The Death of Robin Williams and the Question of the Proper Christian Response

The suicide of Comedian-Actor Robin Williams has provided a rather interesting window into the worldview of various and sundry Christians. I was caught quite surprised over the emotion that Williams death would generate among those who claim the name of Christ. It could be the reason for all that emotion is that Williams has been a poster child for large segments of both the Baby Boomers and Generation X. In losing Williams these large swaths of people are losing a cultural identifier that was woven deeply into their psyche. No one can doubt that Williams, for good and for ill, made a huge impact on the zeitgeist.

In this discussion, I think I can understand both the perspective of those that insist that, as Christians, we should be respectful of the dead and so not speak ill of them as well as the position that observes that Williams should be used as a negative example of the danger of gaining the whole world while losing one’s own soul.

An example of the former disposition can be found in the following quotes provided by sundry Christians,

“We can’t say for certain whether or not he is in peace right now so being respectful and gracious is the right thing to do. RIP”

“Well, we can certainly dissect the lives of anyone who has died, believer and non believer alike at their deaths. But, is it kind and is it necessary to do so? Is it the place of those who knew him so little to make fun or to criticize those who have grief right now? There are unpleasant stories in the past of us all. People right now are desiring to focus on the positive and pleasant memories of Robin Williams and his brilliant wit and comedy. We are all shaped by those around us: family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, those in the political realm and those in the fashion/music/entertainment world. In spite of the negative influences that the Lord allowed to be part of the shaping of who I am today, i hope that when I take my final breath, that others who may not care for me will allow those that do to grieve. My life was not damaged by Robin Williams, though not all that he did was I fond of. It is like eating fish… Spit out the bones when you get a few in your mouth and move on. Enjoy the good things that a person did.At this time, the death of a well loved man, perhaps our testimony as Christians shines brighter by showing respect rather than making a mockery of others and their memories and grief.”

“It honestly just bugs the hell out of me when people say things negatively about people like him when they die. Its not as if he committed genocide and deserved to die.

I feel more terrible that a man who was a thinker and had such a great mind for comedy probably wont be in heaven. You should grieve more for people who don’t have any hope…because they are damned. At least when our fellows in Christ die, they get to move onto the afterlife of peace and tranquility. Not so for unrepentant. Show your quality as Christians by being sympathetic.”

There are texts in Scripture that seem to support this disposition. Proverbs 24:17-18 for example says:

“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the Lord will see and be displeased and turn His anger away from him.”

The Proverbs 24 passage echoes other passages. Job, for instance, believes himself righteous because he hasn’t rejoiced in the death of his enemies (Job 31:29). Scripture indicates that when we see the wicked rejoicing over the death of their enemies, we automatically know it isn’t right (Judges 16:25; 2Sa 16:5-6; Psalm 35:13-15; 42:10; Micah 7:8).

Certainly then there is a place for sensitivity and tenderness in an untimely death. We can all admit that there is a certain sadness when the wicked die. After all, there but the grace of God go any of us. We can be sad at the waste of all that talent as the talent was not used for God’s glory. We can be sad at what might have been. Sad for the damage they did to themselves and to those who loved them. We can be saddened over how the enemy kills and destroys image bearers of God.

However, sadness and a pious respect are not the last words on this subject. We must also consider that Scripture repeatedly speaks of joy over the death of the wicked. Proverbs 11:10 says,

“When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; they shout for joy when the wicked die.”

In Psalm 58:10 this idea of God’s people corporately rejoicing in the death of their enemies is recorded,

“The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”

Here we note that God expects His people to rejoice over the death of His and their enemies. And why should we be surprised at that? The wicked are those who oppose the advance of God’s Kingdom. The wicked are those who prefer their triumph over God’s triumph in the land of the living. The wicked prefer their glory being known as opposed to God’s glory being known. The wicked desire to make a name for themselves at the expense of God’s people making a name for God. There can be no doubt that the removal of the wicked should be a cause for celebration, if only because their attack on God’s reputation is finished.

The greatest mind ever produced by America, (Rev. Jonathan Edwards) preached a sermon once that captured some of this. Edwards reminded his listeners that the most intimate of relationships would not cause the redeemed in the relationship to not rejoice over the destruction of the unredeemed. Edwards wrote,

“You that have godly parents, who in this world have tenderly loved you, who were wont to look upon your welfare as their own, and were wont to be grieved for you when any thing calamitous befell you in this world, and especially were greatly concerned for the good of your souls, industriously sought, and earnestly prayed for their salvation; how will you bear to see them in the kingdom of God, crowned with glory? Or how will you bear to see them receiving the blessed sentence, and going up with shouts and songs, to enter with Christ into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, while you are amongst a company of devils, and are turned away with the most bitter cries, to enter into everlasting burnings, prepared for the devil and his angels? How will you bear to see your parents, who in this life had so dear an affection for you, now without any love to you, approving the sentence of condemnation, when Christ shall with indignation bid you depart, wretched, cursed creatures, into eternal burnings ? How will you bear to see and hear them praising the Judge, for his justice exercised in pronouncing this sentence, and hearing it with holy joy in their countenances, and shouting forth the praises and hallelujahs of God and Christ on that account?”

Our current Christian culture, such as it is, has no problem with the empathy side of the equation. Unfortunately, in our current culture most of our empathy is on the side of fallen men. But understand, that those who properly rejoice at the death of the wicked are also demonstrating empathy. It is a least possible that they are demonstrating empathy for God and His Christ in rejoicing over the death of the wicked. Is there not a place for empathy over God’s glory being diminished and then a place for rejoicing when those who have diminished God’s glory are removed? Is there not a place for empathy for God, when His name and character are denigrated, and then a place for rejoicing when those who have denigrated the Holy name of God are removed so as to never denigrate it again? Not all rejoicing over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive clods who don’t understand what it means to be Christian. And some of the tenderness over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive (to God) nekulturny who don’t understand what it means to be Christian.

The point here plainly stated, for those who may have missed it, is that it is possible that sympathy and empathy for the fallen wicked may come at cost for sympathy and empathy for the Transcendent, Holy God.

So, we must own both sides of the equation in this matter. I think that we can both rejoice at the death of fallen men and not rejoice over the death of fallen men by remaining God centered. We can rejoice in God’s name being cleared and we can not rejoice when remembering that it is only God’s grace alone that causes us to differ from God haters. In the death of the wicked we have to satisfy both sides of the equation.

Postscript,

Clearly it is possible that Robin Williams turned to Christ just before he jumped off the chair to hang himself, (odd combination there to think about) but if we were only to look at his body of work it is clear that the man did not own Christ and so is eternally separated from God. There is nothing inappropriate about noting that as a warning to people.

http://www.goodfight.org/a_v_williams_robin.html

Ask The Pastor; Shouldn’t We Show More Love?

Dear Pastor,

In reference to your critique of Tullian Tchividjian a week or so ago I would like to make a couple of comments.

First, I find it amazing that you would cite Billy Graham’s visits with the presidents. Graham has made a conscious effort to be bi-partisan and non-political, something which cannot be said of many evangelicals today. Rick Warren tried that route and was thrown to the evangelical wolves.

Second, I remember someone saying once that it is easy to preach against sins that no one in your congregation commits. It is easy to preach against abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates.

The individual sinner (me and you!) however, are not brought under conviction for the sins of our culture. It is our sins: self-righteousness, unbelief, hatefulness, greed, selfish ambition, impatience, anger, holding grudges, having a sharp tongue (and pen), pride, and the like. Some of us commit acts of murder or sexual sins, as well. But the good news is not that we are sinners, it is that Christ came to save sinners.

Sadly, we have become not associated with Christ and his love for sinners, but the Pharisees and their condemning words.

David

Dear David,

Just a brief response seeking to help you see where you’re in error.

1.) Graham was hugely political. To sanction what US Presidents were doing by appearing with them was HUGELY political. Take only two examples.

a.) When he appeared with President Bush I in the context of Gulf War I, thus communicating the Evangelical approval. Instead Graham should have, at the very least, not appeared with Bush I since the Gulf war was naked aggression. Something no Christian had any business supporting.

b.) The 9-11 Memorial where Graham went all political by being part of a service that communicated that all religions are equal. A political statement if there ever was one.

Billy Graham was a political beast and there is no arguing that he was “non-political” and bi-partisan.

I always liked this quote from R. J. Rushdoony on the likes of Billy Graham.

The kind of religion Billy Graham … represents is readily approved of by corrupt politicians and venal communications media. It does not challenge their godless dreams of dominion, and it does sugar-coat their sins with the veneer of religious respectability, with a facade of pietism. Such men can have the ear of national leaders and preach in the White House and in Congress without affecting even to the extent of an iota the national march into degeneracy and apostasy.

RJ Rushdoony- God’s Plan For Victory

2.) Really? You think it is easy to make a public stand against Abortion and Homosexual marriages? You think Evangelicals in our congregations are not involved in those sins so that they don’t need to be addressed from the pulpit?

3.) Christ came to save repentant sinners. Christ did NOT come to save sinners who are not repentant. This is the problem with the antinomian “Gospel” of Tullian and (presumably) yourself. You think that repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners should be approached in the same way. Here are some words of Geerhardus Vos which might assist you,

“From the fact that to a generation which knew God only as a righteous Judge, and in an atmosphere surcharged with the sense of retribution, He (Jesus) made the sum and substance of His preaching the love of God, it does not follow that, if He were in person to preach to our present age so strangely oblivious of everything but love, His message would be entirely the same.”

Geehardaus Vos
Redemptive History & Biblical Interpretation
The Scriptural Doctrine Of The Love Of God

4.) All I see is self righteousness in the school which flings around the accusation of self-righteousness against those who hold up God’s standard. All I hear them saying is, “Look how much more righteous we are because we don’t expect people to have God’s standard placed before them, unlike those mean people who insists that the Gospel must be preceded by the proclamation of God’s Law word.

5.) I quite agree that all God’s people have sins to repent of. That is why, in our Worship every week, we hear God’s Law, Confess our sins, and then hear God’s declaration of absolution.

6.) David, you said, “The individual sinner (me and you!) however, are not brought under conviction for the sins of our culture” —- Where, pray tell, do you get this David? I am convicted daily.

7.) You seem completely blythe to the fact that there is a set agenda being pushed upon the Church and culture to normalize particular sins. It is not me who is making a hobby horse out of preaching against “Sodomy” or “abortion.” It is the fact that my people are inundated with the message that sodomy and abortion are “normal.” Ministers, preaching in this cultural context, are fools if they don’t take a stand, for the sake of Christ and His people, against those prevailing sins of the zeitgeist that are seeking to force God’s people to conform to the zeitgeist.

8.) In closing allow me to suggest that it is you, by offering the love of a harlot as the love of Christ, who is showing a lack of love to and for the sinner. The good news is that Christ came to save those who see themselves under God’s wrath because they are sinners.

You can be sure that when I am face to face with someone broken by their sin the last thing I will offer is condemnation. You can be sure that whenever I am face to face with someone who is repentant all I have to offer is the Character of God who loves us in spite of our sin. You can be sure that when I am face to face with someone who is repentant what I do is enter into repentance with them.

Fisking American Vision Published Blog Regarding Immigration

http://covenantaldivide.com/open-and-closed-borders-lets-have-both/

I will not be fisking the whole article above. Those who want to read the whole article are encouraged to go to the link to read the parts that I’ve passed over.

Publisher American Vision writes,

“What about a scriptural alternative to the cacophony of opinions being blurted out on the issue? Notice I didn’t say Christian alternative. We Christians today are many times out of touch with what scripture has to say in the civil realm.”

Bret observes

The answers that are provided here, in this article, are not exactly clear. American Vision blog, while bringing out some great points, does not succeed in giving us a nuanced picture of immigration in the Old Testament.

American Vision Blog writes,

Beyond common sense and logic, the issue is biblical. Matt is on target in that the heart of the issue lies within a discussion of borders (boundaries), laws and enforcement. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of borders? Who makes the laws? Who has authority to enforce the laws? What laws should govern immigration? What is the source and standard for such laws?

1.) Biblical is beyond common sense and logic? How would we know that without using common sense and logic to determine that?

2.) R. J. Rushdoony asked these questions back in 1965. Here are some of the answers at which he arrived.

“The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

So, Rushdoony realized that the immigration push was to eliminate all borders so that the humanist global order could come to the fore. Rushdoony understood that the immigration act in 1965 (and what is currently happening is merely the flowering of that Legislation) was being pushed by Humanists desiring to destroy the Nation State order. Rushdoony understood that such immigration was not Biblical.

America Vision Blog writes,

Let’s begin with the last question first. I believe the Word of God should be the source and standard. With this pre-commitment in mind, it would make sense to look at the first nation in Scripture to tackle the immigration issue God’s way.

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Israel was to be a light among the nations. If they operated their nation in terms of God’s revealed law, all other nations would take notice. Not only would they take notice, many would be drawn to Israel.

Bret responds,

Certainly we can agree that God’s intent for Israel was to be a Witness to the Nations. However, that in no way implies that God desired open borders so that the Nations lost their National Identity as the various Nations’ identity was submerged with Israel’s National Identity. Nations were to be drawn to Israel so that they, as Nations, bowed to Yahweh.

A Reformed Old Testament scholar Martin Wyngaarden recognized this when he wrote,

“Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture pp. 101-102.

American Vision blog writes,

God promised blessing and freedom if Israel followed his prescription for running their nation. Freedom is only possible when men govern themselves according to the Word of God. God’s covenant people were required to render judgment in their families, the assembly and the state according to God’s revealed law. As they did so, their light would shine as a beacon to other nations that were in bondage.

Not only was Israel a light, it was a shelter. Someone could recognize the light and sojourn in Israel. If they subjected themselves externally to the law of the land (the law of God), then they would enjoy the blessings promised in the land.

For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. (Numbers 15:15)

Here the American Vision blog does not nuance enough given the different words for “stranger” in the Old Testament.

James Hoffmeier, in his book, “The Immigration Crisis proves that a State is under no compulsion to have a generous immigration policy and does have a responsibility to protect its borders –just as States did even in the Old Testament. The texts used by Christian organizations like American Vision, Sojourners, etc. are ripped out of their context in order to guilt the laity into thinking being a good Christian means disinheriting one’s self and children.

The book of Joshua goes into great detail about the allocation of the territories of the Promised land to the tribes of Israel but the ger (resident Alien) did not receive their own allotment. The Ger (resident Alien — perhaps our equivalent of a perpetual Green card holder) could receive social benefits (i.e. — gleaning rights, a portion of the third year tithes) but they could never own land and so they forever would remain ger (stranger).

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

So there was continuity between the native born Israeli and the ger but there was discontinuity as well and it strikes me that it is the discontinuity is what American Vision desires to ignore.

In short the ger (stranger) would always be known as “other.”

In the Old Testament the alien (ger) was a person who entered Israel and followed legal procedures to obtain recognized standing as a resident alien. Hence ger (alien) is the term for legal immigrants. However, the ger (legal immigrants) in the OT were still distinct from those who were permanent residents (citizens). In the OT then there is a distinction between the alien (ger) the foreigner (nekhar or zar) and the permanent residents of the Israeli tribes.

The American Vision Blog continues,

The stranger could worship who and how he wanted within the confines of his own home but as long as he was a resident in Israel he had to submit externally to God’s law….

This is a major component with the issue of immigration because with no handouts and a requirement to live according to God’s laws, the borders of Israel were to some extent self-regulated. Those that immigrated into the country were most likely law-abiding, productive residents that would add value to the society. This was inexpensive, inside-out border enforcement. It was in one sense an open border policy by God’s design.

Bret responds,

Hoffmeier differs with this assessment regarding “self-regulated borders,” as he points out that ancient territorial borders were taken seriously and that national sovereignty was recognized. Hoffmeier points out that not only were wars fought to establish and settle border disputes, borders were vigorously defended, and battles occurred when a neighboring state violated another’s territory. So, national boundaries were normally honored.

Numbers 20:16-21 yields an example of Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass, even with Israel paying a Toll. This was out of keeping with the socially accepted custom of offering hospitality to strangers in the ancient and modern Middle East. Still, it is worth noting that even a traveler — a foreigner — passing through the territory of another had to obtain permission to do so, thus revealing that in the OT borders were taken seriously. Likewise Judges 11:16-20 gives another example of borders being taken seriously.

These episodes demonstrate clearly that nations could and did control their borders and determined who could pass through their land.

On the individual, family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established. Personal property and fields were delineated by landmarks — stone markers of some sort. For this reason, the Mosaic law prohibited the removal of landmarks. (Dt. 19:14, 27:17). This parlayed itself into the idea of National boundaries merely being an extension of the reality of property owned by individual, family and clan. During the period of the divided Kingdom (8th cent. BC) the prophet Hosea decried the leaders of Judah for seizing territory of her sister kingdom Israel by taking their boundary stones (cmp. Job 24:2).

So we see that nation states, large and small in the Biblical world were clearly delineated by borders. These were often defended by large forts and military outposts. Countries since biblical times have had the right to clearly established borders that they controlled and were recognized by surrounding Governments.

The borders of countries were respected, and minor skirmishes and even wars followed when people and armies of one nation violated the territory of their neighbor.

All this meant that nations, including Israel had the right to clearly established secure borders and could determine who could and could not enter their land.

American Vision blog continues,

“There was though, another critical component to God’s open door policy. Those that did immigrate into Israel and lived as residents could not hold civil office as a judge. They could enjoy the blessings through submission to external laws but could not judge in the civil realm. This could only change if they professed that Israel’s God was their God and were circumcised.

Again, this was critical. Someone who was not in covenant in the visible community of God’s people, professing Jehovah’s Lordship and authority over them, could not exercise temporal authority over others. This includes their ability to vote. (Voting is rendering judgment against those who hold office.) Practically this means that if you did not profess God’s Lordship over you for all eternity, you would be restrained from having a voice among his people temporally. In order to preserve the purity of his people and blessings that come from living according to his laws, you would be restrained from civil authority.”

Bret responds,

This is all true but there are a couple other components that the American Vision blog is missing and that is important to this discussion. First, is the fact that a stranger and an alien could never own land in the Israelite community. Land was to be kept within the Tribes and returned to the various Tribal ownership upon every Jubilee. This provision ensured that the alien and the stranger (ger) would never rise higher than the native born.

“The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia” offers,

The Ger.

This word with its kindred verb is applied with slightly varying meanings to anyone who resides in a country or a town of which he is not a full native land-owning citizen; e.g., the word is used of the patriarchs in Palestine, the Israelites in Egypt, the Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:6 Judges 17:7, etc.), the Ephraimite in Gibeah (Judges 19:16). It is also particularly used of free aliens residing among the Israelites, and it is with the position of such that this article deals.

Secondly, the ger, if bond servants, were not released in the Year of Jubilee. This again is suggestive that distinctions were maintained between Native born and ger (Exodus 12:43,45; Leviticus 25:45,46).

All of this is suggestive that we need to be very very careful when we seek to translate Old Testament immigration reality from OT Israel to 21st century Immigration issues in the States. Would American Vision blog support Strangers coming here with the stipulation that they could never own land? Would American Vision blog support unfettered immigration if the condition was known before hand that the immigrant would always and forever be known as “ger?”

American Vision blog,

“To do otherwise would be to leave a crack in the door and the potential for an ethical invasion from within the camp. Don’t miss this concept. If my god is different than your god, I will inherently work towards a competing law-order. My god will skew my ability to render judgment according to the law of your god. In a practical and organizational sense it would be a structural, judicial compromise with God’s sovereignty. This competing law-order would no-doubt be a stumbling block given the sinful nature of man. There is only one alternative to God’s law. It is man’s. So, in essence, to give an outsider an inside voice would be to tempt the entire nation with the opportunity to captain their own ship rather than leave God in control.

In Israel you had to be a member of the “assembly” or Old Testament church to be a full citizen and judge within the civil realm. Upon formal acknowledgment that you were under God’s eternal sanctions, you could place yourself in the position of carrying out God’s temporal sanctions in history.”

Bret responds,

Here, we appeal again to Rushdoony who taught that the kind of Immigration that is going on now was a immigration that Christians should oppose precisely because it was seeking to establish an alien social order. Rushdoony lectured,

“… The continuing purpose of American history, according to President Johnson is union, union of the races, closer union of the states to the federal union. It is also civil rights, federal aid, the unity of man with the world he has built, the United Nations, the New Immigration policy, and the Great Society.’

Rushdoony understood what we fail to understand and that is that the immigration policy cobbled together in 1965 and which still guides our policy today is a policy intent on Humanistic Union. This is why Biblical Christians must oppose this immigration folly right now. This immigration policy, as Rushdoony knew, was about pushing us nearer and nearer to a Humanist Statist regime where tyrannical centralized control would be established.

Rushdoony, in the same lecture continues on pointing out the now obvious,

“The U.N. charter preamble declares that its purpose is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to gain fundamental freedom for all, the first chapter declares, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Disunity is the one great evil. The godhead must be united, and this faith, which appears in the U.N., is a product of a grassroots faith. We see it all around us. We see it in the churches, in the pulpits. We see it in a multitude of private agencies which indeed very often outrun the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state, this new god. But certainly it is a part of the United Nations program, and its IMMIGRATION LAWS is an expression of this policy, to unify mankind.”

Here we find Rushdoony saying explicitly that Churches and Organizations that support the kind of Immigration we are seeing this very day are Churches and Organizations who are “outrunning the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state.”

American Vision blog offers,

“So, if this was such a great system then why did Israel suffer from such a poor track record in history? First of all, guarding the nation from within through limiting citizenship was not a failsafe against national moral decay. This was only one aspect of God’s law. The fundamental principle was one of Lordship. If the people of God ceased to walk according to his statues in any area, they were liable to his judgment. There are no political solutions for sinful rebellion among citizens.”

Bret responds,

American Vision blog speaks about how Israel failed in Christ’s Lordship and yet were we,as Biblical Christians, to support the current Immigration boondoggle we our currently staring at we likewise would be failing in Christ’s Lordship.

Consider again the great Rushdoony when speaking against the 1965 immigration act,

“The purpose of this 1965 Immigration Act law is threefold.

First, it has been described by Senator Javits as the civil rights legislation for the world. Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is the civil rights legislation of the world. In other words it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is its first function.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective {?}.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill…. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

What we are facing right now with the borders on the edge of being extinguished is the full flowering of the 1965 Immigration act that Rushdoony was so animated against. As Biblical Christians should we not be just as animated as Rushdoony was in 1965?

This immigration policy is NOT about economics. It is about expanding the humanist global state by creating the North American Union which is a precursor step to the the global state. This immigration policy serves to capture the country irretrievably for socialism, because this policy will forever entrench the Marxist (Democratic)party as the ruling party. This immigration policy serves to bring socialism to the country because it provides cheap labor which in turns redistributes wealth upwards by 3% annually and so again, turns us ever more into a Marxist state, as the Uber wealthy eliminate the middle class in the push towards Corporatism. This immigration policy serves to socialize the country because it serves corporatism and the fact that people can’t see this merely means that they are not self aware enough of what the humanist globalist elites are doing …. which R. J. Rushdoony understood in 1965.

The American Vision article finishes quite well. I encourage the reader to read the whole thing.

In the end we must keep in mind the necessity to fight for the reality of nations as nations against the humanist global order that Rushdoony warned against.

Wyngaarden understood this as well. I finish with this quote,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25).

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

Seven Signs We May Be Worshiping Our Churches

I love the Church I serve. I love being a minister. I’ve been at the Church I serve 20 years this year. I am convinced that a connection to the Church and one’s attendance on Word and Sacrament are necessary for sanctification in the Christian life. I love the people I serve and pray for them and minister Christ to them regularly. However, having said that, I want to be and I want them to be on guard against loving the Church inordinately.

As such, I want to raise a warning that it is possible that there may be those who are practicing Church-olatry (Worship of the Church). The following are possible signs that we have begun worshiping the Church rather than attending the Church to worship.

1.) We think that whenever the doors are open we have to be present.

One of the Changes of the Reformation was to reduce the time laity spent in the Church building. In the Medieval age the Church was open for Matins, Vespers, Masses, canonical hours, confessional, etc. It was thought that the more time one spent in the Church the better Christian one was. The Reformation changed all that with the understanding that all of life could be lived unto the glory of God. The Reformation actually reduced the time one spent in Church.

Certainly Worship should be attended but the idea that members have to be present for every single function of the Church suggests that the Church may be seeking to replace the role of the Family as the institution responsible for the rearing and raising of children.

2.) We keep attending a Church even though we know the Church refuses to challenge a pagan culture

Worshiping the Church can be seen by the fact that often people who know better will keep attending a Church even though there is a refusal to challenge worldliness. For example, people remain though youth groups are prioritized over family. People remain though no teachings are heard against the sin of causing little children to stumble by placing them, for hours a day, in institutions that catechize them into a false religion. People remain though no teachings are heard warning about the child centered family. The Reformed antithesis is not drawn over against theologies alien to the Covenant Reformed faith.

3.) We keep attending even though there is an attempt to use false guilt to involve us in certain behavior patterns

Teachings are given where members are told that God expects them to do “X,” “Y,” or “Z” with little or no Scriptural support to sustain the appeal. Often times Scripture is taken out of context in order to support some kind of hobby horse of the ministerial staff.

4.) We keep attending even though the leadership is not Covenantal Reformed

If we are in a Reformed Church we should expect Covenant Reformed leadership in the lay Elders elected. We should expect that the pulpit is not turned over to those who are not Covenant Reformed. We should expect that conferences are not organized where Arminians are invited to speak as headliners.

5.) We keep attending even though the Church doesn’t appreciate how central the family is in God’s economy

We get teachings that suggest that the Church is more important than the family and should be prioritized over the family when in God’s economy both the Family and the Church are equally ultimate, each in their proper sphere. There is little or no sympathy of the Parent’s desire to protect the children from bad teaching in Sunday School or Youth Group precisely because there is little or no understanding that the teaching in Sunday School and Youth group is unwholesome.

6.) We keep attending even though the Leadership does not manage their own household well.

There is, among some or all of the leadership, children of varying ages who are out of control or who have repudiated or redefined the Christian faith. Yet despite that the Leadership is allowed to continue in leadership positions. Children are allowed to be “salty” to their Elders showing little or no respect.

7.) We keep attending though the Church is antinomian

There is a refusal to understand that for Christians there is a harmony between Law and Gospel. As such there is a constant warning about falling into “legalism” whenever any member suggests that the standard of God should be applied. As such there is a bent towards antinomianism in the Church.

By all means, let us enjoy and treasure our Churches. Let us celebrate the gift they are. Let us pour out our lives and hearts into ministering to God’s people — including God’s people who also happen to be our children. Finally, let us realize that just as we are not perfect so our Churches will not be perfect, and so let us be patient. However, in doing so, let us also be mindful of the necessity to properly prioritize our own family, remembering God’s word that “He who does not provide for his own family is worse than an infidel.” Let us beware the danger of falling into Ecclesiolatry.

The Eschatological / Soteriological Impulse of II Cor. 5:14f

II Cor. 5:14f

I.) Preliminary Considerations

A.) Clearing up the “all.” (14f)

First off, we have to understand that this letter was written to the believing Church. Paul is not addressing unbelievers but he is speaking to believers here. The audience thus constrains us to hear the “all” language in the context of a believing community. The “all” then, given the context, points to believers.

Scripture consistently teaches that Christ died for all the subjects of Redemption. Christ died for all who died when He died. (“If one died for all, then all died.”) This is the principle of Covenant headship that is spoken of in Romans 5. All in Adam die in Adam and All in Christ are made in alive in Christ. The apostasy of Adam was the apostasy of all united to Adam. The work of Christ was the work of all united to Christ. The simple meaning here then is the death of Christ is the death of His people.

(Compare to Romans 5 “all” language.)

In this verse we would note that the ones for whom Christ died are the same “all” who died with Christ as a result of Christ’s death as mentioned at the end of the same verse.

So the answer to who the “all” is who died is the “all” who were made alive.

That St. Paul in this very letter does not embrace a Universal Atonement is seen in what he said earlier,

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are perishing (4:3)

Here clearly the Apostle understands that the Gospel has a hidden quality and the hidden quality of it is towards those who are perishing. Clearly no idea of universality is present.

Earlier in II Corinthians this lack of “allness” is also hinted at.

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the aroma of his knowledge by us in every place. 15 For we are unto God a sweet aroma of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the aroma of death unto death; and to the other the aroma of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

So what is the difference in the aroma? It is that some catch the aroma as perishing while others catch the aroma as being saved.

All of this thus is suggestive that the “all” in chapter 5 is a “all” that is restricted by the design of the atonement.

B.) Impact of Being part of the All for whom Christ died (15)

The Holy Spirit goes on to say here that the consequence of having died in Christ is that we are now alive in Christ and so living unto him is the pivot point of our lives. (Romans 6)

This is consistent with what St. Paul said earlier of himself when He said that Christians make it their goal to please God. Paul can even say in Ephesians

“For we (Christians) are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

Charles Hodge waxes eloquent here on this point

“He only is a Christian who lives for Christ. Many persons think they can be a Christian on easier terms than these. They think it enough to trust in Christ while they do not live for Him. But the Bible teaches us that if we are partakers of Christ’s death, we are also partakers of His life; if we have any such appreciation for His love in dying for us as to lead us to confide in the merit of His death, we shall be constrained to consecrate our lives to His service. And this is the only evidence of the genuineness of our Faith.”

Charles Hodge
19th Century American Theologian

If we are, along with St. Paul to make it our goal to please him … if we are to live unto Christ then it is absolutely essential that Christ be known. Many are those who would insist that they are living unto Christ but they live unto a Christ of their own imagination.

Now having dealt with these introductory matters we want to consider two significant impulses of this passage.

I.) Eschatological Impulse

“If anyone is in Christ He is a new creation.”

Dutch Theologian Ridderbos says of this text, “This is the main theme of Paul’s ministry and epistles.”

We would add it is part of the theme of how it is that the new creation (God’s Kingdom, God’s New World Order) is penetrating into and rolling back this present wicked age.

This idea of a “New Creation” is a motif consistent with Old Testament promises. Isaiah wrote of the new creation future. There God speaks of a coming new creation,

“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”

Again in chapter 66 God speaks of God making a new heavens and a new earth. In Christ that new heavens and new earth have been created.

St. Paul is saying here in II Cor. 5 that the one in Christ has already now been placed in that new creation Kingdom that we might also be styled as “God’s New World Order.”

Paul says much the same thing with slightly different language when in Colossians he can say,

3 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son

That Kingdom of God’s dear Son is the New Creation and as we are placed in the New Creation we ourselves are now “New Creations.” The old has past. The New has come.

Paul speaks of this theme again in Colossians 3, speaking of how believers,

have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

The Believer then is part of this new creation community which Ezekiel recognized as once being a valley of dry bones but now a army brought to life from the dead. God has brought us up out of our graves when Christ Himself was brought out of His grave and has placed us in the future eschatological age to come with Christ … a future age that is impacting and leavening this present evil age. This new creation is the Rock that Daniel saw in his vision that rolled over all other Kingdoms that was placed in its way. This new creation is the mustard seed that became a great tree so that all the birds (nations) found a place to nest. This new creation come is the leaven that works itself through the whole.

This explains why for Paul in his preaching in the book of Acts the twin themes were the Resurrection of Christ and the Kingdom of God. Because of the Resurrection of Christ the Kingdom of God (what Paul often styles as the “new creation”) has arrived and is a hurricane force that has every intent of sucking everything in its path into its vortex to remake it consistent with the new creation Hurricane.

Now, why is this Eschatological impulse that we have noted here important?

Simply because the nowness of the “new creation” has been so long buried and continues to be buried underneath the flotsam and jetsam of those in the Church who would rather over emphasize the “not yetness” of the new creation. They accuse us who preach this nowness of a “over-realized” eschatology, by which they mean that our expectations of what Christ intends to accomplish before His return is to high to the point of being dangerous. They cast their eyes upon the landscape and they see how Christians are marginalized and they say, “Thus it has ever been, thus it is now, thus it will ever shall be. Amen,” completely ignoring the triumph of the Gospel and of Christianity in periods throughout History.

They thus make a virtue out of the expectation that the gates of Hell shall prevail. Their theology is all Crucifixion and no Resurrection and Ascension. They see the “not yet” of our Reformed Hermeneutic as corporeally incarnating itself into all of reality and all of our living but the “now” victory of our Reformed Hermeneutic in their sermons, books, and tours is all “spiritual,” which is to say, not only that it has no present tactile reality anyplace beyond the Church, but that it never will have any present tactile reality anyplace beyond the Church.

They conclude that those of us who desire to speak up regarding the “nowness” of the Kingdom and the certain incremental victory of the new creation over this present wicked age are a positive harm upon the Church.

Really, though the disagreement here is only one of differing eschatology. When Postmillennialists read the Scripture they see the triumph of Christ in space and time. When amillennialists read the Scripture they also see the triumph of Christ in space and time but then they end up defining “triumph” quite differently.

Now having spent some time here we want to consider the

II.) Soteriological Impulse

Reconciliation is the bringing together of two parties who have hostility towards one another.

The necessity of Reconciliation presupposes the existence of a barrier of enmity that needs to be removed.

In Christian theology the Reconciliation that needs to take place is both a Reconciliation of God to man and of man to God. The main emphasis of what St. Paul is speaking of here is God’s reconciliation towards man though the reciprocal idea of man’s reconciliation to God also can be gleaned.

Man’s main problem is that God needs to be Reconciled to him. God is justly at war with man because of His sin and something had to be done to provide a basis for God to be reconciled to man. That something that needed to be done God did Himself by incarnating and sending the 2nd person of the Trinity — the Lord Christ — to be the one who would remove The Father’s just hostility to His elect by taking upon Himself the Father’s just hostility towards sin.

In this text what is primarily spoken of is

A.) Objective Reconciliation (God being reconciled to man)

1.) The Author of the Reconciliation

God Himself — Paul says “… All things are of God who has reconciled us.”

Here we note that the chief and only actor in our reconciliation and salvation is God. This is why Biblical Christians will talk about “Salvation being all of God.” God took the initiative to reconcile His people. God did all the saving and He did it in the provision of Christ.

Who, Paul teaches here is,

2.) The Basis of our Reconciliation ?

Yes, God is the author of our reconciliation but He elected to provide that reconciliation only through Christ. This explains why Biblical Christians insist on the absolute necessity of a known Christ in order to have peace with God. There is no concourse with God apart from the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Christ is the one who extinguished the necessary and just opposition of God that was a immovable force set against us.

The plain meaning, thus, is that through Jesus Christ, God established the basis of agreement between men and God as estranged, removed the barrier to the sinner’s approach to Himself, and accepted the work of propitiation in Christ.

3.) The Preached Word of our Reconciliation (18, 20f)

Paul says here that he was set aside unto the ministry of reconciliation. By this he means that it is his calling to make known that God’s has been propitiated. Paul lets men know that God himself has appeased Himself in the appearance of Himself in the person and work of the second person of the Godhead.

4.) Reconciling the World to Himself.

Here I think we need to see that the reconciling work of Christ accomplished on the cross was designed so that in the outworking of history what would eventually come to pass was the salvation of the whole cosmos (“World”). In Christ’s death all things were reconciled in principle and definitively but that reconciliation was to take place progressively in history and culminate in all things being reconciled finally in the consummation of all things. The redemptive effects of Christ’s death was accomplished at the cross and those same redemptive effects continue to extend out into the future so that the all things that were reconciled in principle and definitively in the death of Christ are progressively reconciled as the future unfolds. The final end of Christ’s work is the reconciliation of the World that was accomplished in principle and definitively in the work of our Lord Christ in his Cross work.

Conclusion

Missionary Impulse (20f)

1.) Not reckoning their trespasses to them

2.) Based on the fact that God has provided His reconciliation to men because of Christ men now are responsible to be reconciled to God.

3.) Become the righteousness of God in Him

Objective — Based on the fact that Paul says that God counted Christ as being sin for us, I understand when Paul talks about our becoming the Righteousness of God he is referring first to the reality that because Christ’s righteousness is counted as ours we are said to be the righteousness of God.

Subjective — Becoming.

We become what we have been freely declared to be.