More on qualifications for Church Elder

I preached on Titus 1:1-9 last Sunday, the qualifications for elder.

Since I didn't get to some issues, I wrote this to supplement it.

1 Tim 3:4-5:

“He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

Titus 1:5-6:

“appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.”

 

 

What do these verses mean?  Vigorous disagreement has been around for a while on applying this qualification for eldership to specific situations.  Here are some thoughts, in addition to my recent sermon on Titus 1:1-9.

 

A key point I’m asserting here is that men do not have to have raised and launched all of their children and ensured they are all Christians into adulthood, to be qualified to be elders.

I’ll start with a grammatical point to prove this.  Paul says, “managing” (present tense) not “having managed his own household well” (past, aorist, or perfect tense).  So it isn’t “he has raised his kids and they all turned out believers.”  It may be that, but it may also be, “he IS raising his kids, and it looks like he is doing it well.”

 

The prohibition, “not accused of dissipation or insubordination” (Titus 1:6) means that a child of an elder can’t be living a deeply entrenched life of rebellion and self-indulgence.  This is a sin that tends to show up in the teen years, at the earliest.  But we can’t infer from this that a man’s children must be old enough to see if this is happening.  This would be the same logic that we reject in our covenantal understanding of the sacraments.  We don’t wait to baptize our children until we’re sure they have “turned out.”  We don’t wait to commune our children until we see they can examine themselves with a mature mental understanding.  Neither need we wait to bring a man on as elder until we’re sure his children have “turned out.”  It is fine to go by what you see in how a man carries himself with his family when they are younger.  Is he overly deferring to their desires and letting them rule the roost?  Or is he giving direction, discipline, and correction, to train them in self-denial and godliness over time (“Keeping his children submissive” - 1 Tim 3:4), without provoking them to anger with his harshness?

 

The Titus 1:6 phrase above also means a Session should not be “trigger-happy” when an elder or elder candidate’s child has an isolated incident of foolishness or even rebellion.  Even the most faithful parent will have children that are indulgent or rebellious on occasion.  The key is if they stay that way, and how the parent deals with it.  If dad lets himself and/or his wife be too coddling or negligent (1 Sam 3:13) he is probably not qualified.  Also, if they are too harsh or tyrannical (Col 3:21; Eph 6:4), he is probably not qualified.  Every parent struggles between these two ditches.  Those who handle it best, are likely best qualified for eldership.

(In my mind this confirms that there is a parallel between parenting and pastoring.  Not that adult church members should be seen as children.  But the pastoral role is much like a parent’s.)

This fits with a point I made Sunday: elders are meant to be examples to the flock (Heb 13:7; 1 Peter 5:3), not picture-perfect.  There is a huge difference.  Positively, he has a track record such that the group expects he will usually be a good example for them to emulate.  Negatively, an example gets it wrong sometimes, and there is grace extended, but we also learn from mistakes.  If it gets bad enough, the example needs to be rebuked before all, to make it clear to everyone that he is NOT exemplary in this area where he is struggling (1 Tim 5:20).  But even in this case, Paul does not require removal from office, though the man is probably wise to offer it to the Session.

 

Now, when a man has adult children out of the home, we need to remember and balance two principles even more: covenantal connection, and individual moral agency.  Numbers 30:3 gives the principle here: a father has authority to direct his children’s lives when they are “in his house in their youth.”  But when they leave, he is less accountable for their spiritual course.  So if a man’s adult children have all, or mostly, left the faith (their own decision), and his demeanor or tone or articulation of the faith continues to show some fault that could have led to that (covenantal connection, seen in Col 3:21; Eph 6:4 again), then he is probably not qualified as an elder.  But in the absence of such a fault, or if he sees and has repented of it, we ought to consider such a man for office.  There is a parallel here with the marriage qualification (“one-woman man” Titus 1:6).  A man may have been unconverted, unfaithful to his spouse, and unbiblically divorced 10-20 years ago.  But now he is converted, repentant of that, remarried, and has a great marriage in the Lord.  Such a man should not be ruled unqualified from eldership, on this factor alone.  In the same way, a man may have come to see the error of his bad parenting ways, such that he is qualified now to be an elder, though his children have not come around.

 

The criteria is not “perfect history,” but “faithful example now, and for long enough to be trustworthy.”

 

I’ll close with something even more controversial:

Elder selection is frankly, partially relative to the best options in the group.  Each church needs incarnate, officially recognized, examples and leaders on the ground.  If you have a small, young church of all 20-somethings, single or newly married, and two guys in their 30s with 2 younger children, then the latter are the best choice, going by this factor alone.  

Of course, there are limits to this.  Sometimes the most mature in the group still aren’t “elder material.”  Then you just wouldn’t have a fully functioning church.  But there are times to “lower the bar,” and remove extra qualifications for office that we are adding to the Scriptural ones, in order to provide adequately for God’s people.  (Again, to get specific, in my circles extra qualifications would mean things like, you’ve read Rushdoony, you’re post-mil, you’re paedo-communion, you’re a VanTil fan, zero public incidents of problems with the kids, etc.)

 

“The need is not the call” is an important counterpoint to this.  To take an extreme example, a group of 20-year-old stoners suddenly convert to Christ.  It's probably a bad idea to make the guy who has been off weed the longest (for 2 weeks!) an elder.  They need a different example.

 

But a far more common situation in my circles is the opposite extreme:

There are several decently adequate men, deliberately faithful, learning and growing, who are NOT being trained for eldership, because they don’t have all the right theological opinions.

 

Character and wisdom matter much more than such opinions.

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.

Preach from the Original / Reconstruction Reviewed / Why Infant Baptism

John Piper (and Peter Jones) reminds me to keep studying my Hebrew and Greek, as part of my pastoral ministry.  It's really true.

Here's an insightful review of R.J. Rushdoony by Richard Mouw - it shows how he departed from the Reformed mainstream.  Deals with Kuyper well, and, my favorite quote, that Rush "displayed no 'ability to cooperate with anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of Scripture, no matter how minor or insignificant the distinction.' "

This may help some of my baptist friends understand what I'm thinking baptizing babies.

Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture by James D. Bratt
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Dutch Calvinism in Modern America


  Roots


Fascinating, since I grew up in the Reformed Church in America (RCA) near Grand Rapids.  Reading biographies of ancestors familial or religious is usually a helpful self-reflective experience, and doubly so when the forebears are both ethnic AND theological kin.  The first chapter mentions Albertus Van Raalte, an early pioneering pastor who led a group of immigrants and established the Reformed church in which I grew up.  They left the Netherlands for two main reasons: the state church’s liberal decline following the Enlightenment, and the famine that left many farmers nearly destitute.  Emigration was a natural move once they had seceded from the state church.  Bratt spends a bit of time on Kuyper, the father of worldview and “back to principles” thinking.

  Four Options to Relate to the World


His most useful analysis was the grid with four mentalities among the Dutch Reformed.  Two factors led to these four groups.  Some stressed a Kuyperian worldview, others personal piety.  Some stressed an outward optimism, others an inward defensiveness.  The piety-minded optimists were found largely in the mainstream RCA, self-consciously moderate and decent.  Norman Vincent Peale came from this stream.  The worldview optimists or neo-Calvinists stressed engaging with the world and applying Scriptural principles to institution building, like Kuyper.  The more defensive pietiests stressed the confessions and looked to doctrine as the engine of faith, like J. Gresham Machen would later for the Presbyterians.  The more defensive Kuyperians were the “Antitheticals,” always stressing the opposition and incompatibility between worldlings and the regenerate.  Herman Hoeksema and Van Til are representative.

This really helped me place my experience on a map.  Like a fish can’t analyze the water it’s in without help, we analyze our own stories least objectively.  I grew up with a fairly optimistic-pietist church and family (#1, RCA), then had a theological awakening of self-conscious rejection of liberalism (#2, thanks to confessionalists like RC Sproul), went to Calvin College where I had a healthy dose of (#3) neo-Calvinism in its optimistic form, and then landed in a denomination that has drunk its fill of the antithesis (#4, Van Til, Rushdoony, etc.).  What has been disorienting to me is the ignorance or disagreements these camps have with each other.  I picked up scads of RC Sproul tapes for free at an RCA seminary that no longer wants much to do with confessional boundaries and distinctions.  An inquiry of an RCA pastoral search committee of a confessional nature gets near-blank stares.  Calvin College (in camp #3) disdains defensive orthodoxy and creationism that usually goes with camp #2.  Lots of folks introduced to Reformed theology through Van Til (camp #4) aren’t even aware there are other Reformed options!

  If you’re not Dutch, you’re not… left out


Now these options aren’t unique to the Dutch Reformed.  Most Christians land in one of these camps or the other, and we should think it through deliberately.  Is your spirituality defined more by private exercises like Bible reading or evangelism, or by involvement in a Christian school or missions or social work?  It’s a false dichotomy and we shouldn’t choose, but most of us lean a certain way.  Is your thinking more pro-active and engaging with Joe-at-the-office, or do you tend to see them more as the adversary to be defended against?  We can so vilify Muslims or Arminians or Democrats that we won’t think to strike up a conversation with them.  Or we can be so winsome that we don’t keep distinctions like we should.

  The War


Reading of the Dutch experience in America at the onset of WWI was sad.  Several professors or ministers pointed out the American hypocrisy of demanding to be treated as a neutral party while supplying England with arms.  They tended to see England as the culprit more than Germany.  In the patriotic frenzy of war time Americans lashed out at these sentiments.  The papers printed suggestions of their deportation or execution for this sedition, or maybe eugenics (forced sterilization) was the answer.  But many congregations supported the war, and they wrapped their sanctuaries in the flag as a show of support for the war effort – at least those in camps 1 and maybe 3, above did.  Others steadfastly refused, given the transcendence of the church over any nation.  One minister took to carrying a pistol, he received such public hostility over this refusal.  It wasn’t an over-reaction; he was threatened on the streets of Holland, Michigan.  Other ministers called his refusal to allow the flag in church both treasonous and criminal.  The war intensified the disagreements over how the church should relate to the world.

After the war, the infighting turned theological, over common grace and general revelation.  One synod renounced a professor for being too cosy with the modern science behind archaeology.  Soon after it rejected Herman Hoeksema for denying common grace.  Has God “left much good in the world” (113), or is there no common denominator between the believer and the unbeliever?

In later chapters, Bratt gives more time to Dutch Reformed novelists who mainly reject their roots, than he does to Berkhof, Van Til, Berkouwer, Lewis Smedes, and Dooyeweerd.  This was unfortunate.  Still, the history is immensely helpful as a case study for how one group of Christians sought to live in the world while not becoming of the world, through their own immigration, eking out a living, wartimes and prosperity.  Much of it comes down to this question: how do we keep our young people faithful to Christ, and from going after the allures of the world?  I leave you with camp #3’s answer, which tends to be my own:

“Whoever believes that we can remain outside the world… by urging our young people to embrace the Anabaptist error is badly mistaken.  It is exactly the opposite.  If we understand with our children that God in His Common Grace has left much good in the world, and that even a Christian, yes especially a Christian as a child of the Lord, can and may be thankful for it, then our coming generation… shall maintain our precious Calvinism….  Along the line of the Anabaptist error, through the denial of the good that God gives to his creatures, we shall within a few decades die of spiritual anemia” (113).

View all my reviews

On Rushdoony - Again

I think I published this piece here a couple years ago, but thought it could do with seeing it again.

If you don't know who R.J. Rushdoony is, feel free to move along...

Review of Institutes of Biblical Law

I was quite taken aback to begin reading the introduction to the Institutes of Biblical Law and find Calvin’s view of the law dubbed “heretical nonsense” (9). Rushdoony pulls no punches.

Surveying the 10 commandments for 650 pages, and then turning to the use of the law throughout Scripture for another 200, Rushdoony is an insightful cultural critic and decent exegete, but his theological view of the law within the entire scope of Scripture is off kilter.

There is a wealth of information on the Ten Commandments, applied throughout Scripture and today. He helpfully explains the principle behind obscure and bizarre (sounding to moderns) laws. The danger of doing this so well and specifically is inferring too much from the law, and Rushdoony falls into this plenty often, I think. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment.” This leads to transvestites, but starts with confusing gender roles. So, men shouldn’t do “woman’s work” (437), he says. It’s good to apply every Word of God specifically, and in every legitimate way possible, but we may not infer too much from a text. Scripture must interpret Scripture. In this example, we note the Proverbs 31 woman makes forays into “man’s work,” but it isn’t her primary activity. A man can help his wife with the dishes without violating Scripture!

Theologically, everything leads back to the paramount law for Rushdoony, whether it is grace, communion, baptism, etc. An example: “The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the renewal of the covenant so that the sacrament itself re-establishes the law" (7). That's just a strange way to put things. Love and covenant relationship is the point, more than the law. The sacraments re-affirm the ongoing relationship IN SPITE of our law breaking. They are sacraments of the covenant of grace. This phrase gives me a queer feeling that for Rushdoony the law is the end all and be all of religion. This often feels like Judaizing, and contrary to Paul’s letters and the book of Hebrews, to which he seldom refers. It feels like it, but it is not. His view of grace cancelling the punishments of the law appears to be orthodox elsewhere, though he places much more emphasis on the use of the law in society. He hammers away at Romans 8:4, that the righteous requirement of the law is meant to be fulfilled in us, and this is needed in our day. He just does it in a way that makes you think the law is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, which it isn’t.

He denies any place for common grace: that the unregenerate can come to some wisdom in governing men and nations. A society is either founded on the Law-Word of God and faithful, or it is looking to the wisdom of man and it is apostate. This is certainly clear, but too either-or. What if states are free to apply the “general equity” of God’s law, as Westminster and Calvin taught? He is quick to throw out the charge of antinomianism, and the church HAS fallen into sin by claiming to be under grace. But Rushdoony charges the mainstream Reformed position, that the state is not held to enforce the whole of Biblical law, as antinomian.

Rushdoony is very influential in my circles. He gives you a clear place to stand (or a way to fight) in a morally degenerating culture: with the law. As the church finds herself increasingly in a “bread and circuses” culture, she is more susceptible to over-responding into the Donatist and ascetic heresies. I’m not calling Rushdoony a Donatist or heretic. But he does make some grandiose claims for how the law can preserve and save a society. I would like to interact positively with his views, especially asking which laws are binding on individuals and on the state today (without facing the charge of antinomianism for even asking the question), while toning down the “silver bullet” expectations that just going back to the law will solve our problems. The law is a real piece of the solution, as is the Church, and especially the Spirit working repentance and grace in the heart.

There is too much for a short review. Insightful exegesis is mixed with off balance theology. This continues in the appendices by Gary North. John Frame sums it up best: “Yes, we must not substitute love for law; but we had better not substitute law for love either. Yes, love may be defined in terms of law; but the requirement of the law is also summarized and defined in the love-commandment…. A bit more “sympathy” with people and a bit less preoccupation with legal rights would greatly improve his treatment of these matters…. Rushdoony has been so preoccupied with the question of the authority of the law that he has missed some very weighty elements of biblical teaching…. he tends to set himself off so sharply from other Reformed thinkers that he is not in a very good position to benefit from their counsel. Nor are they in a good position to benefit from his.”

See here for my previous thoughts on Rushdoony

http://hemmeke.blogspot.com/search?q=Rushdoony

See here for John Frame’s excellent and more indepth review of this book.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/the-institutes-of-biblical-law-a-review-article/

Commentators

Here is some commentary fun, from studying the Ten Commandments. Each writer has his own style that annoys or endears.
This is meant as light hearted fun, exaggerating their style and/or content for comedic effect. No offense is intended to any of these men, who far surpass me in wisdom.


Charles Hodge - the principle is evident, even from the conscience and natural reason.

Thomas Watson - the commandment has eight parts and six uses...

Rushdoony - this commandment shows the evils of the over-reaching state, and why the government should not be involved in education. A return to Biblical Law is the answer to our problems.

a Brakel - we see this commandment violated in 1 Sam 16:1; 2 Kings 3:5; Ecc 5:3; Deut 25:24, enjoined in Deut 25:24....

Herman Hoeksema - THERE IS NO COMMON GRACE!!!!

Review: The Institutes of Biblical Law

The Institutes of Biblical Law by R.J. Rushdoony

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



I was quite taken aback to begin reading the introduction to the Institutes of Biblical Law and find Calvin’s view of the law dubbed “heretical nonsense” (9). Rushdoony pulls no punches.

Surveying the 10 commandments for 650 pages, and then turning to the use of the law throughout Scripture for another 200, Rushdoony is an insightful cultural critic and decent exegete, but his theological view of the law within the entire scope of Scripture is off kilter.

There is a wealth of information on the Ten Commandments, applied throughout Scripture and today. He helpfully explains the principle behind obscure and bizarre (sounding to moderns) laws. The danger of doing getting so specific is inferring too much from the law, and Rushdoony falls into this plenty often, I think. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment.” This leads to transvestites, but starts with confusing gender roles. So, men shouldn’t do “woman’s work” (437), for example. It’s good to apply every Word of God specifically, and in every legitimate way possible, but we may not infer too much from a text. Scripture must interpret Scripture. In this example, we note the Proverbs 31 woman makes forays into “man’s work,” but it isn’t her primary activity. A man can help his wife with the dishes without violating Scripture!

Theologically, everything leads back to the paramount law for Rushdoony, whether it is grace, communion, baptism, etc. An example: “The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the renewal of the covenant so that the sacrament itself re-establishes the law" (7). That's just a strange way to put things. Love and covenant relationship is the point, more than the law. The sacraments re-affirm the ongoing relationship IN SPITE of our law breaking. They are sacraments of the covenant of grace. This phrase gives me a queer feeling that for Rushdoony the law is the end all and be all of religion. This often feels like Judaizing, and contrary to Paul’s letters and the book of Hebrews, to which he seldom refers. It feels like it, but it is not. His view of grace cancelling the punishments of the law appears to be orthodox elsewhere, though he places much more emphasis on the use of the law in society. He hammers away at Romans 8:4, that the righteous requirement of the law is meant to be fulfilled in us, and this is needed in our day. He just does it in a way that makes you think the law is the end-all and be-all of Christianity, which it isn’t.

He denies any place for common grace: that the unregenerate can come to some wisdom in governing men and nations. A society is either founded on the Law-Word of God and faithful, or it is looking to the wisdom of man and it is apostate. This is certainly clear, but too either-or. What if states are free to apply the “general equity” of God’s law, as Westminster and Calvin taught? He is quick to throw out the charge of antinomianism, and the church HAS fallen into sin by claiming to be under grace. But Rushdoony charges the mainstream Reformed position that the state is not held to enforce the whole of Biblical law as antinomian.

Rushdoony is very influential in my circles. He gives you a clear place to stand (or a way to fight) in a morally degenerating culture: the law. As the church finds herself increasingly in a “bread and circuses” culture, she is more susceptible to over-responding into the Donatist and ascetic heresies. I’m not calling Rushdoony a Donatist or heretic in any other way. But he does make some grandiose claims for how the law can preserve and save a society. I would like to interact positively with his views, especially asking which laws are binding on individuals and on the state today (without the charge of antinomianism being applied for even asking the question), while toning down the “silver bullet” expectations that just going back to the law will solve our problems. The law is a real piece of the solution, as is the Church, and especially the Spirit working repentance and grace in the heart.

There is too much for a short review. Insightful exegesis is mixed with off balance theology. This continues in the appendices by Gary North. John Frame sums it up best: “Yes, we must not substitute love for law; but we had better not substitute law for love either. Yes, love may be defined in terms of law; but the requirement of the law is also summarized and defined in the love-commandment…. A bit more “sympathy” with people and a bit less preoccupation with legal rights would greatly improve his treatment of these matters…. Rushdoony has been so preoccupied with the question of the authority of the law that he has missed some very weighty elements of biblical teaching…. he tends to set himself off so sharply from other Reformed thinkers that he is not in a very good position to benefit from their counsel. Nor are they in a good position to benefit from his.”


See here for my previous thoughts on Rushdoony
http://hemmeke.blogspot.com/search?q=Rushdoony

See here for John Frame’s excellent and more indepth review of this book.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/the-institutes-of-biblical-law-a-review-article/




View all my reviews

Review: It’s (Not That) Complicated: How to Relate to Guys in a Healthy, Sane, and Biblical Way

It’s (Not That) Complicated: How to Relate to Guys in a Healthy, Sane, and Biblical Way by Anna Sofia Botkin

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



The Botkin daughters, unmarried and in their mid-20s, write to young ladies on how to relate to guys. I haven’t read their prior work, like Return of the Daughters and So Much More, judging the concept touted in the marketing material to be extra-Biblical. But I gave “It’s Not that Complicated” a try, and was pleasantly surprised.

Girls tend to have unrealistic expectations about boys. They think that every boy will converse like a pro. They set up an idealized gold standard. Just like guys expect girls to look like supermodels (more physical and visually oriented), girls expect guys to be emotive, very sensitive to feelings, highly verbal, etc. I liked their encouragement to girls to love their brothers in Christ, instead of maintaining impossibly high standards and being brutal in their thoughts with every boy who doesn’t meet those standards. Instead, take some modest initiative in conversation with boys. This is okay. Girls can be so deathly afraid of flirting or being forward that they are in a cocoon.

Guarding your own purity isn’t the main thing. Loving others is. Without giving away the store into immodest behavior, the Botkins deal realistically with how positively to relate to guys. Relationships with guys are expected, just not central; dangerous, but not to be denied. Don’t get romantically attached. This is said in a variety of helpful ways: “It is fully possible to have an interest in a young man’s life and future without feeling like you’re “buying personal shares in it.” A guy and girl “can have pure, honest affection and esteem for each other… without being inordinately affected by the ‘possibility’ possibility.” Flirting with and shunning boys both stem from “thinking of them [boys] only as romantic objects or marriage material.”

There were a couple sidepoints I quibble with. They quote Rushdoony on imagination being the essence of sin (pg 38). This ignores and denies Song of Solomon’s essential role of the poetic and the imaginative in romance. If the Botkins’ point is to keep your imagination from running wild about a potential relationship, though, the point is well put.

A bigger disagreement: they say not to communicate distance in interacting with guys, or you can crush them. This gives guys more credit than they need. Guys need to learn to take some knocks, including from girls, especially if they are flirting with them. Sometimes guys need to be repulsed by a cold shoulder when they cross the line. Then again, I’ve seen some harsh snubbing of someone deemed flirtatious that approached condemnation. Responding to one sin (flirting) with another (dismissive judgment) is no way to go. I’m a strong believer that young ladies should cultivate the art of communicating distance without judging or repelling an overly forward young man. When the guy is dense it’s virtually impossible to pull off, and the fault is all with the guy, but the girl should at least know ahead of time what she’s trying to accomplish and how, in that situation.

All in all a very helpful book for young people that avoids the two ditches of worldly compromise and over-scrupulous distance from the opposite sex.




View all my reviews

Expecting too much leads to sin

This is easily the most insightful and helpful passage I've read, of all 631 pages read thus far.
Glad I stuck with it for this alone.

Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, pg 630
"The influence of pietism has been an important one.... It's emphasis on sinless perfection has in fact begotten sin. Where men expect a sinless perfection of other men, they are readily led into a sinful intolerance of human frailties. This sinful perfectionism especially abounds... when men find their problems either temporarily or permanently insurmountable. Where problems are insoluble, men then turn on one another. Their basic unhappiness over the insoluble problems manifests itself in trying to 'dissolve' from their midst people who irk them....

"Irritation of man with man increases. There is a low level of tolerance with children, neighbors, husbands, wives, friends and associates....

"We sometimes need correcting, but, much of the time, we must live together mindful of our common frailties..."

No discernment without absolutes

"Without Gods absolute word, man can only offer a "life-style," not the truth; authority is also gone when truth is gone. The ability to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, is also gone, because, in an existential world, all things are relative, and man is beyond good and evil." Rushdoony, institutes of Biblical Law, pg 580.

How to get there

"Justification is by the grace of God through faith, and... Sanctification is by law, God's law." Rousas Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, pg 549. Well. Again, I had an allergic reaction to this, but read the whole section to hear him out. HIS allergic reaction is to people who try to avoid the law in their sanctification, in discerning whether they are pursuing holiness and following God's will. This is right. The pietism that pleases self, that one is holy based on how long you pray or read the Bible without reference to the Text is a real problem. The problem I still have with the above quote is that it implies that grace is not involved in our sanctification. Just submit. Just obey. Go do it. We remain reliant on The Spirit's work, giving us new life and new desires to be willing to turn to the Law and follow it. If the Father is the destination, and the Son is the road, and the Spirit is the car we are in getting us to the Father, then the Law is the lines on the road. Wouldn't be much good having lines without an actual road. Wouldn't be much good having a road and lines, without gas propelling you down the road.

Delightful Rushdoony, on the role of women

"[Eve's] God-given position was such that counsel was her normal duty.... Martin Luther, who dearly loved his Katie, on one occasion vowed, 'If I were to marry again, I would hew a meek wife out of stone: for I doubt whether any other kind be meek.' His biographer... properly asks, 'How would he have fared with a meek wife?' The answer clearly is, not too well"  (Institutes of Biblical Law, pg. 348).

"The Age of Reason saw man as reason incarnate, and woman as emotion and will, and therefore inferior. The thesis of the Age of Reason has been that the government of all things should be committed to reason. The Age of Reason opposed the Age of Faith self-consciously. Religion was deemed to be woman's business, and, the more the Enlightenment spread, the more church life came to be the domain of women and children.... Just as religion came to be regarded as a useless but sometimes charming ornament, so too women were similarly regarded" (349).

"The tragedy of the women's rights movement was that, although it had serious wrongs to correct, it added to the problem.... Instead of restoring women to their rightful place of authority beside man, women's rights became feminism: it put women in competition with men. It led to the masculinization of women and feminization of men, to the unhappiness of both" (351).

Great Monday morning quote on work

"[Work] is the God-given menas whereby man establishes dominion over the earth and realizes his calling under God.... Escape from work is a common desire among men.... they turn to play as a substitute for work. Socialist dreamers [Marx] capitalize on man's frustration.... The result is that man shows a chronic discontent combined with self-righteousness.... An age in which actors and actresses are public idols and heroes is a world of make-believe.... An actor-dominated society... is a consumption-centered society: it progressively loses its capacity to produce."

R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, pg 310-312.

Insightful and weird, from one page to the next

The more I read of Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law, the more insightful I find him, and the more off base in other areas. To borrow a phrase, sometimes he's on to something, and sometimes he's on something.

He notes that church and state both have a responsibility to kill and make alive: to punish sin and crime, and to provide charity and governance. If church or state only kills, it is tyranny. If they only make alive, they compromise truth by not judging against sin or crime. Great stuff.

Then in the following pages he advocates "total avoidance of... violations of 'kinds.'" (256). This means no hybrid plants or "futile experimentation, such as organ transplants, which represent sterile and limited gains" (262). Hm. Besides rejecting the Westminsterian categories of ritual or civil law as applying only to Israel, this denies some life-saving scientific gains (kidney and heart transplants!) which violate no biblical law.

Rushdoony makes an insightful connection in the kind category of not being unequally yoked, as applying to inter-religious marriage. But then he goes on to say, "The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages" (257). He

But he insightfully connects the laws calling for kindness to animals to the sixth commandment. He goes on for several pages against pesticides in farming, which I'm not sure I agree with. But then hits some zingers home: "The myth that technology is the solution to all of our problems, however, is being questioned more an more" (259). "Man therefore must work in harmony with creation.... It is all the same a fallen world. To ascribe perfection to it, and to assume that the 'natural' way is the perfect way is not Christian but humanistic. Because the world is fallen, and the ground itself under a curse (Gen 3:17-18), what is natural is not therefore of necessity good (262)."


All in all, that's pretty balanced, I'd say. Work in harmony with creation, taking dominion, but the natural is not the standard.

Books

I'm preaching through the Ten Commandments right now, and have gathered quite a stack of resources. It was on the left side of my computer Monday, and now it's on the right side. In case you can't see them, they are

Reformed Confessions Harmonized - Beeke and Ferguson
Romans - Boice
Exodus - Sarna (Jewish Publication Society)
Westminster Shorter Catechism - Williamson
Comfort and Joy - Kuyvenhoven (Heidelberg commentary)
Good News we almost forgot - DeYoung (Heidelberg commentary)
Foundations of the Christian Faith - Boice
Systematic Theology - Hodge
Triple Knowledge - Herman Hoeksema (Heidelberg commentary)
Christian's Reasonable Service - Wilhelmus a Brakel
Institutes of Biblical Law - Rushdoony
Ten Commandments - Thomas Watson
Institutes - John Calvin

Now it's time to wrap up the sermon writing...

Rushdoony on Oaths

"All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion. But the key to remedying the situation is NOT revolution, nor any kind of resistance that works to subvert law and order. The NT abounds in warnings against disobedience and in summons to peace. The key is regeneration, propagation of the gospel, and the conversion of men and nations to God's law-word. Meanwhile, the existing law-order must be respected, and neighboring law-orders must be respected as far as is possible without offense to one's own faith. The pagan law-order represents the faith and religion of the people; it is better than anarchy, and it does provide a God-given framework of existence under which God's work can be furthered. The modern perspective leads to revolutionary intolerance..." - Pg 113-114

Rushdoony on the second commandment

Very thought-provoking, regarding law and government and economics. But it is very disconnected from the second commandment. The author assumes the connection on the wrong-headed assertion that the temple is the governing palace, which it grew to not be with David and Solomon. He then rides his hobby horse concern with law and politics, ignoring all the other aspects of forbidding graven images.

Still worthwhile reading and helpful in places.

Altar, then on to Throne

Rushdoony, Institutes of biblical Law, pg 73.


"The tabernacle thus... declares God's throne to be His law... It is truncated and defective faith which stops at the altar. The altar signifies redemption. It sets forth thus the rebirth of the believer. But rebirth for what? Without the dimension of law, life is denied the meaning and purpose of rebirth. Not surprisingly, altar-centered faith is heaven-centered and rapture-centered rather than God-centered. It seeks an escape from the world rather than the fulfillment of god's calling and law-word in the world."

This is really good, though I'd focus more on life, joy and service after redemption, than law. Law is needed for service, but life and joy come by the Holy Spirit.

Reading Rushdoony

I've been in the Reformed Church all my life and didn't hear about Rousas Rushdoony until about 7 years ago.

After reading his introduction to The Institutes of Biblical Law, I can already see what makes him influential and controversial. Here are some of the comments I made in the margin, following words I underlined of his.

"One and the same covenant, under differing administrations, still prevails" (pg 4).

This is labelled monocovenantalism and many say it denies the basic Westminsterian view of two covenants, one of life or works before the fall, and a second of grace.

"The purpose of grace is not to set aside the law but to fulfil the law and to enable man to keep the law" (4).

Yes, and I preached that exact thing Sunday. But don't forget we can't keep the law without continued grace. It's not like grace is an unfortunate necessity for us to do the REAL work of keeping the law. Grace is as foundational to the relationship as law is.

"Civil law cannot be separated from Biblical law" (4).

But was the civil law of Ex 21-23 just for Israel? Were all nations around Israel required by God to adopt Ex 21-23? Are we today? I tend to think not.

"Law is in every culture religious in origin.... the source of law is the god of that society.... humanism... locates law in the state.... no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society... the change is simply to another religion" (4-5).

All very true.

"Every law system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundation or else it commits suicide" (5-6).

Whoa. Disagree. This is a denial of common grace: that there are principles written on the human heart and in the law that all nations can agree to and legislate, even if they do not adopt the Mosaic law en toto.

"There is no contradiction between law and grace.... Judaism had made law the mediator between God and man.... It was this view of law, not the law itself, which Jesus attacked.... Jesus fully recognized the law, and obeyed the law. It was only the absurd interpretations of the law He rejected" (6-7).

Yes, all very good.

"The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the renewal of the covenant..." (7).

You betcha.

"... so that the sacrament itself re-establishes the law" (7).

Whoa, again. That's just a strange way to put things. Love and covenant relationship is the point, more than the law. The sacraments re-affirm the ongoing relationship IN SPITE of our law breaking. They are sacraments of the covenant of grace. This phrase gives me a queer feeling that for Rushdoony the law is the end all and be all of religion.

He quotes Calvin: "some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses.... The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion... false and foolish." Rushdoony calls this "heretical nonsense," as Calvin was too much of a humanist.

"Calvin wanted the establishment of the Christian religion; he could not have it, nor could it last long in Geneva, without Biblical law" (9-10).

See, here again, this kind of statement assumes that law is what really changes things, it is the truly efficacious agent of change. NO. It is a means of obedience and sanctification, but can go nowhere without grace and faith and love. Rushdoony over-reacts against anti-nomians and winds up putting too much weight on the law.

"If the state must exercise justice, how is justice defined, by the antions, or by God? There are as many ideas of justice as there are religions" (10).

Here again is a denial of common grace to reveal to all men in their hearts basic ideas of justice by which states can govern. Romans 2:14-15: "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)."

"Without case law, God's law would soon be reduced to an extremely limited area of meaning. This, of course, is precisely what has happened" (12).

This looks to be the most promising contribution of Rushdoony's to the law, as much as his view of the law with regard to the state may be the most damaging.

Stay tuned for more!

Pig Out?

25 reasons why Christians may eat pork

by James Jordan

Pulling no punches, Jordan addresses the teaching that we should eat according to the diet in the OT, especially the levitical laws forbidding pork. Rushdoony and Gothard have been teaching this, most recently, and some cults also do. This is a straightforward, easy-to-understand rejection of their position, but done in a constructive way. Highly recommended.