Ask The Pastor — Are Christians Who Oppose Sodomy Inconsistent Since They Don’t Oppose Shellfish?

Dear Pastor,

I find your criticism of gays to be mean, homophobic, and cruel. You fundamentalist Christians are so inconsistent in as much as you don’t take your own bible seriously. You tell those of us who are gay that God finds sodomy to be an abomination and yet you seem not to care about the other things in Scripture that God finds to be an abomination. Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are supposed abominations before the Lord, just as gays are a supposed abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage?

Bring all of God’s law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver’s and Red Lobster. (LOL). Yup, even Popeye’s shall be cleansed (LOL). We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants. (LOL)

I’m not going to analyze the bible for you I believe what I believe. I do not listen to what a man has to tell me on Sunday. I also do not believe everything in the bible.

Habib,

Already this objection raised by sodomites is becoming a worn out old canard. I’ve heard it raised as a “insightful and devastating protest” on talk shows. I’ve seen it put into scripts for television and movie dramas. I think among the sodomite crowd it is beginning to be seen as some kind of silver bullet that instantly kills the werewolf that is Christianity.

But you’ll excuse this werewolf if he just laughs at your silver bullet fired.

It is easy for those without knowledge on the Scriptures to knee-jerk when it comes to the issue of how the Scriptures are read. We don’t read the Scriptures without hermeneutical pre-understandings that help us to see how God’s revelation as a whole is to be understood Habib.

However, among those with a little background in the reading of Scripture we understand that there are distinctions that have to be made for them when we present God’s word on different subjects. One of those distinctions is that whatever God says remains in force for man unless in later revelation God alters what He said earlier on a matter.

The classic example of this is the Sacrificial system you find in the Old Testament. This is a system that God required by His Old Testament revelation. However, with the coming of Jesus Christ, who was the sacrifice about whom the Sacrificial system was proclaiming, the sacrificial system is no longer practiced by Christians. Jesus Christ was God’s fulfillment of all sacrificial offerings therefore Christians no longer offer bloody sacrifices of animals, even though you find the requirement for it in the Old Testament.

Another example of God altering earlier revelation is regarding foods consumed. Now, you will be interested in knowing that some Christians do still follow the OT dietary Law believing that the law regarding foods that you cited is still in force.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

So, for these Christians your criticism that Christians are inconsistent in their application of God’s Word is completely absurd.

However, your criticism remains absurd for those Christians who do eat what is forbidden in those Scriptures you cited because they can turn to Acts 10 and find that what God once called “Unclean,” has been lifted so that He now, in the New Covenant calls it clean. So, just as Christians no longer preform sacrifice because God’s requirement for sacrifice has been met, so Christians eat shellfish because God lifted His prohibition against it in later revelation.

However, what God has not lifted is His abomination of Sodomy. In point of fact, in the New Testament, God says again what He says in the Old Testament that Sodomy is an abomination, thus reinforcing those passages that were cited earlier to you. Here are the New Testament passages that agree with the Old Testament passages,

I Corinthians 6:9-10 — Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Obviously God has not altered His stance on the abomination that is sodomy.

Now, I understand that it is unlikely that this explanation will probably make little difference to your continued embrace of Sodomy but I wanted you to see that there is no contradiction in the Christian position on this matter. Christians can consistently refer to Scripture regarding the vileness of sodomy without being inconsistent because they don’t hold shellfish to be vile as well.

Now, would you like to talk about this more over a dinner on Red Lobster? I love crab-meat and I would love to explain you how it is you can give up your sodomite lifestyle and embrace life abundant.

Caleb’s Baptism (Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 2 — Questions 3-5)

Caleb,

Part of the purpose for the Heidelberg Catechism, when it was written, was so that God’s people, in the geographic area where the Reformed faith had been chosen, could not only know their faith but also know their faith vis-a-vis the Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, and Ana-Baptist strains of Christianity with which the Reformed people would come in contact. In the 16th century, unlike today, it made a significant difference that Reformed people knew what they believed and why they believed it in contradistinction to other less accurate expressions of Christianity. Because this is true there will be points along the way in the Catechism where a certain emphasis is brought out in order to alert people that the Bible teaches X and not Y like Lutherans, or Roman Catholics or Ana-Baptists believe. We will note those times as we move through future discussions.

Today, we turn to the first section of the Catechism proper; “Man’s Misery.” Keep in mind that for the next few entries the subject matter is going to be pretty dark. The intent of this section of the catechism is to close all avenues of answers to our sin problem so that we are forced to look in the only place where we can find the answer. Because that is the intent, the catechism repeatedly rams home the danger in which we find ourselves in this first section. People who are new to Christianity can get pretty depressed (miserable) in the teaching of this section of the catechism. Keep in mind that they are painting a dark picture so that when the light breaks forth that light will look all the more glorious.

It is significant to point out that the truths of the Catechism in their major divisions (in this case Man’s Sin) is accompanied by an emotion (in this case Man’s misery). When we come to know our sin the inevitable result will be a feeling of misery. Just as when we come to know our Deliverance their will be the inevitable result of a feeling of gratitude. Both of the truths and the accompany emotions are to drive behavior. The knowledge of our sin and misery is to drive the behavior of seeking for a Deliverer. The knowledge of being delivered is to drive the behavior of living our gratitude.

The catechism has told us that in order to live and die in God’s comfort we must know our sins and miseries. Now it asks,

Question 3. Whence knowest thou thy misery?

Answer: Out of the law of God.

The law of God has several uses. I’ve heard preachers give as many as six uses of the law but for our brief explanation here we will stick with the standard “three uses of the law.” The first use of the law that Reformed people talk about is what the catechism is speaking of here and through question 11. That first use of the law is referred to as the pedagogical use (And knowing how you love Latin — usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus). In this use of the the law, the law shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves once they become exhausted with trying to keep the law in their own power. This use of the law has the purpose of exposing and rubbing people’s nose in their sin until they realize that they cannot get their nose out of the stink of their sin without help from a deliverer. I don’t know if your familiar with Pilgrim’s Progress, but in that book the main Character meets the law and cries out for mercy after being beaten about by the law, but the law keeps right on beating “Pilgrim,” because, in its first use, it does not know mercy, though it’s purpose is to point us to the merciful one.

John Calvin put the function of the first use of the law this way,

“(By) exhibiting the righteousness of God, — in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God, — it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.”

The second use of the law is commonly referred to as the the civil use (usus politicus sive civilis). That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. You were in Church last week and in the introduction to the Sermon we glanced against that idea a little bit when I spoke of how much of God’s law, because of Alfred the Great’s work had been woven into English Common Law. The fact that we have still have laws that forbid marrying our sisters (as one example) is because the second use of the law is still taken seriously (though admittedly few people would understand or agree with that).

The third use of the law is the normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus). This use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works. This use of the law serves as the norm that norms all norms in terms of Christian behavior. It answers the questions, “How shall then we live.” This use of the law is found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.

So, the first use of the law is to show us and convict us of our sin, and that is what the Scriptures teach.

Rom.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

In question #4 the Catechism then looks for precision.

Question 4. What does the law of God require of us?

Answer: Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

This requirement of the law is not good news for those outside of Christ, for those outside of Christ hate God and are lovers of self. The whole life of the pagan is to de-god God and en-god themselves. In the en-godding of themselves their only use for their neighbor is to serve them in their god-ness (i.e. — to use them). As those outside of Christ have themselves at the center of all reality, so they are convicted of violating God’s law requiring love to God and neighbor.

However, a word here regarding the Christian who hears these words. Remember, the call is to love God and neighbor perfectly. Who of us, who are in Christ, can ever say we love God and neighbor perfectly? None of us. And so as Christians when we hear this summary of the law we once again are reminded that our hope for meeting God’s law requirement is only met fully and completely in Christ. Yes, those of us in Christ, seek to love God and neighbor perfectly, and though we may make a good beginning in loving God and neighbor, and though we might make advance in loving God and neighbor, we must admit that if it were not for Christ’s love for the Father being put to our account we would not meet God’s just requirement to fulfill God’s law and so would be without hope.

The catechism cites a few other Scriptures that make it clear that man’s first and foremost responsibility is to love God and neighbor.

Deut.6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Lev.19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Love to God is the purpose for which man was made. When man refuses to render up love to God and neighbor he may hurt his neighbor but he does not hurt to God. Man reaches out to strike God by his refusal to render up the love that God requires and the result is that he always strikes and injures himself.

When man refuses to love neighbor he creates a culture of conflict of interests instead of the harmony of interests that God created men unto. In the creation God created man to work in harmony with one another but what happens when man turns on God man creates a hell hole culture where everyone is seeking to take advantage of everyone else in order to get ahead. This is what man creates when he refuses to love neighbor.

The catechism ends this Lord’s day by asking,

“Question 5. Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?

Answer: In no wise; (a) for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour.(b)

That we can not live up to God’s law perfectly is repeatedly taught in Scripture.

Rom.3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom.3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The catechism reminds us in answer #5

1.) That the requirement is to keep God’s law perfectly. No failings allowed.

2.) That sinful man not only does not love God but is prone by nature to hate God and neighbor.

When it comes to what God requires in terms of obedience is absolute perfection. 99.99% compliance is not acceptable and will result in eternal separation from God’s peace, bliss, and blessing. Remember, God is a perfectly Holy and just beings and were God to allow even small sinners into his presence, apart from Christ’s perfection, His Holiness and Justice would be rightly called into question. God has said, “The soul that sinneth shall surely die,” and that allows for no exceptions or God is a liar, and so not God.

All of this is complicated by the fact that human beings, by nature, are inclined to hate God and neighbor. This is called the doctrine of original sin. Because of man’s union with Adam (more on that later) man is born with a bent towards selfish self love that precludes love to God and neighbor and includes outright hatred of God and neighbor. Not all men express this inborn nature with the same intensity (thank God) but all men are prone, by nature, to hate God and neighbor. Unless God does something men are born to hate God and neighbor and cannot not hate God and neighbor and furthermore love to hate God and neighbor. Such is the ruin of man unto what God requires of him in His just law.

The doctrine of original sin teaches that we are not sinners because we sin but rather we sin because we are sinners. In order that love of God and neighbor might blossom in the breast of fallen man there must be a change (more on that later), but until that change comes, men outside of Christ spend their entire existence plotting and planning on how to express their hatred toward God and neighbor, all the while, insisting to themselves and others that they are the very wellspring of love and affection to “God” and neighbor.

Of course the Scriptures support what the catechism is teaching us here. In the catechism, we are not being given men’s opinions, but Gods truth.

(b) Rom.8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Eph.2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Tit.3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen.8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Jer.17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Rom.7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Caleb’s Baptism (2C)

How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?

Answer: Three; (a) the first, how great my sins and miseries are; (b) the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; (c) the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance. (d)

Caleb,

We have made the point that the Catechism teaches us that Christianity is the life of the mind. This is not the same as saying that Christianity is reducible to a series of ratiocination exercises. Christianity believes that knowing the truths about God leads to knowing and loving God. Christianity is never less then knowing God but it is always much more than knowing God. Remember, James teaches that the Demons believe in God but their knowledge of God is hardly salvific.

We have talked about the necessity of knowing our sin. Sin is any want of conformity to or violation of God’s law. Sin is rebellion against God’s character. Sin is defiance against God’s revealed way. Sin is the attempt to de-god God and en-god ourselves. The catechism insists that in order to have the Christian comfort that we belong to God we must be conversant (familiar) with our sin.

The catechism also insist that in order to enjoy the comfort (strength) that comes from belonging to God we must know how we may be delivered from all our sins and miseries. You see the knowing of our sins and miseries is not an end in and of itself but such a knowing of our sins and miseries is intended to pole-vault you into the more important understanding of how it is that you are delivered from those sins and miseries.

Notice that the catechism does not say, “the second, that I am delivered from my sins and miseries.” No, the catechism insists that in order for you to know Christian comfort you must know how you are delivered from your sins and misery. The catechism cites these passages in order to legitimate the statement that we must come to know how it is we are delivered,

(c) John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

The second part of the catechism will, with precision, explain how it is that we are delivered. In the current contemporary setting in which we find ourselves this is quite important. Increasingly, we have churches that are filled with Christians who are absolutely clueless as to how it is that they are delivered. They will insist that they are delivered. They will praise up and down the name of “Jesus.” They may even make mention of the Cross. But in the end they stare at you with the dumb cow look if you start talking about the mechanics of salvation, or, “how it is we are delivered.” It is akin to a seamstress insisting that she likes dresses but is clueless on how to make a dress. Caleb, all Christians should have some fundamental understanding of “how it is we are delivered,” that goes beyond cant Christian sloganeering and trite magical Christian phrases. The catechism will give you those fundamentals on “how it is we are delivered from all of our sins.”

Quetion #2 ends with the third reality that we must know in order to find comfort in the fact that we are owned by God. The catechism has a expectation that Christians will know, “how they shall express their gratitude to God for such deliverance.” This will form the third division of the catechism.

So as we break down the Heidelberg catechism, it goes like this

I.) Our Sins and Miseries (Questions 3-11)
II.) Man’s Deliverance (Questions 12-85)
III.) Man’s Gratitude (Questions 86-129)

The expectation of the catechism (following Scripture) is that once man knows how it is he is delivered there will be the natural desire to want to display gratitude. The third part of the catechism, following God’s law as a guide to life, answers how it is that we may show gratitude for the great deliverance that we’ve been freely given.

We should note that section #1 and section #2 are entirely God’s work. If we are to know our sins and miseries, and if we are to know how it is we are delivered it is entirely the favor of God that reveals these truths to us. Section #3 however concentrates on our response to God’s graciously giving to us what we do not deserve. Now, it remains true that even our response to God’s grace is all of grace and yet there is a concursive work in sanctification where, after God has worked in us conformity to Christ, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, part of which is showing gratitude.

Christians have been delivered for the purpose of the glorifying of God that is driven by the motive of gratitude. Gratitude for a completely free deliverance from sin then becomes the foundation for a purpose driven life, the purpose of which is obey God’s law-word and so glorify God. We see thus, that our salvation that we are freely given does not find its end purpose in us. No, the purpose of our deliverance is that we might be a people who are in a mad pursuit to give glory to God through Holy Spirit led obedience to God’s revelation in gratitude for all that God has done for us by sending Jesus Christ to redeem us.

Scripture has the expectation that we will live differently (by a different code) from those not yet delivered,

Eph.5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: Eph.5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Eph.5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. Eph.5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

1 Pet.2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1 Pet.2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Rom.6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom.6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom.6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Rom.6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Christians who do not live in gratitude are testifying that they have not yet either become conversant with their sin, nor familiar with their deliverance. Any man or woman who begins to realize both the sin they have been rescued from and the character of the God who has rescued us will exhaust themselves in being creative in manifesting gratitude for so great a salvation.

A Quick Critique Of Movement Libertarianism

“Why is an alliance between conservatives and libertarians inconceivable? Why, indeed, would such articles of confederation undo whatever gains conservatives have made in this United States? Because genuine libertarians are mad — metaphysically mad. Lunacy repels, and political lunacy especially. I do not mean that they are dangerous; they are repellent merely, like certain unfortunate inmates of ‘mental homes.’

– Russell Kirk,
Author of The Conservative Mind

Often there is confusion in the Christian community that Christianity is Libertarian. Now, certainly it is understandable why people might think this since for the past 150 years in this country the Church has had to contend against a State that is increasingly intent on becoming god walking on the earth. As such, the Church has had to make arguments insisting that the 1st commandment should be taken seriously by God’s people and in doing so it has made some of the same kind of negative arguments against the all encompassing desired omnipotence of the State that Movement Libertarians make. However, Biblical Christianity has no more in common with movement Libertarianism then it has with Movement Marxism.

Like the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message that no institution is absolutized in it sovereignty. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church insists that absolute sovereignty belongs to God and not to the individual man. Like the Movement Libertarians the Church inveighs against a State that has forgotten its place. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church believes that the State has a place in God’s order. That place in God’s order is to bring God’s justice upon those who, because of their sin nature, can not restrain themselves. Like the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message that insists that the individual as individual must be respected and that the individual is not merely some kind of cog to fit in a machine crafted by the State. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message that insists that men find their identity not in their abstracted individuality, but rather men find their identity it terms of distinct covenantal corporate relationships — relationships defined by God — that include family, Church, Community, Guilds, and yes, even the Magistrate. Like the Movement Libertarian the Church articulates a message of Liberty for the individual. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church insists that Liberty is not absolutized and only finds it meaning in the context of a God ordained Transcendent Moral order. Like the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message of love of self. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church also articulates a message of self denial for a greater good ordained by God.

Likewise Christianity teaches, unlike Movement Libertarianism, that man is fallen. Most versions of Movement Libertarianism, like most versions of Marxism, believes in the inherent goodness of man. Christianity teaches that what God’s people on earth are to seek to live out has some connectivity, and ought to be something of a reflection of the Transcendent Moral Order that exists independently of man’s existence. Movement Libertarianism, with its atomized and absolutized self is concerned very little with the idea of a Transcendent Moral Order that has men praying, “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Christianity teaches that social order analysis must begin, where all other analysis must begin and that is from above — with God and His scriptural revelation. Libertarianism does its social order analysis from below — from the needs of the sovereign individual, from the concern of the immanent. Christianity teaches the inescapable reality that all social orders are organized Theocratically. Even Democratic social order is a social order where “vox populi vox dei rules from on high. Movement Libertarianism seems to believe that it is possible to have a social order that is religiously neutral and is not shaped by the God(s). Christianity teaches that in every social order one God is preeminent. Libertarianism seems to teach that social orders can be had where all the gods are preeminent or, alternately, where no gods are preeminent, and they hold this quite without realizing that this view requires a preeminent god to insure that no gods are preeminent.

As an aside, it is interesting to note, that as looked at through Christian lenses, it sometimes seems that some Movement Libertarians are as desirous of putting off Christian morality as Marxists are. How many Libertarians can be counted among the the dopers? How many Libertarians embrace the “non-aggression principle” right up to the point of legalizing Prostitution, Sodomy, and any number of other perversions? For many Libertarians, morality, not being absolute or transcendent, is person variable and as such social orders should be pursued that allow for morality to be person variable.

Ironically, what Movement Libertarianism creates is the Totalitarian State just as what the Totalitarian State creates is the press towards Anarchism. Only Biblical Christianity with its doctrine of the Eternal One and the Many, as that reverberates through the Created One and the Many, provides answers that eclipse the “push me, pull you,” found in the dysfunctional but real relationship between Marxism and Libertarianism. Christians can learn from Libertarians and especially so when most Christians seemingly are completely blithe to the 1st commandment. As such, reading men like Henry Lewis Mencken, Albert J. Nock, Lysander Spooner, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises can be profitable but those who dine with the devil are always well advised to dine with a long spoon. So, we can dine in order to plunder the Egyptians but let us dine in such a way that we don’t become ensnared by the Egyptians.

At the end of the conversation, Libertarianism as a social order motif can only work as any given people share the propensity of self-government consistent with a common worldview. It is hard to envision how Movement Libertarianism could exist in a genuinely multi-cultural, multi-faith, multi-ethnic setting where notions of ethics are as diverse as the balkanized worldviews represented by the varied and sundry multi-meanings that occur as a result of all the multi-dynamics.

Fifth Commandment

Introduction — Background On God’s Law For Social Order Organization

God’s law is the connecting link between the earliest and latest legal systems and has proved itself one of the most influential forces in the evolution of the world’s law.” Law Review Article (1931)

The Scriptures embody fundamental principles that have attained legal effectiveness among nearly all peoples and in remote parts of the earth — principles w/o which human societies can scarcely continue to exist — and it is not unreasonable to suppose that in many instances these principles were borrowed from the Scriptures or were obtained through contact w/ those who observed Biblical law.

For example, much of the common law of England was founded upon Mosaic law. The primitive Saxon codes re-enacted certain precepts taken from the Holy Scriptures, and King Alfred in his Doom (Judgment) Book. Theologian Francis Nigel Lee details how Alfred incorporated the principles of the Mosaic law into his Law Code. Lee then examines how this Code of Alfred became the foundation for the English Common Law, which of course was in turn the foundation of our own legal order.

In his extensive Prologue, Alfred summarized the Mosaic and Christian codes. Another scholar, Michael Treschow, states that the last section of the Alfred’s Prologue not only describes “a tradition of Christian law from which the law code draws but also it grounds secular law upon Scripture, especially upon the principle of mercy”.

The Scriptures have thus been a potent influence upon American law. In the early colonial period, the Bible seems to have been commonly regarded among the people as law. Several of the early colonies even went so far as to formally adopt provisions of the Mosaic law. For example Plymouth Colony in 1636 adopted what was called then, “A Small Body of Laws,” largely based upon the laws of Israel. Likewise, the New Haven colony in 1639 resolved that “the word of God shall be the only rule to be attended to in ordering the affairs of the Government in this plantation,” and then in 1655 adopted a code in which 47 out of 79 topical statues were based on Biblical law.

Appx. 150 years later, in what had recently become These united States of America one could hear a Judge say to a Grand Jury,

“The laws of the Christian system, as embraced in the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts. And it cannot be though improper for the officers of our government to acknowledge their obligation to be governed by its rules.”

~ Judge Nathaniel Freeman’s Charge to the Grand Jury at the Court of General Sessions of the Peace
Held at Barnstable Mass., March Term, 1802

As late as 1931 one can find in the case United States vs. Macintosh

“It has been recognized in the courts that generally we acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.”

With all that said as prolegomena (a preliminary discussion) let us turn to the matter at hand.

** Recap of the Previous

We have repeatedly pointed out that the 10 words can be understood as having both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Though we can not absolutize that distinction it is helpful in ordering our thinking about God’s Law. We have noted that the first four commandments are especially though off as Vertical, having a direct relationship to how we are to esteem God.

1.) No other Gods before me 2.) No craven images 3.) Take not His name in vain 4.) Sabbath

** Fifth Commandment

Question 104 — Heidelberg Catechism

Q. What is God’s will for you
in the fifth commandment?

A. That I honor, love, and be loyal

to my father and mother and all those in authority over me; that I submit myself with proper obedience to all their good teaching and discipline;1 and also that I be patient with their failings—2 for through them God chooses to rule us.3

1 Ex. 21:17; Prov. 1:8; 4:1; Rom. 13:1-2; Eph. 5:21-22; 6:1-9; Col. 3:18-4:1
2 Prov. 20:20; 23:22; 1 Pet. 2:18
3 Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-8; Eph. 6:1-9; Col. 3:18

When we come to the 5th commandment we come to a hinge commandment that has a foot both in the vertical orientation of the God’s 10 words and a foot in the horizontal orientation of God’s 10 words

The foot it has in the vertical orientation is found in the reality that those whom we are dealing with in this commandment, who are to be honored, are those who are God’s representatives … they stand in God’s stead. As representatives of God they one can see the vertical dimension of the commandment. The horizontal orientation of this commandment is found in the reality that we are dealing with human relationships … man’s relation to man. As such there is a horizontal dimension.

If you will allow me just a bit of allegory, it is altogether fitting that with the 5th commandment we have this intersection. Of course you know that when two perpendicular lines intersect the consequence is the formation of the Cross.

It could be easily argued that Jesus, by His work on the Cross, healed the breach that Adam had created by His disobedience to Father by dishonoring Him in his disobedience in the Garden. Jesus, quite in contrast to Adam, was obedient to His Father at every turn. In Hebrews 10 we find Jesus saying,

‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”

Elsewhere we read of the Son,

31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do.

This is important to keep before us before we examine the import of this text as applied to ourselves. Our Lord Christ, offered up the law’s 5th commandment keeping requirement so that the children of Adam who had failed in “Honoring their Father and Mother,” might have the 5th commandment keeping requirement put to their account, and so be acceptable to God. For those who trust Christ, Jesus and His obedience to His Father is what is received as our obedience to our Father and Mother.

This is important to keep in mind because it could be the case that as the years unwind you may look back and cringe with embarrassment or shame at the way you may have dishonored your parents at points along the way of your minority. If and when those times come we must preach the Gospel to ourselves and remind ourselves that we are forgiven in Christ for our sin against our parents are those in authority over us. The fifth commandment preaches the Gospel.

It also would be pleasing to God, for you to ask forgiveness of your folks if God were to lay anything on your heart. Most parents are more ready to forgive then children are ready to ask for forgiveness.

** Fifth Commandment & Honor

As we come to the commandment we see that it calls for “Honor.” Let us consider first what “Honor” means in a Biblical setting.

Honor = heavy.

Honor is accorded thus to people who have significance, or gravitas. The opposite of honor, of course, is dishonor, and where something or someone weighty or having gravitas is treated as if they were inconsequential.

Honoring parents involves several things:

1. Taking to heart their instruction.

2. Show deference toward them, by language and forms of address.

Even the idea of addressing them as “Dad, & Mom” is showing them deference.

3. Loving them.

4. Being faithful, also providing for them (financially, spiritually) in their old age.

But if we were to get even more precise we might say that the idea of “Honor” includes,

1.) To acknowledge that our Parents are God’s appointment to us as His representatives to us and as our first officers as appointed by God. Accompanied then by the understanding that as we obey them in their lawful word to us so we are at that moment obeying God. This is to give “Honor.”

2.) More than one source I consulted included in the idea of “Honor” the necessity for children to look after parents in their dotage if needs be. The source that is cited for this is Matthew 15:5-6

3.) It includes the idea of speaking with respect to them, and with respect of them. Parents are not perfect people and aggravations can arise in family life between children and parents, but at no point should words be used outside the family that would rip and tear apart God’s ordained representatives to the children.

** Application

You can tell a great deal about a person in both the way they treat their parents and the way they speak of their parents. If a man will disrespect and dishonor his parents in deed or word he will disrespect and dishonor any one.

Young people, let me admonish you now, do not become entangled with those who dishonor their parents and above all do not enter into marriage with someone who dishonors their parents. A man or woman who will dishonor their parents is sure to be a man or woman who will readily dishonor their wife or husband.

** Fifth Commandment & Hierarchy

Obviously the requirement found in the 5th commandment speaks to us of God’s implementation of Hierarchy of relationships. Parents govern children, which implies then that there are other unequal relationships (HC = All in authority over me.)

This simple idea of parents having a hierarchical relationship over their children has been under attack,

A current UN “Children’s Rights” proposal, signed by all member UN Nations except Somalia and US would find,

Parents no longer being able to administer reasonable spankings to their children. (contra Proverbs 13:24)

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion. (Contra Dt. 32:46, Proverbs 22:6)

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.(Contra Dt. 6)

A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Of course all of this is out of accord with the Premise that Children are to honor, love, and obey uniquely their parents, and it is out of accord with God’s principle of hierarchy that we find in the fifth commandment.

** Children & Parents without the Fifth Commandment

It is interesting here that what this UN declaration is seeking for the State is what was in place in primitive pagan law where the Father was regarded not as the steward of the children but as the owner of the children.

In primitive law the Father had absolute control over the children even to the point of dictating life or death. In primitive law the Father could sell children as though they were cattle, or they might be seized and sold by his creditor to satisfy a debt.

So, we see what an improvement God’s law is upon any primitive law that would view Children as property to be owned as opposed to a trust over which we have stewardship for a season.

We have dealt with the idea of what Honor means and have begun to touch on the issue of how the Commandment introduces hierarchy. Of course the idea in the Heidelberg Catechism of “all authority over me,” is within the context of Biblical law. It is various authorities that God has ordained. Not any thing or anybody who merely claims “authority.”

** Examples of Proper Authority Structures That Emanate Out of the Fifth Commandment

These might include the authority of Employers over employees, Magistrates over Citizens, Husbands over wives, Elders over laymen, teachers over students, etc. In all these relationship there is the requirement to render up proper honor, love and fidelty.

However, once again we must note that this honoring is in the context of Biblical law. When those in proper authority over us, clearly, repeatedly, and unambiguously w/ malicious intent violate God’s Word we show proper honor to those authorities by yielding to God rather than man.

I say, “clearly, repeatedly, and unambiguously w/ malicious intent” in order to communicate the requirement that God’s word puts upon us to bear patiently with their weaknesses and shortcomings.