Today, our pastor preached his sermon on 1 Timothy 3:14-16. When he came to the phrase: "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.," he asked the question: "Does the church have anything to say to politics?" With the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision coming in two days, he had abortion in mind. He also mentioned racism, being that Martin Luther King, Jr. day is tomorrow. It was very clear in his sermon that the answer was a resounding "Yes. The church DOES have something to say to politics, being that the church is the pillar of the truth." He taught us that this language could very well have been hinting to the pillars that held up the large marble ceiling at one of the temples in Ephesus. It was held up so that all could see. Likewise, the church is to hold up the truth so that all can see.
Unfortunately, he said, the church today has lost her voice.
My very good friend, RubeRad, after the sermon told me that he wasn’t happy about that statement at all. You can go over to his blog and see what he’s written on the subject. I expect he’ll add his two cents here as well. That got me to thinking, are we to abstain from preaching the gospel to politicians? How else can the church say nothing to politics? If a politician hears the gospel, repents, and becomes a disciple, then he’d have to learn how to submit his life to Christ. We teach all others that being a disciple means to submit to His lordship. But a politician will have to learn something from the church about politics, even if that something is that a Christian shouldn’t apply God’s law any longer (a completely un-biblical view). So, it isn’t even possible for the church to follow the line "the church has nothing to say to politics" unless the church doesn’t disciple a politician.
So, that being said, if my good buddy is correct, then I guess Matthew 28:18-20 should read:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and [some authority has been given to Me] on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [except their politicians], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Obviously, this is silly. All authority has been given to Christ in heaven AND ON EARTH. The Westminster Confession tells us in chapter XIX, paragraph V:
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
There are no exceptions, ALL, including Kings and Queens, Presidents and Congressmen, are bound to obey God’s law. God’s word, the TRUTH, has been given to the church. We are His mouthpiece. It is our duty to preach the Gospel to ALL, including the politicians.
Psalm 2:10-12
Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
January 20, 2008 at 11:46 pm |
Kazoo,
I think your post makes a good point, but there are a couple of distinctions that can and should be drawn.
First of all, let me ask a question. Is it your pastor’s job to preach from the pulpit what should be done to solve the problem of illegal immigration? My answer to this question is no.
However, can he say that abortion is wrong? Absolutely! Abortion is NOT merely a political issue that’s ethically neutral! The Bible has something to say about abortion! It’s not a matter of choice, it’s not a matter of preference, it’s not a matter of MERE politics!
Racism, in the same way, is not merely a political issue. It’s an issue of right and wrong. If you’re a Christian who judges others, according to Romans 2, you’re sinning, and you need to repent. It’s as simple as that.
To take these two clearly ethical issues, and rightly discern that these are clearly spoken to in the Bible, is fine. But to say that this means that politics belongs in the pulpit is a leap of logic that skips steps which are important.
Here’s something else I’m against. I’m against topical preaching. Why a minister would preach a sermon about abortion and racism because of an anniversary of Roe v Wade and MLK’s birthday is beyond me. Why on EARTH should these things dictate what is said by God to his people?
Lectio continua is the best principle. Topical sermons are almost always a bad idea.
However, there can be an exception to the rule. If a number of couples in the church are filing for divorce, a topical sermon or series on marriage might be appropriate, provided of course that they are gospel centered sermons. But this is a special circumstance. The purpose of preaching a text is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS to show first and foremost and primarily to point to Christ. That has GOT to be the focus. Topical sermons are in principle a bad idea, because it’s the TOPIC driving the sermon, not the text.
But anyway, ethical issues can and should come up in sermons. But NO minister should EVER endorse this or that candidate, or this or that party from the pulpit. That’s just plain wrong.
Now, you’re right, everyone everywhere is subject to the law of God. But that does NOT mean that the state should enforce the Christian religion. To be sure, everyone on judgment day will be held accountable for following the first table of the law.
But the mandate of the STATE is not to enforce all of God’s law. The mandate of the state is to enforce justice and equity according to common grace. That means freedom of religion, because Muslims deserve justice according to common grace. God will enforce justice according to his law. The state is to provide for the safety and security of its members. That means the death penalty, by the way, for murder, which exemplifies the mandate of the state, as in Gen 9.
E
January 21, 2008 at 7:42 am |
E said, “Why a minister would preach a sermon about abortion and racism because of an anniversary of Roe v Wade and MLK’s birthday is beyond me. Why on EARTH should these things dictate what is said by God to his people?”
First, our pastor only mentioned them briefly as they pertained to his weekly exposition of 1 Timothy. Perhaps you ought not be so quick to criticize what you know little of.
Secondly, While the Church is not of the world, she is in the world. And she has been commissioned by her Lord to disciple the nations – which means to teach them to obey her Lord. But the world is pushing in different directions. Having a Christian worldview means knowing which direction various forms of manifest unbelief are pushing so we can effectively push back. Enter contemporary issues as they pertain to the preaching of the Word.
E also said, “But the mandate of the STATE is not to enforce all of God’s law. The mandate of the state is to enforce justice and equity according to common grace.”
I would like this fleshed out a bit, if it can be. How is the state to define justice apart from God’s revealed Word? Doesn’t justice belong to the Lord?
Proverbs 29:26
Many seek an audience with a ruler, but it is from the LORD that man gets justice.
January 21, 2008 at 9:32 am |
Perhaps you ought not be so quick to quantify how much somebody you don’t know knows. Last year BTall did break from his expositional schedule for a topical Sanctity of Life sermon (and I blogged about it, and Echo participated in what became the number one post on my blog last year). To BTall’s credit, he didn’t break off a whole sermon this year, but (as you already know) I was still disappointed with how he wangled that stuff in to 1 Tim.
I’m not really interested in doing this discussion, so go ahead and pick me apart, but I’ll just say that BTall asked the question (I paraphrase) “If the church doesn’t do something about abortion, then who will?” The correct answer is “Christians”, along with the number of unbelievers that God has ordained to not suppress the “work of the law written on their hearts”. I agree with Echo that the church is not bound and gagged wrt ethical questions such as abortion and racism. Sin should be preached against; but it is not the job of the church to fix the state — or even culture.
Let me put it this way; the question on the table is concerning the voice of the church to the society in which she finds herself. That voice, that message, what the church has to say to anyone and everyone who is not in the church, is precisely one thing — the gospel. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, which we know through Scripture alone, and which is to God’s glory alone.
For the “church’s voice to society” to have something to do with shutting down abortion or ending racism, would be to preach Law to the unbeliever, which is absolutely pointless, and which compromises the gospel.
For those in the church, to whom the gospel is faithfully preached, it is proper to also teach law in its proper context; as condemnation driving us to the gospel, and as grateful fruit of the gospel. And for those in the church, it is the responsibility of elders to enforce the Law with the sword of excommunication.
And for the other (2nd? 3rd?) use of the law, the restraint of evil in society, that is a common grace use of the law, and Christians join with their neighbors to perform it. And the church has no business grasping the handle of the sword of the state.
January 21, 2008 at 9:50 am |
It’s pretty cool to write a post before bed and wake up to comments already.
Thanks guys,
Kazoo
January 21, 2008 at 10:22 am |
Rube said, ““If the church doesn’t do something about abortion, then who will?” The correct answer is “Christians”…”
This is the legacy of revivalism in America. Christians are the Church. You cannot separate the two.
“but it is not the job of the church to fix the state — or even culture.”
The early Christians were not persecuted because they demanded people tear down their household idols only. They demanded the public idols go down as well. Jesus and Caesar have always been rivals.
“what the church has to say to anyone and everyone who is not in the church, is precisely one thing — the gospel. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, which we know through Scripture alone, and which is to God’s glory alone.”
That is the revivalistic minimalist view of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Just tell people to say a prayer and call it pax, why dontchya? When the reformers affirmed those five Solas, they didn’t reject every other doctrine found in scripture. What about the part of the gospel that says “God will judge men’s secret thoughts”? (Romans 2:16) Where does that fit into your gospel?
The Gospel of the Kingdom is that Jesus Christ is King of all in heaven and on earth. He is even the King of kings(!) Evangelism is telling people who are unaware (some of them kings, like Agrippa) that this is the case. Salvation is offered to those who kiss the Son, that is to say, those who submit in faith to the lordship of the Christ and obey this gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17).
January 21, 2008 at 10:32 am |
Echo,
First, I want to focus on the positive with you, since I think this year our interactions have been positive. You said:
And I thank you for starting your comment with a little agreement.
Next you say:
Just to point out or clarify, I didn’t assert that politics belongs in the pulpit, but that the church has something to say to politics. A little bit of a different topic, since “the church” includes those in the pulpit and those in the congregation. It also includes those people when they are in a worship service AND when they are out (of course, basic, I know). The comment is that “the church has a something to say to politics” not “the pulpit has something to say to politics.
You ask:
Instead of a direct answer to this question, I will say that it is his job to preach God’s Word, His ENTIRE Word. So, if God’s Word has anything to say to this topic, then there is a yes there. So far, I think you have to agree. What you probably disagree with is that the Bible has anything to say to this topic (illegal immigration). We’ll leave that particular question for a different post.
Next topic. You say:
I am with you on the importance of expository preaching. That’s one of the important factors I considered in choosing this church. But, I am not as strong as you on topical preaching. First, I don’t think you can support that position scripturally. There are plenty of sermons in the book of Acts that are topical. Secondly, we can logically conclude that expository preaching is extremely beneficial and we have examples of that in scripture as well. But, my former pastor, who has a PHd from WSCAL (is that right) told me that you can do a topic as long at each reference you’re using was properly exposited and exegeted. So, proper topicals are more difficult, but still okay.
Third, why does a topical automatically become the topic “dictate what is said by God to His people?” Seems to me you can do a topical on abortion and still be preaching [only] what God says to His people.
You say:
I think this is a bare naked assertion. Sounds to me like one of the statist religion’s commandments. Where in the God’s Word do you find support for this?
You say:
Thanks Echo. Every once in a while I guess I get something right.
I will point out that every state enforces someone’s religion, or actually, more specifically, someone’s religion’s ethical code wrt civil sphere. Maybe they mix them, but morality is ALWAYS legislated. Can’t get away from that. And this little paragraph is packed full of background, so maybe this topic will become a post.
Last point. You say:
I agree with your first statement. Scripture doesn’t teach that the state should enforce ALL of God’s law. SOME, for sure though. You say that there is a mandate for the state. Do you also say that the church shouldn’t tell this state about this mandate?
Blessings,
Kazoo
January 21, 2008 at 10:40 am |
I should also like to add that what I have called a “revivalistic minimalist view of the gospel” was born out of a faulty eschatology that no one here (as of yet) agrees with. After all, if the rapture is going to take place any minute, changing society is not of any importance at all. Let’s just get as many souls into heaven as we can before the you-know-what hits the fan.
January 21, 2008 at 10:41 am |
Rube,
I’ll keep this short since you say you’re not interested. But, come one, you gotta interact a little here, okay?
You say:
I only want to point out that the “good news” makes no sense unless the one hearing it also knows that “bad news.” The bad news is that you are breaking the holy law of God and will be judged by your breaking of said law. BUT!!! There is Good News (Gospel). God took on flesh, atoned for sin, and is resurrected.
So what do you tell a lawmaker who has heard the Good News and responded, when he asks you a question like this: “Now that I am a Christian, I am concerned with how God would want me to make laws. I see that God is concerned with justice. How do I know how to deal justly with a convicted rapist?”
In Christ,
Kazoo
January 21, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
Whew! A lot to respond to.
First, RS said: “What about the part of the gospel that says “God will judge men’s secret thoughts”? (Romans 2:16) Where does that fit into your gospel?”
Echo: Romans 8:1 no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus…NOW.
Kazoo, you said that you don’t think politics belongs in the pulpit necessarily, but that the church CAN address the state. This seems to me to be a Kuyperian view, and I agree with it. For example, I’m absolutely in favor of the once-upon-a-time OPC General Assembly statement against abortion in 1972. I’m absolutely in favor of such a thing.
However, when a minister is preaching on Sunday from the pulpit, he’s not addressing the state. He’s addressing the church, which has gathered to hear from God. The message must be addressed to her, not to the state.
In other words, the purpose of the sermon is not to tell the people of God how whacked the state is. Consider that if you preach a sermon preaching about the evils of abortion, all the people will be nodding their heads. They’ll say, yeah, THOSE people over THERE are sinful, and by comparison, I’m not so bad.
A sermon that addresses abortion can be appropriate if there are people in the church that are in favor of it and need to be corrected – perhaps. After all, it is the sin of the man in the pew that needs to be exposed and brought to light, so that the man may be forced to recognize it – then the gospel can be brought in to declare pardon for even that sin, and then the man can repent from it, and turn from it.
But what many preachers are tempted to do is preach sermons that will make people nod their heads in agreement, because he’s simply echoing what they already believe. He’ll talk about how wrong abortion is, and everyone will be saying amen. Meanwhile, all that’s taking place is really well organized gossip about how evil everyone ELSE is. The implication is necessarily that WE are pretty good people. So abortion discussions may be appropriate, for example when preaching on the sermon on the mount when Jesus talks about how hating your brother is the same as murder. Abortion could come in here, by talking about how we all know abortion is murder and is wrong. And then the punchline: YOU are no different when you hate your brother. YOU need to repent just as much as those who are in favor of abortion.
Topical sermons: these can get tricky, even if you properly preach a passage. Here’s why. Let’s say I’m a pastor. What should I preach on this Sunday? Well, I think I need to preach a message about abortion. Now let’s see. Where’s a good text in Scripture that I can use to do that?
Do you see what’s happening there? The pastor is using Scripture to bring HIS message. But what SHOULD be taking place? Scripture should be using the pastor to preach ITS message. Topical sermons reverse who is using who. They change the initiator from God to the pastor. Instead of God using the man, the man is using God.
Now, you may argue that I’m wrong by saying that God is the one telling the pastor to preach the sermon on abortion or some other topic.
I think you could possibly understand this in this way, BUT, we have to consider whether or not that’s the wisest course. Does the man receive special inspiration from the Spirit to preach on some topic every week? How does he know? How do YOU know that your pastor has been impressed by the Spirit to preach a sermon about abortion, and that he hasn’t just decided this himself? I’d wager that even the pastor himself doesn’t know.
In the Pentecostal church I grew up in, this is how every sermon came about, supposedly. “This is what God laid on my heart to tell you today.” I heard that soooo many times, and I never believed it. It seemed silly to me even then. I mean, what does such a minister do, fast and pray on Monday, hoping that God will put some text of Scripture on his mind? Or maybe he’ll read a newspaper article to which he will feel compelled to respond? Maybe a TV show? What is his source of inspiration? Do we believe that God gives pastors special revelatory word to preach to his people week by week?
I don’t. I utterly reject it.
And here’s something else I reject. I reject that there’s any hope in the law for sanctification.
In other words, I reject the notion that if people are having abortions that the best way to solve that problem is to preach sermons that attempt to convince them that abortion is against the law of God. You want to know why? Because they already KNOW that it’s against the law of God. What they need is not instruction on the law. They need motivation to obey the law. They already know what the law is. They need to be inspired to obey the law.
And you do that by preaching the gospel. And lo and behold, no passage of Scripture is any more conducive to that than any other. Every passage of Scripture clearly points us to faith in Christ, to hope in the gospel in the hands of a well trained exegete.
Ergo – lectio continua is the best solution to the question: what to preach this Sunday? Because after all, one text is as good as another, because the point is to preach the gospel. It is through hearing the gospel that we will be nourished in our faith, which faith gives rise to works.
If you want the people to produce more good works, fine. Nourish them in their faith in Christ and they WILL, because faith without works is dead. To be sure, James is so far from being antithetical to the gospel – he actually gives us a very good basis for PREACHING the gospel every sermon. Faith gives rise to works, and faith comes from hearing the gospel, not the law. The law doesn’t make anyone trust and hope in Christ. The gospel that tells them TO hope and trust in Christ, the gospel that tells them WHY they can and SHOULD hope and trust in Christ – this is how to grow them IN their hope and trust in Christ, which we call faith.
It is the message of who Christ is and what he has done for us – the gospel – that nourishes us in our faith. It is faith that justifies sinners and sanctifies saints. Preaching the gospel can and must be done from every passage of Scripture preached from the pulpit.
We are wicked. The law cannot overcome our sinful desires. If I want my wife to have an abortion, my desire is sinful. The law cannot help me overcome that sinful desire. To tell me that abortion is wicked only makes my wicked heart want to do it more.
“What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.” (Romans 7:7-8 ESV)
The more you preach the law, the more you expose sin and provoke the sinful nature. That’s what the law does. “The power of sin is the law.” The law tells us what we’re supposed to do, and the more we hear it, the more we want to do the opposite. It is ONLY the gospel that overcomes our sinful desires, because it causes us to WANT to submit to the law in gratitude.
By the way, if I were a pastor, which I’m not, but if I were, and a congregant came to me and asked what to do about a convicted rapist, or what kind of laws should be made about rape, I’d say that this was a matter of wisdom, not a matter of mere law. There’s no law in Scripture for today that says that a governor should mandate this or that penalty for rape. In some cases, perhaps putting a man to death is the best solution.
Consider, for example, a serial rapist, who has raped 40 women or something. I say kill him. Hang him. Let the whole world see on the 6 oclock news. Seriously. That’s justice.
But now let’s say you got an 22 year old guy who got drunk, and had some girl that he had picked up, and she was drunk too, and things got hot, and at the last minute she changed her mind, but he was consumed with lust and forced himself on her. To be SURE such a man deserves some penalty, but he doesn’t deserve death. Sure, he shouldn’t have gotten drunk, but that’s not illegal. Sure, he shouldn’t have forced herself on him, but the woman had fanned his lust into a veritable bonfire. So she’s not some innocent victim, pure as the driven snow here or something. Nonetheless, what he did WAS wrong. But what exactly his punishment should be I don’t know.
So these issues are often a matter of wisdom, not black and white law.
What is justice? Well, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Retributive justice. That’s the mandate of the state. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” That’s the mandate of the state. They are to put murderers to death for the sake of justice, as well as to provide a deterrent to murder.
January 21, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
I wasn’t there so I don’t exactly know what words were actually in use but my take is this: What is politics? How can you speak to a politics? My view is that there is no such thing as “politics” or “culture” or “society” in any sense that involves speaking. You can speak to people however. I do note that your argument above cleverly switched from addressing “politics” or “culture” or “society” to addressing politicians. Were you intentionally trying to put words into your pastor’s mouth? This clearly changes the argument entirely. (Although I can’t think of a good reason that one’s Christian pastor would want to – on the Lord’s day especially – to heap the burden of lecturing to politicians or anyone else – regarding their ethics – on his congregation). The Lord’s day is a day of rest and when I go to church to worship, the last thing I want, expect or need is to get tired out because I’m walking out of there with additional burdens.
As for your mythical “lawmaker” who just got converted, how you make laws is not optional. You have to write a bill, convince your fellow lawmakers to back it, get it voted on, signed etc. Of what those bills consist (e.g. anti-abortion) can flow the pen of anyone, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist – whatever. They’ll end up looking identical, conceivably. Maybe I am missing your point or maybe you are trying to force me into a conclusion that doesn’t follow.
My guess is that you are at odds with the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. It is a doctrine that the more you understand it, the more treasured it becomes.
January 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
But Mr. Echo, that does not address the part of the Gospel that says people will be condemned for disobeying said Gospel.
The Gospel is not merely how individuals get forgiven their sin so that when they die, they go to heaven and not hell. The Gospel is a promise of international blessing (Gal 3:8). But how is a nation blessed? (HINT: Psalm 33:12)
The blood of Jesus does not merely reconcile sinful man with an angry God. It reconciles all things to Him (Col 1:15-23). When my children partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, I typically ask them, “What does the blood of Jesus do?” To which they answer, “It washes my heart clean from sin.” I think I am going to modify that response to,”It reconciles all things to God.” That sounds sweet.
This is the same Gospel that was preached to the Old Covenant saints, but they did not receive the fruit of it, having not mixed the message with faith (Heb 4:2). But when was this Gospel preached to the Old Covenant saints? Sometime before they fell in the wilderness (Heb 3:16-17). Mr. Echo, I would very much like to see you provide the Old Testament text preached to the Old Covenant saints before their fall in the wilderness that the author of Hebrews called “the Gospel”.
January 21, 2008 at 7:36 pm |
Echo,
Blogs are for discussing, and discussing usually comes from disagreement. I think we find the longest discussions on different blogs are the ones with the most disagreement. So, I’ll have some of that for you in a bit.
But, I first wanted to say that overall, with the generality of your last comment, I am in a lot of agreement with you. I only have small details to disagree with. I though you might appreciate hearing that from me.
Okay, you say:
but then you cite:
So, did they already know it? Or did the law help them to know it? If it is okay with you, I’m going to agree with Paul here instead of you.
Seriously though, just Saturday I was talking with a friend that years ago used to minister to pregnant women in crisis. She insisted that a great many of them DIDN’T KNOW what they were doing. Now, to harmonize your statement and Paul’s, I say they “know” it in the sense that they are suppressing it in unrighteousness. But by hearing the law about it, now they “know” it in the sense that it is clear cut, not suppressed, and unavoidable.
Now, I agree strongly with many of your warnings and your solutions. I just think the law does need to be preached as well. But, the Gospel ABSOLUTELY has to be brought in and applied appropriately. So care has to be taken not to let self-righteousness come in as you say, or anything else like that. But we don’t avoid telling people that abortion is wrong, for example.
Lastly, you say:
I will definitely be doing a topic or a series of topics dedicated to this idea of justice and all, so I’m not going to get into a huge amount of detail here right now. However, a couple comments.
Notice that you answer this problem by telling us what you would say. You say it is a matter of wisdom, not law. I’m not sure the best way to put this without being offensive, so try to think of this as NOT purposely being inflammatory, but in this matter, I really don’t care what YOU SAY.
I want to know what God says. Maybe you’re saying He’s silent on this issue today, and so we’re left to our own devices trying to be wise about it.
You say that there is no scripture for today that tells a governor what penalty he should impose for rape. But, you have admitted in this thread that a magistrate is mandated to deal justly with criminals. Okay, so who determines justice? You mention according to common grace, but then you appeal to the scriptures (i 4 i, tooth 4 tooth, man’s blood shedding, etc.) Okay, that’s fine. I think for now we can both stipulate that natural law doesn’t have a different message than revealed law, so I’ll accept the revealed law you’re quoting.
So again, who determines justice? How do we know that our use of wisdom tells us properly what is just? I submit to you that since the reformation, the reformers have understood that we can find principles of what is just in the OT judicial law. Like the Standards say, that doesn’t mean we are to enforce their code, but the principles, or GENERAL EQUITY of their codes. We look to it to find out what equal measurement, equity, justice (all synonyms really) is for certain situations.
I agree that the two rape situations are different. But, I would hope that a society would be blessed by God’s commongrace in that the state would have executed the violent rapist the first time, so that the other 39 women didn’t have to suffer as well, instead of a postponement of His commongrace, and waiting until the 40th time to deal with him justly. I submit to you that being merciful to him the first 39 times is being unjust.
Good interaction Echo! I am liking you better all the time!
Kazoo
January 21, 2008 at 7:55 pm |
Bruce!
Thanks for coming over and commenting. I am happy you have. Welcome.
Before interacting with your comment, I just want to point out that I sincerely want to run this blog with intellectually provoking interaction and open mindedness. I am not at all trying to make emotionally provoking statements, or sarcasm, or any deliberate offenses. So, read me with charity, okay?
No, I am not trying to put words into my pastor’s mouth. I think I got the proper gist across, as RubeRad can attest to. You see he admitted he wasn’t happy about his comments. But, the reason I switched to politiciansis because of the same thing you point out. How does any entity speak to politics? Well, I think most people understand the natural language of that as speaking about a certain topic, in this case a topic that deals with politics. But really, we’re still talking to people. In this case, who are the people in “politics?” Of course, politicians. So, it was (and is) all above board honest discussion here.
My argument about that converted lawmaker was about whatthe law consists of. If the church has nothingto say to politics (or politicians), then we can’t have them converted. That’s my argument put very simply. Even if we tell a politician that he’s on his own because the church has no advice, we are speaking to the issue of politics.
Anyway, do you really think that a Muslim would come up with the same contents of a punitive law that a Christian, Buddhist, Atheist or Jew would? I don’t think they would. But I do think that scripture speaks to these issues, even today. For that, see the end of my previous comment to Echo about justice.
As for the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, I honestly haven’t heard that term before. How about a pointer to a primer on what you’re referring to?
His Servant,
Kazoo
January 21, 2008 at 8:18 pm |
RS,
Re: 11
Gen 15:1-6.
Glad to be of service.
E
January 21, 2008 at 8:53 pm |
Kazoo,
I intended for my example of a 40 times rapist to have only been caught after the 40th time. In other words, the first 39 times, he got away with it, but finally he was caught, and it turns out he’s a serial rapist. So you’re the judge, and a guy is being charged with 40 counts of rape. And he’s convicted. What should justice dictate the sentence be? Clearly death.
But anyway, what I mean by the distinction between wisdom and law has to do with the silence you mentioned, and the principles of justice you mentioned. The Bible is silent on details. Should marijuana be illegal for example? Whether or not Christians should be in favor of legalizing marijuana is not clearly spelled out in Scripture. So if someone is in favor of it, they’re not sinning, and if they’re against it, they’re not sinning. So there’s no clear law that they’re violating either way. Thus it’s a matter of wisdom.
Like you said, there are general principles of justice and equity, but I think in large part, everyone has SOME idea of what justice should really dictate in almost any situation. But clearly, many people are not interested in maintaining or upholding justice.
For example, everyone who is pro-abortion, in my opinion, knows that abortion kills a baby. They all know it. Those who are pro-abortion simply believe that a mother has a right to kill her unborn baby if she doesn’t want to bring it to term. Of course, they don’t SAY that, but that’s what’s going on. And we shouldn’t be too terribly surprised, because in many ancient cultures, unwanted babies who HAD been born were often disposed of like refuse. In the first century, for example, a baby didn’t become a child of its father until the father named it. So Joseph’s naming of Jesus at the end of Matt 1 has that significance. When Joseph named him Jesus, Jesus became Joseph’s legitimate son.
But no one at that time thought that it wasn’t a baby they were disposing of like garbage. No one thought that they weren’t ending a baby’s life. They knew that’s what they were doing. They just didn’t care. It’s no different today. Women who have an abortion know they have killed their baby. Ask any of them that have done it. Did you kill your baby? Yes. I did, they’ll say. And they have huge problems with guilt for the rest of their lives. They never really get “over it”.
My wife works in a labor and delivery unit of a hospital, and many of the women who come in to deliver their baby are having their first baby after having an abortion. They’re paranoid and downright scared. Why? They’re terrified of losing their baby that they’re trying to have. It’s completely irrational. Or is it some sense of justice that demands they acknowledge that since they killed their last baby, that God would be just to take this one away from them? I think it is some sense of justice that makes them so paranoid.
Anyway, that was my point. Everyone knows it’s murder. And everyone knows murder is wrong. But people today think they can do things that they know are wrong. They have convinced themselves that society, not God, has the right to declare right and wrong. They are, of course, absolutely wrong.
People who aren’t believers really look to society and the state as God in a way. Have you ever thought about that? Oh, they won’t tell you that, but it’s true. Just think about why people get so passionate about politics. For them (though not for us), elections are like a battle of the gods for the devotion of the people. Imagine how dramatic it must be for them, and how exciting and important it must be! Congress for them is a pantheon, and the President is the king of the gods. It must be so exciting for them. It’s like a continual war between an incarnate Zeus and an incarnate Hera.
Anyway, for these people, when the Supreme Court rules that abortion is legal, then they have convinced themselves that abortion has become morally acceptable. Now, none of them will say that it’s morally good, but they’ll demand that I acknowledge that it isn’t morally evil. That makes no sense to me. They don’t actually think having an abortion is morally good, they think it’s morally neutral. That’s the best they have been able to convince themselves of. It’s not virtuous, but it’s not sinful. It’s up to you. It’s so ridiculous.
Anyway, these people think that our pantheon of gods in Washington has the authority to declare what is right and what is wrong. And of course, we, the people, choose who we will put in that high and holy office. So the people of this country actually have something far more perverse than what the Greeks had. The Greeks had Zeus up on Mount Olympus, high and mighty creator, threatening the people with lightning bolts. But for Americans, Zeus really is just a man, created by the people. And it’s the people who are always threatening him with lightning bolts of a failed re-election campaign or possibly impeachment, or worse, their disapproval.
So think of how perverse this is. Americans elect their gods, their divine figures of moral authority, but then they try to manipulate them to declare this or that morally good or evil, legal or illegal. It’s really we the people who want to determine right and wrong, but we have set up these figureheads to at least give us something to focus on when we worship ourselves.
Alright, now I’ve gone on a rant about our polytheistic country, and I’ve forgotten the point.
So yeah, they know abortion is murder. They all do. But because of the three ring circus our country has become, undoubtedly some of them require some clarity of thought on certain issues.
I have never advocated, nor will I ever advocate, NOT preaching the law. And even though the “power of sin is the law”, and “through the law comes knowledge of sin”, nevertheless the law IS good. The law has a bad affect on us poor sinners because of OUR sinful nature, not because of there being something wrong with the law.
But remember, the law doesn’t ONLY drive sin. It does do that, but that’s not ALL it does. That was all I talked about, but that’s not all it does.
What I was trying to get across is not how to understand the law systematically. I was trying to get across that the law cannot overcome sin. If my problem is sin, the law will not save me from it. Only the gospel can do that. Only the gospel SANCTIFIES. Only the gospel actually increases righteousness by increasing faith which increases sanctification, because that’s what the Spirit has promised to do with it, for faith comes by hearing the word of Christ.
But sure, the law should still be preached. It’s part of the Bible, isn’t it? As you preach lectio continua through Scripture, the law is going to come up. But it’s important HOW we preach the law. We have to preach the law in such a way that it points the listeners to Christ. This is just good law-gospel stuff here, which you affirmed, so I’ll shut up now.
E
January 21, 2008 at 9:45 pm |
E said,
Was that preached to the people of Israel before they fell in the desert? Again, Mr. Echo, I would very much like to see you provide the Old Testament text preached to the Old Covenant saints before their fall in the wilderness that the author of Hebrews called “the Gospel”.
The NT text I refer to is Hebrews 4:2. It says the Gospel was preached to them, referring to our Older Covenant fathers who fell in the wilderness. What gospel was preached to them?
January 21, 2008 at 10:06 pm |
E. Amen brother.
As for:
Yup, I’ve thought about that a lot, being a theonomist. Their writings talk much about the state and religion and gods. Look at my post #6 near the end and there is even a hint of it there when I talk about legislating morality. So, I agree with you that our pluralistic view has given us a pantheon of ‘gods.’ Good analogy.
Blessings,
Kazoo
January 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm |
Bruce said,
Bruce, do you subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith? Because I don’t see how that document provides for a Church that is “spiritual” only.
The more I am confronted with liberal “personal” christianity, the more I pray, “Thy Kingdom come.” See, the liberals have no problem with a personal “Jesus” whose “kingdom” is in the heart of believers, which is no real kingdom at all. That’s why they invented secularism. They love the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. It’s how they keep the Church at bay. But as soon as you start talking about a Jesus who is King of the cosmos, the King of kings even, that’s when the names start flying. And under some kings, that’s when the heads start rolling. I guess Herod misunderstood the prophecy that Jesus would be the King of the Jews. He thought this meant he would have to relinquish his throne. Silly Herod. Jesus’ kingdom is only spiritual. You can keep your throne.
January 21, 2008 at 11:26 pm |
Re my: “Were you intentionally trying to put words into your pastor’s mouth?” I was at work and didn’t notice your opening: “That got me to thinking, are we to abstain from preaching the gospel to politicians?” Had I noticed it, I might have pursued a different tack. Sorry.
Read Kline for the spirituality of the church. Specifically Kingdom Prologue.
January 21, 2008 at 11:29 pm |
Re: 18. Huh?? You’re gonna have to type slower. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
January 22, 2008 at 1:17 am |
Bruce, I am talking about the so-called “doctrine of the spirituality of the church” – that concept that was developed in the nineteenth century as the fruit of revivalistic thinking, specifically that of the so-called First and Second Great Awakenings. The sort of thinking that individualizes the gospel and marginalizes the Church. The sort of thinking that reduces the Kingdom of Christ to a strictly spiritual entity, you know, like the gnostic gospels teach.
My question was/is, if you see the Church as strictly spiritual, then how do you handle the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter XXX (for example), if you subscribe to the confession? The kingdom of heaven is opened and shut by its ministers via baptism and excommunication respectively (XXX.II)? That sounds like a very earthly kingdom.
January 23, 2008 at 12:14 am |
Ron,
When Moses asked God who he should say to the Israelites who had sent him to them, what did God reply? “I am who I am.” His promises are irrevocable, his covenant with Abraham would be upheld and fulfilled, they would inherit the land.
Surely you understand how this preaches the gospel to them in type and shadow.
E
January 23, 2008 at 12:20 am |
Bruce,
Ron thinks that when you talk about the spirituality of the church, you mean that the kingdom is purely spiritual. He is ascribing to you the view of Dodd, which Ridderbos ably critiques in “the Coming of the Kingdom”. (You can look Dodd up in the index, I think it’s somewhere in the first 100 pages of the book.) Dodd thinks that there is no future eschaton, and liberalizes the kingdom, by saying that the kingdom is only spiritual, in our hearts.
So Ron cannot distinguish between the church here on earth in this present evil age and the kingdom of God. Surely the latter is a larger concept, which does not exclude the church in the present evil age, but is not wholly explained by it either.
E
November 15, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
[...] So, the pessimillenialists that teach that there are 2 kingdoms, and that the church kingdom has nothing to say to man’s kingdom, and that the world will just get worse and worse until the end, will see their beliefs come to pass [...]