and the use of bunnies and eggs to celebrate it.

 

Glenn Sunshine, over at the Theology Pugcast, recently brought some historical perspective to this question.  Here are some summary points.

 

1. The name Easter likely came from the German word for dawn, which sounded like the Latin for “in albis.”  (In albis was a reference to the white robes worn on Easter by those baptized.)  This is more likely than the theory that the early church put a pagan goddess’ name from Britain (Eostre) or Babylon (Ishtar) upon the holiday.

 

2.  Eggs were forbidden by the church to eat during holy week, so were plentiful and feasted and painted upon when Easter rolled around.  Bunnies weren’t associated with Easter until the 1600s (only a tiny bit) and the 1800’s (more pervasive).

 

3. Why such a Gnostic and anti-historical tendency to discourage any physical celebration of holidays, and to critically dismiss the development of such practices by our Christian ancestors?  It’s almost the woke cancellation of any history we don’t like.

 

4.  CS Lewis points out that pagan myths were common grace foreshadowings of the true Christian story.  (Did he get this in part reading Carl Jung?)  Even if there was a linguistic connection between Astarte and Easter, it isn’t a huge problem.

 

5. We don’t object to using pagan gods to name our days of the week, so why the big deal about Easter?

 

 

This really got me thinking!  First some general thoughts, and then, practically, how we celebrate Easter.

 

1. I basically agree with the summary above, though they are over-reacting a bit to the gnostic and “no annual Easter celebration” crowd.

 

2.  Why isn’t it a good thing to question our traditions and reshape them when needed, to be more biblical?  This isn’t a woke canceling of our past, but a thoughtful and ongoing reformation.  Fasting from eggs was a questionable practice, and the resulting visibility of eggs at Easter is unnecessary.

 

3. It IS a good point that we shouldn’t eschew using material stuff to celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc.  Giving gifts at Christmas still makes sense to most of us.  But what is the best way to materially celebrate the resurrection of Christ?  The best I’ve come up with is ham dinners and candy, so I’m open to suggestions.

 

4. In the past, I was convinced of the close word connection with Easter to the Canaanite fertility goddess Asherah/Ishtar/Astarte.  Sunshine goes a long way to question this.  But isn’t there something to be said about the old gods fighting back, in medieval Christendom?  Thor is an example.  The pagan impulse to pursue fertility or mother Gaia as a god, is alive and well today, under our secular veneer.  Why use a name like Easter, so close to Ishtar, to name Christ’s Resurrection day?  It seems more to import pagan fertility thought, than it redeems such for Christ by His resurrection.  

I may hold this opinion because I know more than usual about the seductive, sexual worship of Ishtar in Canaan, in Israel’s day.  The sexual copulation of the gods had to be reproduced on earth by their priests, priestesses, and worshipers, for the town to have fertile fields and wombs.  When the prophets rebuked Israel for whoring after other gods, they weren’t using exaggerated analogies.  It was literally true.

 

5.  Maybe this is a “meat-sacrificed-to-idols” thing, where I have a weaker conscience because of that historical understanding.  But on the other side, we ought to have warnings not to adopt silly fluff like Santa and bunnies, which obscure the true meaning of the holidays.  We want neither a dry 2 hour family worship lecture on the meaning of the day, nor a mindless, sentimental tradition.  How to bring joy to the day that is based in its meaning?

 

6. It isn’t a big deal to keep calling every mundane Thursday Thor’s Day.  There’s no meaning to Thursday to be corrupted.  But to take the annual celebration of the resurrection of Christ and name it after (or at least similarly to) a fertility goddess seems abhorrent to me.

 

 

 

Practical

1. In recent years I have refrained from using the word “Easter,” preferring Resurrection Day.  Sunshine’s history of the German word for dawns as Eostorum makes me less averse to using the word “Easter,” but isn’t totally convincing.

 

2. I see no need to continue traditions of Easter bunnies, eggs, or baskets.  We’ve never done these as a family, and it hasn't impoverished us culturally.  But families should give more thought – like we do with Christmas – to how we are going to bless our children/families in our celebration of this day.  A direct call to this at the end of the podcast would have been a blessing.

 

3. The principle is to make the Lord’s Day more special in some tangible ways for your family.  Special foods, activities, games, etc.  And make Resurrection Sunday even more special yet.  It is a “high Sabbath” (John 19:31).

A Defense of Theonomy (Sort of)

The Gospel Coalition published a critique of theonomy a couple days ago, that just cries out for a response.

So you know where I'm coming from, I don't believe the goal of a Christian society should be to adopt the Torah's civil law wholesale and to the letter.  The resurrection has transformed the "telos" (goal) of the law to Christ.  Some OT laws that called for death now would call for excommunication, or a lighter civil punishment, or none.

But I also don't like the author's pluralist assumptions, that the state should be neutral to any and all religious claims.  Of course, no state should make religious minorities live as second-class citizens, but for the state to assume Christian truth pleases God and will helpfully impose morality on many who disagree (no murder, pedophilia, abortion, etc.).

With that intro, here's a walkthrough of the article.

1. The author is a Southern Baptist, with understandable reactions against established religion.  In Reformation history, it was Calvinists, Lutherans, and other state religions that drowned them for disagreeing with paedo-baptism, for example.  So the deck is stacked against theonomy from the start, by who is writing.

2. Intro - Walker is right that newer teachers are taking up the mantle of Reconstruction, from a generation or two ago.  There is a direct line from Rushdoony (RJR) to Fight Laugh Feast and Jeff Durbin.  No need to hide this, though the latter seldom cite their sources.  I don't think they are being sneaky, just not looking to dredge up old debates.

3. Yes, there is a distinction between Reconstruction (culture building) and Theonomy (reading the Bible a certain way).  But they are inseparable, inherently.  If you read Scripture with any sort of theonomic impulse, you are motivated to conform your culture to the standards of the whole Word of God.  Is this wrong?  Is it the same as Handmaiden's Tale theocracy?  (Hint: no.)

4. Interesting claim, that theonomy is more a "mood and mode of engagement" today than an intellectual movement.  This rings true to me.  Today's proponents are standing on Bahnsen's and RJR's shoulders, assuming their work as valid, and doing something different from them.  They are arguing against contrary assumptions in the Reformed world today: "Radical Two Kingdom theology," natural law advocates, the stay-out-of-politics crowd, and the overall pessimism regarding culture wars.

5. Walker distinguishes between General Equity Theonomy (apply all God's law generally in some way), and RJR theonomy (apply the letter of the whole law to society).  Since I'm a general equity advocate, the rest of the article seemed a straw-man fallacy to me.  Walker critiqued the RJR brand (a form of theocracy), and seldom the general equity brand.

6. One of the disagreements is over natural law and revealed law.  The theonomist would ask, if the fall has twisted our thoughts and common sense (noetic effects of the fall), how can we rely on natural law?  The critic would ask, "hasn't the OT civil law passed away in application, with the coming of Christ?  Hasn't God revealed more to us than just a law code specific for Israel at one time?  Bringing Adam and Eve together in the garden affirms everything about the design of marriage that the civil codes do," the argument goes.  Here, I side with the theonomist: Exodus-Deuteronomy law expands on the design of marriage in very specific ways that go beyond common sense, or what we can figure out from creation.  Why would we ignore that, or assume such creational marriage principles passed away with the coming of Christ?

7. Walker: "The error of Theonomy is that its hermeneutic stretches beyond the Bible's understanding of its own authority."  

This is a fancy way of saying, "the Bible doesn't mean what you think it means.  It doesn't mean for the OT scaffolding to remain after the NT building is finished."  This begs the question.  What part of the law is scaffolding that comes down once the building is finished (Christ has come), and what should remain as a goal to pursue today in our personal and cultural life?

8. Walker's assertion that theonomy "instrumentalizes religion" is fascinating.  I take his point to be that the real goal in theonomy is transforming society, and saving the soul is just a means to that end.  In his mind, the goal should be the soul spared damnation.  The end of the Bible shows both, without priority given.  Souls are spared the lake of fire, and the New Jerusalem is a "reconstructed" society without sorrow and sighing.  

Walker is on to something that many in my circles seem more passionate about changing society and winning culture wars, than saving souls.  Some of us pursue a theology of glory too much, rejecting the theology of the cross.  That is a fault, but they are also right to not reduce the gospel to a conversion experience.  How now shall I live?

9. Walker gives away his baptist assumptions when he says "the NT affirms nine of [the Ten Commandments]."  To him, if the NT doesn't reaffirm it, it is passed away.  To me, if the NT doesn't undo the OT specifically, it remains in effect.  

The issue here is the NT political context, not at all friendly to the emerging Christian religion (think Nero!).  Did Paul, when writing Romans 13 and Philemon, mean for us to stay in that posture of compliance with and distance from the state, or to advance to a point where we disciple the state, magistrate, and nations to follow Christ in their official policies?  Was Knox wrong to preach to Queen Mary?  Shouldn't the church say to its culture and government: "Stop keeping slaves!"  "Stop killing babies!"  Was John the Baptist wrong to apply the Levitical code to Herod in his marriage, winding him in jail, then executed?  Paul worked the personal angle with Philemon.  Are we limited to that?  Is it wrong to take a prophetic tack with the state as John did?

10.  The OT law is not just a contextualized timestamped snapshot of the natural law, which we can figure out from the rest of Scripture and common sense.  (This seems to be Walker's view.)  The OT law is God's Word.  It is not retired wholesale with Christ's coming, nor is it something to follow to the letter without change, as Hebrews shows.

11. Walker is right that theonomy "presupposes a Christian society that does not exist."  But he begs the question to assume it never could.  We ought to work toward this, even if it is several steps down the road.  It is unhelpful to try to do step 4 of the instructions before step 1, that part of his critique is valid.  But to assume we will never get beyond step 1 is equally unhelpful.  Some cultures in history have been at step 3 or 4, out of 5.  To assume none have gotten beyond step 2, and none ever can, is prejudicial pessimism.

12. "Theonomy cannot build a just society"

No the law can't do that, and that is not the theonomist argument.  The gospel can!  The gospel points people to obey God's Word and if this happens widescale in a society, reconstructing Christian culture is not a Quixotic quest.  Later, Walker commits the fallacy of bifurcation to assert that a widely converted society would pursue freedom for all, not "enact a theonomic agenda."  For the most part, these two options actually overlap.  

When they don't?  What do you do with the blasphemer - stone him?  I would say, no.  As with the woman caught in adultery, in the New Covenant, sentences are lightened, though the sin is still recognized and dealt with.  Here is Walker's straw-man again, assuming the theonomist would do exactly as was done to the blasphemer in Exodus, when that is not the theonomic position, as I understand it.

13. Can we build a just society on common grace?  That is a question dividing these two camps.  The baptist asserts that a government can stumble along with decent enough justice, given God's law written on the heart and common sense.  The theonomist asserts that common grace can only take us so far.  Such a society will be riddled with inconsistencies and corruption in the state, since they suppress the truth that God reveals to them by His common grace.  Only submission to Christ and God's revealed truth can bring a just society.  I think the latter is right.

14. "We are not discipling nations for the sake of political hegemony."

Goodness, no one said we were!  It is for the sake of Christ.  Walker's view, on the other hand, seems to be to NOT disciple the nations.  Shall we do what Jesus SAID to do, even when we are tempted to do so for the wrong reasons (political hegemony)?  Or shall we NOT do what Jesus said to do, so we aren't tempted to do it for the wrong reasons?

15.  Is theonomy inherently statist?

Walker ends with this assertion.  Theonomy is opposed to a state granting freedom of religious expression.  This critique suffers from the secular (devilish, really) assumption that freedom is the right to do whatever you want to do.  But biblical freedom is the freedom to obey and serve God, not bound by our sinful desires.  Should that truth never touch the government's policy?  That's the libertarian's mistake.

Kuyper's Sphere Sovereignty and Totalitarian America

Robert Godfrey gives a good summary of Abraham Kuyper’s life in a recent talk I listened to.

Right at the end for five minutes, he describes the idea of sphere sovereignty and puts it in Kuyper’s historical setting, which I hadn’t heard done before.

Kuyper was a generation or so after Napoleon.  The “anti-Revolution” political party that Kuyper started reacted against the totalitarianism of the French revolution.  That monstrosity asserted that the state was the ultimate rule for society.  Kuyper said, no, the ultimate rule for society does not reside in any one human form of government, but is divided among several: family, church, and state.  The division helps keep each one honest when all are prone to over-reach selfishly.

We see this play out today.

Family over-reach arrives in ultra-conservative patriarchy, where father over-rules church elders, and keeps the state away with his guns in his bunker.  Or it arrives in the soft evangelical way, where family schedule simply shrugs at church and civic obligations.  “Go to a Christmas church service?  That time is for FAMILY.”

Church over-reach arrives in heavy-handed institutions like popes or bishops, or Presbyterian sessions overly keen on wielding their authority.  They deliver statements like edicts from on high regarding what an individual MUST do in a specific situation, to avoid disciplinary action, and to truly please God by submitting to His earthly authorities.

State over-reach arrives in the West with soft promises to help do things that the state was never meant to do: subsidize home loans, extend student loans, force us to get insurance for various things we don’t always want, help us eat healthier, and take away our second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.  (Ask Virginians about that last one these days.)  In developing countries, state over-reach arrives when the state “protects” Christian minorities from itself by forbidding assembly and jailing its pastors (China), or allowing marauders to attack them, so they move elsewhere (Nigeria).

As you can see from these examples, getting sphere sovereignty wrong has dire consequences.  We would do well to study the idea in Scripture, and advocate for biblical justice in these areas.

Homosexuality, Reparative Therapy, and the Bible

Robert Gagnon spoke at a recent Evangelical Theological Society meeting.

I got the recording – it was the first time I’ve heard him speak and I was delighted.

A theology professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Gagnon’s expertise is what the Bible says about homosexuality.

This talk gets specifically into reparative therapy, which has become the whipping boy of this LGBT issue for all sides.  Outlawed in a majority of states, it is now rejected by a majority of conservative, evangelical, Bible-believing Christians as well.  Gagnon does a great job distinguishing real reparative therapy from the strawman bogeyman set up for us.

Is the main goal to make same-sex oriented people into those with hetero desires?  No.

Is the assumption that such therapy will automatically bring about an easy reversal?  No.

Is the person who experiences same-sex attraction automatically guilty of sin?  No.

Are the homosexually oriented the way they are because of flawed relationships with their parent of the same sex?  Not necessarily.

Is the cause entirely nurture, and not nature at all?  Not necessarily.

Gagnon talks a lot of sense, here.  It’s commonly assumed that the Bible’s take on homosexuality is basically, “Ew.  Icky.  Go away.”  Wrong.  1 Corinthians 6:9-11 proves it.

To take each of the above points in turn:

Is the main goal to make same-sex oriented people into those with hetero desires?
It would be ideal for the same-sex attracted to become hetero, but if this does not happen, one can remain a faithful Christian while denying continuing homosexual temptations and desires.

Is the assumption that such therapy will automatically bring about an easy reversal?

Reparative therapy does not assume an easy and automatic change, but it does hold out hope for a change out of the homosexual lifestyle.  Even describing it this way gives such hope.  If one can move from a conservative Christian family member lifestyle into a homosexual lifestyle, it stands to reason one can move out of a homosexual lifestyle into another lifestyle. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 again.

Is the person who experiences same-sex attraction automatically guilty of sin?
Reparative therapy’s main goal isn’t to get the patient to never feel those icky same-sex attraction feelings again, but to learn to renounce them biblically.  There is a volitional element to this issue seldom taken account of adequately.  Just as a man can experience the temptation to lust after a woman, but reject it and stay faithful, so the same-sex attracted can reject their temptation faithfully, while still experiencing the attraction.  This may be the most controversial of Gagnon’s points, but I think I agree.  That attraction is part of a fallen world – not how things are supposed to be.  And many things are that way, but not morally culpable: autism, hurricanes, etc.  This is a far cry from celebrating the diversity of just having a different lifestyle, of course.  But it is also far from the visceral, “Ew, gross.”  Everyone is messed up with desires they need to renounce.  In one sense, we should “normalize” homosexuality by saying it’s “just another sin,” as long as we maintain the abhorrent cosmic treason of every kind of sin.  As Rosaria Butterfield likes to ask other church goers, “What are YOU giving up to be here in church today?”  She’s giving up homosexual desire.  What are you repenting of?

Are the homosexually oriented the way they are because of flawed relationships with their parent of the same sex?

The homosexual may be how they are due to messed up relationships with parents, but not necessarily.  It’s something for the therapist to check into, but reparative therapy is not synonymous with pat answers and a pat on the head.

Is the cause entirely nurture, and not nature at all?

The world just doesn’t like the assumption that homosexuality is a disorder for which treatment by a therapist may help.  This was assumed to be true until very recently, even in the professional psychology manuals and journals.  But now it must be vigorously rejected, even in state law, so extensively is the sexual revolution progressing.

Conclusion

Gagnon does an excellent job talking Biblical sense, between the Victorian squeamishness that the world loves to reject, and the common celebration of perversity out there today.  The church embraces this squeamishness to its isolation from the rising generations.  The young go along with celebrating this "lifestyle" to the contradiction of God's Word.

A Bible Question: Does God Stop Listening?

Psalm 32:6 "Therefore let everyone who is godly offer prayer to you at a time when you may be found; surely in the rush of great waters, they shall not reach him."

Question: Isn't that saying that sometimes God isn't listening? What am I missing?

The main point here connects with verse 5: there will come a time when it is too late to repent and be forgiven. Both in our death and God's final judgment of us.  But also on earth, God brings consequences for our sins after a time if we don't change in time.

The second half of the verse is tricky and can be read two ways.
1. "They" refers to the godly's prayers. The point then is that the prayers of confession are too late - only to stop the consequences, not to really repent. Hebrews 12:16-17 would be an example of this. I don't read the verse this way, because it says "the godly," and it's the ungodly who act this way.

2. "They" refers to the waves that won't reach the godly. Verse 7 seems to confirm this. This isn't an absolute: "the godly will never have trouble, and be spared all consequences of their sin." But there is an ultimate sparing and mercy from God to His people.

Justification, Full Stop?

"We are not justified by our love....  We are justified only by faith in [Jesus Christ's] finished work.  But those who are justified by faith are given the glorious calling to live and love like Jesus..."

This was the conclusion of a stellar Tabletalk article on loving your neighbor.
(March 2018, "Christ and the Love of Neighbor," JR Vassar)

I wanted to emphasize one aspect in the quote above.  I sometimes hear those zealous for the doctrines of grace (a special class of them that I call TR's, the Truly Reformed in their own minds) say that we are justified by faith alone [JFA], full stop.  Don't say anything more, don't qualify that or you undermine it.

This is going too far.  See the quote above, again.  "We are justified only by faith in His finished work.  But..."  There IS more to say.  What comes next should never undercut or undo the essential assertion of JFA.  TR's have had plenty of experience with those seeking to do just that while paying lip service to JFA, so I don't fault their concern and motivation.  But if there wasn't more to say, Romans would have ended at chapter 5 or 11, Galatians somewhere in chapter 5, Ephesians at chapter 3.

We must consider our justification by faith alone - we have favor with God, apart from our striving to obey God.
We must also consider our "glorious calling to live and love like Jesus."

We are not justified by a faith that is alone.

Antinomianism

Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? by Mark Jones

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


One of the hardest things for Christians, and Christian theologians, to balance is our justification by God’s free grace alone, and our duty to obey God’s Word. If we are more eager to defend faith alone, we might skip too lightly over our duty to God’s law. If we get excited about applying the law to every aspect of our lives, we might lead others to think wrongly that the law justifies us.

Mark Jones aims to guard against the first danger. Interacting mainly with Tullian Tchividjian’s recent writings, and also with the Sonship movement, our author takes up the old debate over the law between the Lutheran and Reformed, ably defending the Reformed view.

The Lutheran view opposes law and gospel, even into the Christian life, while the Reformed see them as friends, in Christ. “The antithesis between the law and the gospel ends the moment someone becomes a Christian” (Ch. 4, “Sweetly Comply” section, para. 2). “With the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend” (same). Notice that outside of Christ all agree that law and gospel are at odds: law condemns; gospel holds out rescue. But “As Richard Muller notes, ‘The law, for Lutheranism, can never become the ultimate norm for Christian living but, instead, must always lead to Christ who alone is righteous” (Ch. 4, “Sweetly Comply” section, para. 3).

This works out in our “street level” piety in this way: to avoid giving any glory to ourselves, average-Joe Reformed-guy will say that everything he does, even the most obedient, is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:4). We cannot keep the law and never will, so we turn away from it, to the Gospel and accept grace, never to look back to the law. But this is misguided.

“It is actually an affront to God to suggest that Spirit-wrought works in believers are ‘filthy rags,’ for these are works that God has prepared in advance for us to do in order to magnify his grace and glorify the name of Christ (1 Cor. 15:10; John 15:5)” (Ch. 5, “Good or Filthy” section, para. 3).

See the problem? Do we have to turn away from the law to accept grace? Yes, in the sense that we have to give up trying to keep it for ourselves. No, in the sense that we should still strive to obey God. But it is so easy to turn back to the law, once we have become believers, and fall back into legalism, trying to earn or keep our status with God. So easy, that many believers resist it at all. Any talk of duty or obedience must lead to legalism. No! No! Jones shines at this point, showing all the Scriptures that take us back to obedience, with nary a hint of legalism.

When we say God is pleased with us in Christ, is there no sense in which His pleasure changes based on our obedience? The antinomian, eager to defend God’s electing and unchanging love, will quickly say no, there is no aspect of God’s love toward us that changes, whether we sin or not, if we are in Christ. But the Bible speaks of our pleasing God or not, as Christians (2 Sam. 11:27; Col 1:10). This does not mean our obedience determines our salvation, but our obedience (or lack thereof) does affect our relationship with God. The antinomian, on the other hand, will oppose preachers who “warn their people that they can displease God and Christ or that God can be angry with his people, as he often has been (Ezra 9; 2 Kings 17:18)” (Ch. 6, “Displeasing God and Christ” section, para. 4).

Much of this debate revolves around our view of sanctification. The antinomian is prone to say that sanctification is little more than getting used to and living out our justification. The better view is to exhort us as Peter did to work out our salvation. “The sanctification of the church is an important part of Christ’s glory. It would be incorrect to affirm that we can add to or diminish God’s essential glory. But, again, we may or may not bring glory to the God-man, depending on our obedience or sin” (Ch. 6, “Pleasing God and Christ” section, para. 3).

May we look to our sanctification at all for assurance that we are in Christ? The antinomian would say no, that will lead to works-righteousness. But the classic Reformer said yes, our obedience is a secondary source of assurance (Ch. 7). The antinomian sees himself as a Christian as still totally depraved, ignoring the work of the Spirit moving him to obedience which pleases God. He assumes he isn’t much different from unbelievers as far as his heart goes. Looking within will only result in despair. The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith saw it differently when they wrote that assurance is founded in part upon “the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises [of salvation] are made” (WCF 18:2). In other words, God is working something new in you, that will be evident in some ways. This doesn’t mean we are justified in thinking ourselves better morally than unbelievers, generally. But God is doing a work of sanctification in us that He is not doing in unbelievers.

Jones has a difficult PR battle with his thesis. No one who wants to be known as a defender of Reformed doctrines of grace and the five solas wants to imply what sound like caveats to our justification by faith alone. Who wants to appear to demote the importance of justification, the hallmark of the Reformation? And yet, if we are to do justice to all of Scripture, we must be careful not to wave our pet doctrine so loudly that it drowns out other important truths in the Bible. “The antinomians gave a priority to justification that went far beyond what Scripture teaches” (Ch 7. “Antinomian Assurance” section, para. 6). This is an audacious statement when writing to a Reformed audience! But I believe it to be an important caution. We have not exhaustively described the Gospel when we have explained justification. While justification is the capstone of Reformed theology, it is not all of it. It is the hinge on which our salvation turns, but it is not the whole door.

Where you stand in this debate as a pastor will dramatically shape your preaching. Jones critiques the antinomian: “The same repetitive mantras are preached week after week, to the point that if you have heard one sermon, you have heard them all. These are not overstatements. It is very difficult for some preachers to deliver messages each week when they have a sort of ‘systematic theology’ that they need to declare every Lord’s Day” (Ch. 8, “Different Types” section, para. 10).

Jones’ main point is that if we understand the person and work of Christ in His fullness, the apparent tension between law and gospel will resolve itself. Jesus justifies and sanctifies us for His glory.

This book may be especially useful for “cage stage” Calvinists who have just discovered the doctrines of grace, and for elders and pastors considering how to preach (and evaluate preaching on) the whole counsel of God. It isn’t an “entry-level” theology book – you ought to know a little about the Reformed doctrinal landscape before diving in. And he quotes old-language Puritans frequently. But I highly commend this work to you.



View all my reviews

He Shall Come to Judge the Quick and the Dead

Thanksgiving comes providentially at the end of the liturgical church year, which outlines the work of Christ for our redemption.  Beginning with His birth (Christmas) and ministry (Lent), then death and resurrection (Easter), giving of the Spirit (Pentecost), it concludes with a recognition of All Saints’ Day on November 1, noting the Church triumphant that has gone on to glory.

Thanksgiving is an ideal stand-in for the final work of Christ for our redemption: His return to judge the quick and the dead. This follows the death of the saints.  Consider the last verses of a classic hymn at Thanksgiving time.

All the world is God's own field,
fruit as praise to God we yield;
wheat and tares together sown
are to joy or sorrow grown;
first the blade and then the ear,
then the full corn shall appear;
Lord of harvest, grant that we
wholesome grain and pure may be. 

3 For the Lord our God shall come,
and shall take the harvest home;
from the field shall in that day
all offenses purge away,
giving angels charge at last
in the fire the tares to cast;
but the fruitful ears to store
in the garner evermore. 

4 Even so, Lord, quickly come,
bring thy final harvest home;
gather thou thy people in,
free from sorrow, free from sin,
there, forever purified,
in thy presence to abide;
come, with all thine angels, come,
raise the glorious harvest home.

We are the harvest that the Lord reaps for His barns.  The denomination in which I was raised has a communion liturgy that points us forward to this:  “As this grain was gathered from many fields into one loaf, and these grapes were gathered from many hills into one cup, grant, O Lord, that Your whole Church may soon be gathered from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom.”

So, while the rest of the world rushes to the stores today, Christians would do well to meditate on the spiritual harvest still to come, when our Lord shall come and gather us home.  Jesus was the first-fruits of the resurrection harvest to come, when all the dead in Christ will rise.

The abundance and feasting we experience at Thanksgiving looks ahead to the joyful marriage supper of the Lamb in glory.  Then petition will give way to eternal thanksgiving, “How long?” will resolve to “How great!” and cries for vindication from under the altar will turn to “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain!” (Rev. 5-6).