Christian History and its Consistent Stance on Hierarchy and Social Inequality as being Biblical

Over here,

Quotes on Social Inequality from the Protestant Tradition

There is a list of quotes that demonstrate that Christianity had never taught the Cultural Marxist doctrine of social equality. I am going to take a quote or two or three every day from this site and post the quote here. The idea of egalitarianism needs to be beaten, bruised and bloodied until it dies a violent death. If the idea of social equality (modern egalitarianism) is not killed it will kill the Church and us as a people.

Elsewhere, I have posted a slew of quotes that demonstrate that Christians throughout history have believed in distinctions between peoples and nations.

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

Also, elsewhere I have posted several times where I have provided quotes that reveal that it is the Marxists and Cultural Marxists who have always desired social equality and social order egalitarianism.

These quotes I am providing in the next few days would provide a more general category under which the quotes I have provided earlier would exist as a subpoint under the general category.

Augustine (354 – 430)

Peace between man and man is well-ordered concord. Domestic peace is the well-ordered concord between those of the family who rule and those who obey. Civil peace is a similar concord among the citizens. The peace of the celestial city is the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. The peace of all things is the tranquility of order. Order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place.  (City of God xix.13)

Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274):

Under the question “Whether in the state of innocence man would have been master over man?,” he writes (Summa Theologica 1.96.4):

But a man is the master of a free subject, by directing him either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good. Such a kind of mastership would have existed in the state of innocence between man and man, for two reasons.

First, because man is naturally a social being, and so in the state of innocence he would have led a social life. Now a social life cannot exist among a number of people unless under the presidency of one to look after the common good; for many, as such, seek many things, whereas one attends only to one. Wherefore the Philosopher says, in the beginning of the Politics, that wherever many things are directed to one, we shall always find one at the head directing them.

Secondly, if one man surpassed another in knowledge and virtue, this would not have been fitting unless these gifts conduced to the benefit of others, according to 1 Peter 4:10, “As every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another.” Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 14): “Just men command not by the love of domineering, but by the service of counsel”: and (De Civ. Dei xix, 15): “The natural order of things requires this; and thus did God make man.”

For the question, “Whether men were equal in the state of innocence?” he writes:

Equality is the cause of equality in mutual love. Yet between those who are unequal there can be a greater love than between equals; although there be not an equal response: for a father naturally loves his son more than a brother loves his brother; although the son does not love his father as much as he is loved by him.

The cause of inequality could be on the part of God; not indeed that He would punish some and reward others, but that He would exalt some above others; so that the beauty of order would the more shine forth among men. Inequality might also arise on the part of nature as above described, without any defect of nature.

A properly ordered hierarchical social order has greater beauty than a collection of equals. This is consistent with Aquinas’s view that “divine goodness” is communicated “more perfectly” by “diverse things” (Summa Contra Gentiles , III, 97)

God, through His providence, orders all things to divine goodness as to an end; not however in such a manner that His goodness increases through those things which come to be, but so that a likeness of His goodness is imprinted in things insofar as it is possible, for indeed it is necessary that every created substance fall short of divine goodness, so that in order for divine goodness to be communicated to things more perfectly, it was necessary for there to be diversity in things, so that what is not able to be perfectly represented by some one [thing] is represented in a more perfect manner through diverse things in diverse ways.

Chain of Being Thinking and Implications

“A second essential point with respect to ancient philosophy: for ancient philosophy, being is one and continuous. Now, what does this mean? As Christians, as believers in the scriptures, we declare that God is uncreated being. He alone is God. Men are not Gods, men are not divine, we don’t have a spark of divinity in us, we are creatures. So that there are two kinds of being in the universe. The uncreated being, God, and the whole word of created being, man and all the creatures, the entire universe. This means, therefore, there is a vast gap between God and the universe, and the universe, nor any part of it, can ever be termed divine. But in ancient philosophy, there was only one continuous world of beings, so that the Gods, the men, all shared in this divinity.

Now some people were more godlike than others, the heroes were ones who were at least half-Gods. The rulers or emperors very often became completely God. Everyone had a little bit of God in them and it was just a case of developing that in them. So salvation meant becoming more and more a God, whereas for us salvation is accepting the redemptive work of God by faith.

Now, the background of this idea of one continuous being was that being arose out of chaos, and here you have the whole religion of revolution and that it is working its way up. And since it is evolving, and the idea of evolution is the hallmark of paganism, there was no idea of creation in paganism, whatever they may try to tell you. The way for this evolution to proceed is through chaos. It has to have chaos occasionally in order to step upward. And so this takes us to the religion of evolution.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Lecture — The Early Thinkers from Plato to Augustine Q&A-Delivered 1969

These three paragraphs explain the modern West for those with ears to hear. Some observations.

1.) If all being is continuous then all being participates in and is reflective of God.  Any distinctions that exist, exist only because some realities have more being in them than other realities. The more the being the higher one is on the scale of hierarchy. This kind of social order was reflected in the Egyptian system of Mahat. Mahat had reference to the Universal mind. Pharaoh was understood to have the greatest participation of the Universal mind. From Pharaoh on down, everyone possessed less of the Universal mind.  If one possessed less of the universal mind one was the slave of the one who possessed more of the universal mind. Mahat gave a slave order where everyone was the slave of the one above them who had more being.

2.) The West has put a twist on this continuous being thinking by adding egalitarianism to continuous being. If all being is continuous (Chain of being) and if that thinking is going to be combined with egalitarianism then no being is superior or inferior to any other being and as no being is superior or inferior to any other being then no distinctions that mark superiority or inferiority can be allowed to exist. Hence egalitarianism, as combined with the chain of being thinking (called Oneism by Dr. Peter Jones), results in the certitude that no objection can be raised against Transgenderism, sodomy, New World Order Babelism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, multi-faithism or Open borders because all share in divinity and all are equal. Indeed in this system of continuous thinking as combined with egalitarianism any distinction made in terms of “superior” (better) vs. “inferior” (worse) is the greatest crime imaginable. (With the exception that egalitarianism is superior to inferior notions of Biblical hierarchy.)

3.) Wherever you find the doctrine of the chain of being (continuous being) there you find the religion of chaos.  Chain of Being thinking does not allow a creator God who has distinct unshared being and who is responsible for bringing order out of Chaos so Being and order must arise out of chaos. Chaos gives birth to order and being.  As such, those social orders who embrace continuous being (and Evolutionary thinking is the very nard of chain of being thinking), also embrace the religion of revolution. This religion insists that in order for a utopian order to come to pass that can only happen by returning to chaos that order may be birthed. You find this kind of thinking exemplified in celebrations of Mardi Gras, ancient rites of bacchanalia, and of course the post-Endarkenment blood-drenched Revolutions (1789 — French / 1848 — Europe / 1861 — America / 1914 — Europe / 1918 — Bolshevik / 1948 — China etc.).  This thinking teaches that destruction has the capacity to bring Utopia.  Order out of Chaos reflects a dialectical thinking of one step back in order to gain two steps forward.

4.) Of course, “chain of being” thinking disallows the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible has being that is unique and distinct from the creature. (In Christian theology this is called the Creator-creature distinction.) In “chain of being” thinking this Creator God must be eliminated.  Of course, when the God of the Bible is eliminated God pops up elsewhere. For “chain of being” thinking the god which has distinct being from all else (even though lip service is given that no distinct being exists) is the State. The State becomes that reality which has the most being and so must be obeyed. The new motto for “chain of being” thinking is “in the state we live and move and have our being.”

5.) Since all godhead must have unity of being the State as the god of the Chain of being must work in order to ensure uniformity in the social order. The motto becomes, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” If there is continuity of being and if the State is the Archimedean point of all being then all individuality in the State must be sunk in the god-State. This also becomes a factor in pushing all things towards egalitarianism.  The State becomes Queen Bee and all in the hive are drones serving the Queen bee.

Individuality is lost. Distinction is lost. Liberty is lost.

Martin Symposium Paper; “Christ as Savior and King”

In 2008 I was asked to present a paper at Indiana Wesleyan University’s inaugural Martin Symposium.  This was originally posted on Iron Ink around that time but for some reason, I have posts that disappear from Iron Ink. Fortunately, I  backed them up and now I can repost them.

Dr. Glenn R. Martin chaired and taught in the Social Sciences Department at Indiana Wesleyan University where I attended between 1977-1982. Martin was the Arminian version of R. J. Rushdoony and he was the man who first introduced me (a very rough around the edges 18 year old) to presuppositional and Weltanschauung thinking. He was my mentor and though I have left the Arminian expression of Worldview Thinking for the more consistent expression of the same found in Reformed thought and theology Dr. Martin will always remain the man who made all the difference for me.

His posthumously published book is entitled “Prevailing Worldviews,” where on the back cover you will find an endorsement by yours truly.

My endorsement reads,

“Dr. Martin’s ability to combine passion with intellect in the cause of King Christ is something which the Church yet stands in desperate need. Likewise, Dr. Martin’s critical thinking skills as displayed in his ability to analyze and offer solutions from a Christocentric position is an elixir that the Church must drink again if the West and its culture would again be of any consequence.”

If all the World could be Arminian the way that Dr. Glen R. Martin was Arminian I would be close to being content. Unfortunately, as is often the case with geniuses the University that employed him has done their best to drop him down the memory hole. Martin’s presuppositional Worldview thinking is not a piece with Arminian Barthianism and postmodernism that is characteristic of Indiana Wesleyan University today.
Christ As King – A Brief Overview
Dr. Glenn Martin’s guiding premise was the Lordship Of Jesus Christ over every sphere of reality. He expressed this constantly by his call to think in such a way that begins and ends with the God of the Bible regardless of what sphere or discipline one is contemplating in their thought life. This paper is an attempt to speak to the Church’s responsibility to proclaim the Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ.
Beginning with God’s revealed word we would contend that the purpose and mission of the Church, in submission to Christ’s office as Prophet, is to proclaim Christ in His Mediatorial capacity as High Priest and King of Kings. The Church’s purpose and mission to proclaim Christ necessitates a return to an emphasis where Jesus is once again placarded to men in His Mediatorial offices as Prophet, Priest, and King.
That Scripture has such a purpose and mission for the Church is seen in what is commonly referred to as the great commission (Mt. 28:18-20).
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen
Here we find Jesus, having completed His High Priestly work on the Cross, now in His office as King, speaking as one with all authority. From His office of King He commissions the first representatives of the post-resurrection Church to bring the Priestly (baptizing) and Kingly (teaching to observe all things) work of Christ to all the nations.
In I Corinthians 15 we find one of the greatest explanations regarding the implications of the High Priestly work of Christ in providing His Church’s salvation. The Apostle can start by noting,
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures…
Yet even in this Chapter, we find lineaments putting forth the Kingly office of Christ.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
The Kingly Rule of Christ mentioned here by the inspired Apostle obviously has a ‘now, not yet’ quality that is put together in such a way to suggest interesting eschatological conclusions, but regardless of one’s eschatology, clearly the Church is reminded by Paul’s inspired words in I Corinthians 15 that discussions regarding the gospel includes the idea of the absolute Kingship of Jesus Christ.
Again in Ephesians 1, the idea of Christ as Priest and King are brought forth in tandem. Early in the Chapter we are told, in reference to Christ’s Priestly office that,
In Him (the beloved) we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
This is followed just a few verses later by a reference to Christ’s Kingly work where we are reminded that the working of God’s mighty power was,
worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,
Once again, we see that our great High Priest is King over all for the sake of the Church. Since this is true the Church cannot proclaim a Gospel that does not include the news of Christ’s absolute Mediatorial Kingship.
In Acts 5:31 Peter can put these two offices together by noting of Jesus that,
“God hath exalted Him to His right hand to be Prince and Savior.”
Again in Acts 17:7 those who opposed the Gospel had no doubt that the Gospel pronouncement was not limited to Jesus vested in His High Priestly office but also included the authority of Jesus in His office of High King. The envious Jews in Thessalonica framed their objection to those who brought the Gospel by charging that,
“Jason has harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king—Jesus.”
Indeed throughout the book of Acts, the twin themes of the Preaching Church were the Kingdom of God and the Resurrection. These twin themes lend support to the observation that the Church’s purpose and mission are to proclaim Christ in His Mediatorial capacity as High Priest and King of Kings.
Most importantly, the idea that the purpose and mission of the Church include the good news of Christ as Priest and King is seen in the complex of the redemptive events in the person and work of Christ. Jesus was crucified as a sin offering accomplishing that component of His Priestly work of salvation while in His Ascension Jesus’ Kingship was inaugurated. The Church can hardly speak of one of these offices without immediately referencing the other. The offices are certainly distinct but they are in no way divorced.
So, if we are to begin and end with God in our thinking regarding His Church we must conclude that the primary mission and purpose of the Church is to proclaim Christ in His Mediatorial capacity as High Priest and King of Kings.
The teaching of Scripture on the primary purpose and mission of the Church is too often in abeyance in modern America. The Church’s proclamation on Christ’s Mediatorial Priestly office wherein He is Savior has been eclipsed by categories foreign to that message. The Church’s proclamation on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingly office wherein He is Lord has been replaced by a view where Jesus’ Kingship is of the Gnostic-like variety. We shall deal with these in reverse order.
The Gnostic King Jesus; His Incredibly Shrunken Realm
In the abstract most evangelicals would mouth the words that ‘Jesus is Lord,’ but when that confession has the expectation of being made concrete in this world the Lordship of Jesus begins to dissipate. I submit that the Evangelical Church has embraced a type Gnostic King Jesus who is Sovereign in the Spiritual ethereal realm but whose Kingship has little to do with the corporeal material realm in which man does his daily living.
The way this has developed in the West was by embracing a Theology / Epistemology where a sacred realm was created where the Lordship of Christ is unquestioned, leaving a putatively secular neutral realm where believers in Christ and believers in other “gods” co-operate according to the dictates of shared autonomous reason.
“The ‘form-matter’ dualism (of classical philosophy) was transferred into the medieval variant, the ‘nature-grace’ schema. Natural philosophy or natural reason…was given full autonomy in the area of ‘common ground.’ Both believers and unbelievers can use this hypothetically neutral reasoning faculty to discover identical truths in the realm of nature. Grace, the realm of faith, was alone closed to the reasoning powers of the pagan world. Revelation was needed to provide men will full knowledge of faith, the sacraments, and the Church.”1 (Gary North, Foundations of Christian Scholarship pg. 129)
The problem of course with this arrangement is at least threefold. First, by appealing to ‘reason’ what happens is that man’s intellect is made autonomous in the common realm and so the starting point for all his thinking is self-referential. Instead of beginning and ending with God, he begins and ends with himself. In essence man, either in his individual _expression or in his corporate _expression, is now Lord of the putatively neutral realm.
The second problem with this idea is the notion that man can have any realm where he can operate without a pre-commitment to some theological apriori. Man can do nothing in any realm without being informed by some faith commitment. I believe that Dr. Martin required his students to read Thomas Kuhn’s ‘Structures in Scientific Revolution,’ in order to awaken them to the reality that man can not escape his apriori faith commitments.
The third problem is that in assuming that a shared common or neutral realm can exist, apart from the Lordship of Christ, one destroys the idea of the anti-thesis that one finds in Scripture. From Genesis 3:15 through the end of Holy Writ God’s Word teaches a warfare worldview where the seed of the serpent and their Lord contest against the seed of the woman and the Lord Jesus Christ. Where the anti-thesis is in total eclipse, this side of the eschaton, there the Lordship of Jesus has been surrendered.
Now because of this compartmentalization, we have a sacred realm where Christ is Lord and the standard is His eternal Word, while at the same time having a secular realm where autonomous man is Lord where the standard is his relativistic word. In the former realm, man begins and ends his thinking with God. In the latter realm, man begins and end his thinking with the autonomous self. The consequence of this is a contemporary Church that is filled with individuals who claim a Jesus who saves their non-corporeal souls but who have not been taught to think God’s thoughts after him in every area of life and who have not been taught that Jesus as King, has a Word on how to incarnate and bring their salvation into the material world through the holy callings in which they are called. Jesus thus is a Gnostic King with an incredibly shrunken realm. He saves our souls but leaves our material realm largely untouched.
This dualism with its sacred-secular dichotomy has survived successfully as long as it has in America for two reasons. First, because of the remaining influence of a Christian World and life view on the societal and institutional infrastructures the autonomously manufactured common realm has been able to function. The leavening of Christendom in American, through the beginnings of the Holy Commonwealth, which did not allow for the kind of bifurcation that we have spoken of, has taken centuries to completely eradicate. Such is the strength of Biblical Christianity.
Second, the ‘secular’ realm has survived because the sacred realm (Christianity) has increasingly redefined itself in order to accommodate the demands of the ‘secular’ realm. This second eventuality was recognized over 70 years ago,
“[i]t will be remembered that the theory of evolution found its bitterest and most persistent opponents among the theistic religionists. Only gradually and with reluctance has orthodoxy readjusted its theology to make room in it for the theory of evolution. There are many Theists today who believe in evolution, but they have had to make over their idea of God considerably. Indeed, they have not yet succeeded in making a satisfactory adjustment. It is still to be seen whether or not Theism will survive the shock which the theory of evolution has given it.” (2) Charles F. Potter; Humanism, A New Religion (New York, Simon & Schuster, pg. 15
Theism has survived the shock but its survival has more often been in spite of the visible Church’s lack of proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life, rather than because of its resistance to alien worldviews.
This Evangelical and American trend to compartmentalize reality into Sacred and Secular categories is the legacy of the work of Thomas Aquinas and later in Protestantism by Bishop Butler. Aquinas held that while the will in man was fallen the intellect was not. With this understanding of an incomplete fall of man, pandora’s box was opened releasing all the villainy that autonomous man could achieve with his reason divorced from revelation.
This has led to an approach described by Dr. Greg Bahnsen.
“The Thomistic approach assumes that fallen man is capable of reasoning in a proper way (prior to repentance of sin and submitting to the Savior) and that knowledge and intelligible interpretation of experience are philosophically possible apart from God’s revelation (i.e. – possible in terms of a basic perspective different from the Christian Worldview). Man’s own intellect, when used at its best, is thus granted the ability and the right to pass judgment on the credibility of God’s word (it’s worthiness of faith). Reason – set up as a judge, not simply a tool – takes a privileged position alongside faith.(3)
pg. 47 Van Til’s Apologetic, Bahnsen
The consequences of such an approach are manifold. First, as we have seen, the Lordship of Jesus Christ ends up being limited to the arbitration of human reason deciding where Christ will be allowed to be explicitly Lord. Man, in determining the sway of Jesus’ Lordship, becomes his own Lord. This was brought home to me again when in a recent discussion with a prominent Reformed Theologian I was informed that “There is no ‘Christian’ economics,” and this despite the fact that his own confession gives a statement on theft that would make a good beginning in formulating a Christian economics.
“In God’s sight theft also includes cheating and swindling our neighbor by schemes made to appear legitimate such as: inaccurate measurements of weight, size or volume; fraudulent merchandising; counterfeit money; excessive interest; and any other means forbidden by God…” (HC LD 42)
The second consequence of such a Thomist approach is that in removing the Lordship of Christ from the ‘secular’ realm one removes His law standard in that realm and at the same time replaces it with the legal standard of some other lord. As Dr. Martin was fond of saying, ‘Nature abhors a vacuum,’ and since that remains true the removal of Christ as Lord from the Secular realm means a replacing of all objective standards found in the revelatory scriptures of the King for subjective standards found in Sharia law or positivistic law, or Hindu caste law, depending on one’s self-referential desires.
From Light To Darkness
In the days of the Reformation the principle was submission to God; in these days it is a revolt against God. That is why there rages again today one universal war in church, state, and the world of learning, one holy battle over the supreme question: to submit unconditionally to the law of God, or not. Groen Van Prinsterer – Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution(3)
The embracing of a different standard can be seen by the shift in the approach of the Revolutionary West to educational disciplines beginning especially with the endarkenment (sometimes euphemistically referred to as the enlightenment) and continuing through to the present. This shift has made itself known in the various disciplines with their emphasis upon increasing humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic and Statist type training standards that are derived from some pagan lord. We will consider just four of those fields in order to provide a kind of Whitman’s sampler of the shift that the Church is facing as it contemplates its necessity to once again proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life.

Education

In the area of Education, the Unitarian, Horace Mann led the way in America moving education away from its Biblical moorings exemplified in the Puritan requirement for an education that was rich with Scripture.
“It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep man from the knowledge of Scriptures, as in former times, keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times, by persuading from the use of tongues, so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors;
It is therefore ordered by this court and authority thereof…to teach all…children to read and write…they shall set up a grammar school, the masters thereof being able to instruct youths so far as they may be fitted for the university.(4)
In doing so they used books like the New England primer that had children learning the letter ‘A’ by reciting “In Adam’s fall, we fell all.” The Puritans were interested in educating their children under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
But starting in the 19th-century men like Henry Barnard, John Swett, John Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, and Harold Rugg followed in Mann’s wake, setting in concrete a humanistic evolutionary, naturalistic, Statist, teaching model that the discipline of pedagogy and Education now holds as the definitional Standard. The guiding assumption of modern education has been expressed at various times by its leadership.
Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way, the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven.”(5) Pedagogic Creed, School Journal vol. 54 (January 1897), pp. 77-80
Dewey, as a signatory to Humanist Manifesto I wasn’t thinking of a proper social order that yields allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eighty years later this kind of thinking was still holding sway in the Educational Establishment.
Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future.”(6) Dr. Chester Pierce, Harvard University, keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Denver, Colorado, April 1972
There were voices of protest in the Church against this denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the realm of education,
“I am as sure as I am of the fact of Christ’s reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, which this sin-rent world has ever seen… It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes the least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing, no matter how small a minority the atheists or the agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is carried out in all parts of the country, the United States’ system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of atheism which the world has ever seen” (A. A. Hodge, “Popular Lectures on Theological Themes,” 1889, pages 281-283) (7).
The Church, as is her custom, ignored her prophets.

Jurisprudence 

In the area of Law, men like Christopher Columbus Langdell, Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo moved the discipline of law away from its Biblical moorings evinced in Puritan Commonwealth documents like “Abstract of the Laws of New England,” towards standards that evinced a humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic and Statist paradigm. In the late 1800’s Langdell did yeoman’s work moving law training away from a century of Lawyers in America concentrating on what the Constitution said to Darwinian inspired notions of where the law was perceived to be moving (case law training). By Langdell’s work, the Constitution came to be seen to be evolving under the guidance of an imperial judiciary. Roscoe Pound followed Langdell at Harvard Law School and strengthened Langdell’s notions of law set inside a evolutionary Weltanschauung. At one point Pound wrote,
We have . . . the same task in jurisprudence that has been achieved in philosophy, in the natural sciences and in politics. We have to rid ourselves of this sort of legality and to attain a pragmatic, a sociological legal science.” (8) Mechanical Jurisprudence” by Roscoe Pound, Columbia Law Review, vol. 8, no. 8, December 1908, p. 609
It would take paragraphs to tease out all that is wrong about this quote but at the very least here Pound, following Langdell, subtly advocates using the Law in an evolutionary sense (hence the need for a pragmatic nature) so as to serve pagan-elitist perceived changing societal norms. Secondly, Pound presupposes that Law can be a ‘legal science’ as if that ‘legal science’ can exist without being derivative of some Theology or some God concept. Science of any form is just a handmaid to some Theology. Pound’s irrational search was for an objective point of reference based upon changing subjective norms. Pound’s desire to attain a pragmatic, sociological legal science presupposes a pagan theological paradigm (legal positivism) that is in anti-thesis with a Biblical paradigm.
Oliver Wendell Holmes served on the US Supreme Court from 1902-1932, in defining truth Holmes could write that it was, “the majority vote of the nation that can lick all the others.” Holmes’ view of law paralleled his view of truth as he rejected absolutist transcendent moral categories for law opting instead for a kind of cultural relativism.
“The justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers always have followed it. It must be found in some help which the law brings toward reaching a social end.” (9) Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Collected Legal Papers. NY: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1920. P. 225, “The Law in Science—the Science in Law.” Cited in Barton, Original Intent. P. 229.
Once again, we see an evolutionary view of law where Law is understood not as something static or eternal but rather as a something that is constantly in flux serving always changing social ends.
Finally, for purposes illustrative to show that some other Lord has usurped the Crown Rights of King Jesus in the field of Law and to establish that a neutral realm is a myth we cull a couple quotes from former US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo who said, “I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life.”(10) The Nature of the Judicial Process 10 (1921) What is judge-made law except that it is a man-made law with man as Lord? In another place Cardozo stated,
“If there is any law which is back of the sovereignty of the state, and superior thereto, it is not law in such a sense as to concern the judge or lawyer, however much it concerns the statesman or the moralist.”(11) Benjamin Cardozo Problematics, supra note 2, at 1638
Here Cardozo clearly has citizens living, moving and having their being in the State.
The Church has the clear responsibility of proclaiming to God’s people that the transcendent reference point for Law is found in the Law-Word of King Jesus and it is the Church’s shame that her pulpits are full of men who are mute to this responsibility.

Sociology 

Sociology, in our culture, is a given but the word itself wasn’t coined until the 19th century by Auguste Comte. Comte came up with Sociology as a way to explain men’s behavior apart from Biblical Christianity. In America men like Lester Frank Ward, William Graham Sumner, Albion Small, and Franklin Giddings were pioneers in anchoring the humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic, and Statist paradigm of Sociology (whether leftist or rightist) on the American consciousness.
Sumner was a Darwinist influenced by Herbert Spencer. That Sumner pushed an evolutionary, humanistic and statist sociology is seen in his teaching.
“Nothing but might has ever made right, and if we include in might (as we ought) elections and the doctrines of the courts, nothing but might makes right now…. if a thing has been done and is established by force (that is no force can reverse it), it is right in the only sense we can know and rights will follow from it which are not vitiated at all by the forces in it. There would be no security at all for rights if this were not so.” (12) Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals
It seems that Chairman Mao’s famous aphorism that ‘power comes out of the barrel of a gun’ was just a pithy reduction of the American sociologist Sumner.
Franklin Giddings sociological paradigm shared with Comte’s the idea that mankind had progressed in an evolutionary fashion through certain stages. Whereas Comte had three stages, Gidding’s discerned four stages of human evolution: zoogenic, anthropogenic, ethnogenic and demogenic. Like Comte, he believed that he lived in times that were an expression of the higher end of the evolutionary scale.
Ironically, Frank Lester Ward used Darwin and Spencer to fight the Social Darwinism of the Gilded Age. Ward revealed how in debt he was to Darwin’s evolutionary thinking and perhaps Hegel’s dialectic in his Address as the President of the American Sociological Society at its First Annual Meeting.
(Sociology) has gone farther even than physics, which has thus far only discovered the law of gravitation, but has not yet discovered its cause or principle. Sociology has not only established the law of social evolution, but it has found the principle underlying and explaining that law. Just as in biology the world was never satisfied with the law of organic evolution worked out by Goethe and Lamarck until the principle of natural selection was discovered which explained the workings of that law, so in sociology is was not enough to formulate the law of social evolution, however clear it may have been, and the next step has been taken in bringing to light the sociological homologue of natural selection which explains the process of social evolution. That principle is not the same as natural selection, but it serves the same purpose. It also resembles the latter in growing out of the life-struggle and in being a consequence of it; but, instead of consisting in the hereditary selection of the successful elements of that struggle, it consists in the ultimate union of the opposing elements and their combination and assimilation. Successively higher and higher social structures are thus created by a process of natural synthesis, and society evolves from stage to stage. The struggling groups infuse into each other the most vigorous qualities of each, cross all the hereditary strains, double their social efficiency at each cross, and place each new product on a higher plane of existence. It is the cross-fertilization of cultures.(13)
In this quote, we see several naturalistic, and humanistic presuppositions. First, Ward cites that sociology has ‘established’ the law of social evolution, which is the Hegelian synthesis between the thesis and anti-thesis of competing social structures. This presupposes a purely naturalistic mechanism that locks the God of the Bible out of the equation. Second, Ward’s presupposition of a closed world is seen in the whole notion of a sociological evolution that needs a homologue to biological natural selection.

Psychology 

The individualistic attempt to do in an anti-Christian fashion what Sociology attempted to do on a corporate level started as phrenology and eventually developed (?) into what we today call Psychology. Today, Psychology like Sociology is a given in the American mindset, and like sociology in its origin, it was anti-Christ to the core. Psychology became part of the America psyche thanks to work of men like Freud, Jung, Rogers, Maslow, Skinner and a host of others. The various fields of psychology and sociology have spawned countless fields in the West the way Spielberg’s Gremlins multi-duplicated with the addition of water, and with just as much danger.
Clearly, neither sociology nor psychology dwells in a neutral realm and as such the Church needs to proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus over these realms of thought.
I would submit that regardless of what discipline we inquire into (including Christian Theology) we find that Secular Humanist presuppositions and assumptions holding the field so much so that a foundational challenge to these positions is often taken as an un-Christian attack on good wholesome teaching by those in the Church who spent their formative years being trained in the “Secular” realm where reason was King and in a Church where God’s law-word was either ignored or reinterpreted through the assumptions of Secular Humanism. All of this is why in 1961 Harry Blamire could say,
“There is no longer a Christian mind….As a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion – its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues with the context of the eternal, the view which relates all human problems – social, political, cultural – to the foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of heaven and hell.” (14) Harry Blamires The Christian Mind pg. 4
Blamires’ point wasn’t that there weren’t still some people living who thought like Christians, rather his point was that the context for conversations among those people in different disciplines didn’t exist in such a way that the influence of Christian thought could be brought to bear upon a set people or culture. Blamires’ point seemed to be then that those who did think like Christians were so isolated in their various fields that for all intensive purposes the Christian mind was in eclipse.
The purpose of establishing these matters by our light dusting is that,
1.) There is no such thing as a neutral or secular or common realm. Neutrality is a myth. Therefore the Church must proclaim the Lordship of Jesus in these areas.
2.) ‘Neutral’ realms are always reflective of some Theology and are derivative of and beholden to some God concept.
3.) If the transcendent and absolute standard of King Jesus is not the standard by which we measure in the putative secular realm then some other standard of some other Lord will become the standard by which we measure in the ‘secular’ realm.
Though these disciplines have ‘evolved’ over time, there is little evidence that on a large scale they have ‘evolved’ in a Biblical direction. The covenant seed continues to be trained in ways that compromise their confession that Jesus Christ is King.
The reason that the Church needs to return to a proclamation of Jesus Mediatorial Kingship is first because it is the Church’s unique privilege and responsibility to proclaim King Jesus in more than an abstract or gnostic fashion.
Second, none of our other cultural institutions are going to do it since they have already largely been compromised by the Spirit of the age. We are now several generations into this kind of evolutionary, humanistic, naturalistic and statist Weltanschauung and if Reformation and awakening is to come there has to be some institution that is sounding the tocsin seeking to alert God’s people that Jesus is not a gnostic King and that God’s people are responsible to think His thoughts after Him in every area of life and measure by the King’s standard.
From Darkness To Light
This is a proclamation though that the Church must make in the face of severe resistance for our churches are often led by professionals who have been trained in an unbiblical Worldview, who, because of that, will likely feel ideologically threatened by such a bold proclamation. As just one example, see how threatened people feel, if, from the pulpit or the lectern, it is insisted that the Lordship of Jesus requires parents to pull their children that God has given them out of Government Schools since such education is universally premised upon false gods and as such is idolatrous.(15) Secondly, proclamations of the Lordship of Jesus Christ will also face resistance because frankly much of the Church in America is filled with people who prefer to be entertained and who would leave for other Churches if it were required of them to do the difficult work of thinking. (16) Thirdly, proclamations of the Lordship of Jesus Christ will face resistance because the implications of submitting to that Lordship could be personally and professionally ruinous for people. Imagine Biology Teachers showing up in school prepared to teach something as innocuous as intelligent design. Finally, proclamations of the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the Church will face resistance because many church goers don’t like and aren’t equipped for the confrontation that this doctrine brings in a culture where other lords are in usurpation against King Jesus.
The remedy for all of this is easy to advocate but harder to implement. The remedy, as we have suggested, is first, found in eliminating the notion of a secular realm, if by secular realm we mean a realm that is unaffected or unmoved by some Theology. While Dr. Martin was correct to insist that there is no institutional hierarchy there can be no doubt that Theology remains the Queen of the Sciences, the protestations of modernism notwithstanding. In order to provide solution to the current problem of compartmentalization we must first recognize that no realm exists nor can exist that is not derivative of some Lord or lords and hence some Theology. One’s belief about God drives everything. Everything about us is the outward manifestation of our inward beliefs about the character and nature of some God. As a Christian people we must wake up to the fact that everything, that happens around us from School curriculum, to magazine covers, to Presidential Speeches, to forms of government, to what is considered chic in apparel, to hairstyles, to music, to parenting styles, is driven by some faith commitment which in turn descends from some God concept. The only question is which faith commitment and which God. Neutrality is a myth. Once that is recognized we must go on, as Dr. Martin tirelessly repeated to re-interpret every area of life in light of the Scripture.
Second we must expose the aberrant theologies that are currently being incarnated into this realm we call secular and presume to be neutral. The realm that we now call secular in all actuality is a humanist realm largely ruled by the State and it won’t be satisfied until all Christian notions of ‘sacred’ are either completely isolated to what happens in the Church building on Sunday or isolated to a very private sphere of personal holiness. In heralding the Lordship of Jesus Christ the Church must expose Humanism for the faith system that it is. Like all other faith systems humanism does have a sense of the Sacred (The Nation State absolutized). Humanism is a faith system, like all faith systems, that is replete with Priests (Psychologists to whom moderns make their confession), sacraments, (abortion and the vote) catechisms (school textbooks), and martyrs (Matthew Shepherd). Since it is a Worldview System in opposition to the God of the Bible it’s sense of the Sacred and its Holy is what Biblical Christians would consider profane and unholy. In Secular Humanism, Man, considered either individually or collectively, is that which is ultimately Sacred, and since Man absolutized handles all that he handles apart from God, all that Man absolutized makes sacred is therefore automatically profane from the view of a Christ submitting Christian. If the Church is to return to the proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ from the pulpit then it must at the same time seek to demolish every stronghold and pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. In our times and in this country that means an extended assault on humanism; the defacto established religion of this country. Does the Church and its ministers have the courage to do that?
Thirdly, understanding that Theology remains the core discipline that informs all other disciplines every college student should be required to start with the core discipline of Theology before moving on to other disciplines that are but seeking to express and incarnate the core discipline in sundry ways. Failing the pursuit of that solution, at the very least Professors ought to be required to reverse engineer their disciplines so that the students have the opportunity to see how their discipline is growing up out of the soil of Scripture.
Fourthly, ministry students should be required to take classes that seek to integrate Theology, Worldview thinking, and Christian Ethics.
These four solutions are nothing but the re-articulation of Dr. Martins’ call to know what we believe and why we believe it and what we don’t believe and why we don’t believe it.
Impact
Where the Church and God’s people take seriously Jesus office as King in an unrestricted sense there a cultural context is created that makes it easier for the gospel to be heard by unbelievers. Think of context and text when reading a book. The context helps the reader to make sense of the text that he is immediately reading. The text itself would be nonsense if it were set in an entirely different context. In the same way when the ‘Gospel’ goes forward in a cultural context that is informed by the unrestricted Kingship of Jesus, there the text of ‘Jesus Christ as the great High Priest’ makes more sense. Where Jesus in His Kingly office is lived out there isn’t such a huge disconnect between the message of Jesus Christ crucified and the reality of a culture that is defying King Jesus at every turn. When we don’t live out allegiance to Jesus in His Mediatorial office of King we make it more difficult for people to hear the strains of the message of the great commission because we are helping to create a social order context that is in opposition to the gospel proclamation. Consequently when we disconnect the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate to have dominion under King Jesus what we inevitably end up creating are Christians who view their salvation as unrelated to their cultural endeavors, or who see their cultural endeavors as unrelated to their salvation. The result would be to give us both an anti-nomian Church and an anti-nomian culture.
When we find the proper tension between these offices we discover that people who have been saved and brought into the Kingdom, now seek to bring that salvation wherein they have been saved into every area of life, so that those spheres may experience salvation. In obedience to King Jesus those who have been saved by Jesus as their great High Priest now bring salvation to the gardens they tend, and the children they raise, and the books they write, and the Churches they attend, and the judicial decisions they hand down, and the art they paint, and on and on. So, as Jesus in His Priestly office saves individuals, they bring that salvation to their corporate life in obedience to Jesus in His Kingly office, which in turn, as we noted above, provides a general cultural context where it is easier for unsaved individuals to comprehend the Gospel.
Now if the objection is raised that what I am contending for is a kind of naturalistic program for the Church where I deny the supernaturalistic agency of God for men to be Redeemed and instead am relying on cultural infrastructure to convert lost men, I would respond by saying that God appoints means to ends. The salvation that the Spirit of Christ brings to men, while a spiritual reality, happens inside a physical and corporeal context. I would say that it is gnostic to suggest that we can get to the spiritual reality without considering the physical context. Men will never be saved by the proper cultural infrastructure but it is certain that their natural individual resistance to the message of Christ crucified will be accentuated and emboldened by cultural infrastructure that is built in defiance of King Jesus.
God putting the offices of Jesus together they must not be cast asunder. The Church must return to proclaiming the Crown Rights Of King Jesus in every area of life.

The Magnificent Seven & It’s Politically Correct Cultural Appropriation

Bloggers Warning — This article commits the sin of noticing. If you are offended by the sin of noticing you will not want to read this post.

Increasingly we are told that “cultural appropriation” is, at the very least, in bad taste and at the very worst exploitative. White people wearing cornrows, white people twerking, white people wearing black face are all considered in bad form. Team names like the “Cleveland Indians” or the “Washington Redskins” outrage some people and brings the accusation of cultural appropriation. Recently, “Victoria’s Secret” sent model Karlie Kloss down a runway in a fringed suede bikini, turquoise jewelry, and a feathered headdress—essentially a “sexy Indian” costume—many called out the underwear company for insensitivity to Native Americans.

Now, while I personally would not be disappointed if nobody did cornrows, twerked, or went around in blackface (this not being in keeping with my fashion tastes) it is considered a sin on the part of white people to culturally appropriate in this fashion. Just up the road from me in Lansing, Michigan students recently protested because of the cultural appropriations of the Native-Indian dress on the Michigan State campus.

However, moving in the opposite direction does not seem to be a problem. Increasingly minorities are culturally appropriating Western Culture and I read only a few people pointing out the inconsistencies. In 2014 we had a remake of “Little Orphan Annie” that found the role of Daddy Warbucks and Annie being played by Minorities. The 2017 release of a new King Arthur film finds the presence of Minorities sprinkled throughout the Ancient Arthurian Kingdom, including the mentor of the future King Arthur and the noble leader of the resistance to wicked King Uther. A third example of this cultural appropriation moving in the opposite direction was the remake of the Magnificent Seven.

In this remake, the hero role is played by Denzel Washington who is given the name “Sam Chisolm.” Of course, the name “Chisum” was a minor American Western white cowboy hero of the 19th century. “Chisum” was also the name of a 1970’s film with the title role of “Chisum” being played by John Wayne. Denzel Washington would be culturally appropriating both an American Western legend and a film legend known for his Westerns if it were possible for cultural appropriation to move in a direction contrary to whites culturally borrowing from minorities. Denzel Washington is the new John Wayne.

So, in the new “Magnificent Seven” we have white sheeple townsfolk looking to a black law officer for redress of grievances against a White evil Robber Baron. How often do you think that this would have occurred in the 19th century Western America?  Keep in mind here that in the original “Magnificent Seven” it was a community of Mexican sheeple who were appealing to the Magnificent Seven for help against bad guy Mexican Bandoleros. We have gone from the incarnation of evil being a Mexican Bandolero to a white Robber Barron and we have gone from a community of Mexican peasants being sheeples to the American farmer and merchant Christian white people playing the sheeple.  We need to throw in here that the cowardly white sheeple are led by one brave soul out for justice but settling for revenge. This brave white soul is a woman homesteader whose husband was killed by the bad guys as the film opens. This character (Emma Cullen) played by amply endowed Haley Bennet who’s breasts and cleavage is credited with a co-star billing.

Just a brief word on our white Robber Barron villain. I do believe that the modern Corporatist is a major villain in our culture but the Left’s narrative tends to cast anybody who makes money as being an evil capitalist. That holds true for this film.

In this latest version of the Magnificent Seven, we have four minority members. We have already mentioned Denzel Washington’s lead role as Sam Chilsom. Likewise, we have an outcast American Indian (Red Harvest), a knife-wielding Oriental (Billy Rocks), and an outlaw Mexican (Vasquez).  Of the three white Magnificent Seven, we have the coward Southerner, (Goodnight Robicheaux) the slightly nutty and Scripture-spouting Mountain man (Jack Horn) and cheating gambler (Joshua Faraday).

Of the four Magnificent Seven who are killed as heroes in the end in the battle against the bad guys (who are all white except one Indian) only one is a minority (the Oriental knife wielder). The rest are all the White guys. The coward is cast as the lone Southerner. In the end, the White Southerner redeems himself but he still plays the coward.

In the end, all the bad guys are white people except for one Indian played by Jonathan Joss as Denali, an exiled Comanche warrior. However, we are relieved by the film-makers decision to have the good guy Indian (Red-Harvest) be the one who kills the bad guy Indian after the bad guy Indian kills the God-talk spouting Mountain Man. Can you imagine the outrage if a white Magnificent Seven good guy had killed the bad guy Indian? And what a coincidence that the particularly Christian good guy Mountain man who the film reveals was no friend of Indians in his life is killed by the heathen Indian.

The film repeatedly slights the white man beyond what I have already noted. When the good guy Indian (Martin Sensmeier) shows on the scene all the white Magnificent Seven are pensive and apprehensive but the minority leader of the Magnificent Seven reaches out and makes friends and asks the Indian to join their hero-posse. The character played by Chris Pratt (Joshua Faraday) mocks the Mexican for being Mexican. The film reveals that the character played by Lee Byung-hun (Billy Rocks) has been mistreated by white men. Ethan Hawke’s character (Goodnight Robicheaux) informs the viewer that a bar “didn’t want to serve Billy’s kind.” Billy, the diminutive Oriental cowboy, is taunted to fight by a white cowpoke with “come on you scum sucking runt of a man.” Billy himself tells us that his friendship with the Southerner Goodnight Robicheaux is one where “Goodnight helps me navigate the white man’s privileges.”

As the film progresses this multicultural crew is able to set aside their natural cultural, ethnic, and racial animosities and congeal together to be a force who is stronger than a thousand white hired gun bad guys.

There is also a subtle subtheme in this film regarding Christianity. When the film opens the sheeple townsfolks are meeting in a Church to discuss the problem of the Robber Barron Bogue who wants to cheat them of their land. Robber Barron Bogue shows up and in this opening scene, the Church is burned with a shell of it remaining.  That shell of a church provides an inclusio for the end of the film where the lone female kills the bad guy (Bogue) under the cross as he is being forced to pray for forgiveness by the Sam Chisolm character. So, as the film opens the Church is the place where the cowardice of the white townspeople is revealed and in the closing, the Church is the place where a white man not interested in asking for forgiveness is being forced to beg for forgiveness for his sins by a minority and finally being killed by a white woman as he is, in an underhanded sneaky fashion, trying to kill the minority who is choking him to death for his past sins against Chisolm’s people. In the opening, the Church fails to provide resistance from white people. In the end, the Church failed to provide any solution for the redemption of the white man’s sins.

All of this worldview malfeasance crammed into a delightful Western. It really is a classic Western on the surface complete with gun fights, quick draw exhibition, the gambler theme, the lone cowboy heroes, and the plucky Western homesteader wife. However, scratching below the surface this is yet another piece of both cultural appropriation and an attack on the heroes and history of the Christian white man.

 

 

 

 

 

Reformation Day 2016 Homily

I Cor. 10:31 — So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.

Colossians 3:17
And whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.
 
1 Peter 4:11
If anyone speaks, he should speak as one conveying the words of God. If anyone serves, he should serve with the strength God supplies, so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen.

________________

With these passages we are taught that there is a distinctively Christian way to lean into life … to do all that we do from the most mundane matters to the most exalted. For the Christian nothing is done from a neutral position. For the Christian all is done to glorify God.

This mindset was captured in the Reformation byword of Sola de Gloria. To the glory of God alone.

The Reformed desired to re-order all of life in ways consistent with God’s Word for the purpose of glorifying God alone in ALL they did.

Increasingly that mindset … the mindset of doing all we do for the glory of God is absent in our thinking. The very few that remain that seek to employ that in their thinking and writing are met with the catcalls of their “brethren” saying that Christianity has nothing to do with those areas that they are thinking about how one might live for the glory of God.

There was a time for example when it was routinely understood among Reformed folk that Christianity had a doctrine that had implications for our social order.

It was not thought that Christianity was to be applied only to the matter of salvation of souls. It was understood widely that Christianity created a whole unique social order.

And so with this cry of Sola Dei Gloria Reformed Christianity reshaped the West. This is so true that

World renowned German Historian Leopold Van Ranke could write,

“John Calvin was virtually the founder of America.”

“He that will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty”

George Bancroft — Historian
History of the United States of America — Vol. 1 — pg. 464

These men were not speaking of the fact that Reformed Christianity had particular doctrines of Grace that were unique. They were speaking of the Doctrines of the Reformation that created a unique social order and way of living as a people.

So, in seeking to do whatever they did to the glory of God they approached a social order that maintained distinctions and which denied egalitarianism. They saw passages such as “Honor thy Mother and Father,” as passages that taught social hierarchy.

Westminster Confession

Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
 
A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents,[649] but all superiors in age[650] and gifts;[651] and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family,[652] church,[653] or commonwealth.[654]

Calvin echoed this,

“All are not created on equal terms … This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; He has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at His disposal.” – John Calvin

And so wanting to do all they did to the Glory of God and believing in social hierarchy the Reformation created a social order that was opposed to both a static hierarchy and the kind of egalitarianism that the much of the visible Church promotes today.

But it did not stop here. All along the social order the Reformation did all it did for the glory of God.

As another example … The idea of covenantal solidarity that we find communicated in Reformed understandings of Baptism found its way into our Constitution when the Founders wrote they were seeking to,

“secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,”

This is a very Reformed and covenantal way of thinking.

And so the Church has become silent and in becoming silent a vacuum has been created so that other worldviews have achieved a cultural hegemony that would never have been possible in cultures that were epistemologically and self consciously Reformational.

Where the Reformation once called for social heirarchy, the Church has now retreated and  so soul killing egalitarianism is all the rage. Where Reformation thinking called for a social order with Limited Governments, the modern Church has retreated and so no tocsin is sounded warning about the rise of Tyrants and Usurpers. Where the Reformation talked about the effects of man’s original sin, the modern Church has retreated and no word is spoken of how original sin manifests itself in our political, educational, aesthetic or economic programs.

In the name of saving souls the Church has become silent about doing all that is done Sola Dei Gloria. As a consequence, we have lost our social order and it is now informed and shaped by pagan religions with the effect that the Church can in no way compete with an alien messaging that is being drummed into people 24-7. Further, because Christianity has surrendered the social order people are now shaped by that social order and bring that shaping into the Church with them with the result that Christianity ends up being reinterpreted in a pagan direction.

We should not be surprised that the Church, with a Reformational message, is largely seen, by a now alien culture, as being hateful, mean, and not nice. We should not be surprised that the Church that does not carry a Reformation message are seen as the haunts of the Simpson’s Rev. Lovejoys of the world.

And God’s people love it so.

What other examples besides the few we already communicated demonstrate this Reformation desire to do all that was done to the glory of God get in and create our social order?

We could talk of checks and balances in Government. We could speak of limited and diffuse Government. We could speak of ordered liberty. We could speak of the Protestant work ethic. We could speak of the idea of male and female roles. We could speak of how the Reformation affected views of Art in the West. We could speak of the formation of a vast network of volunteer societies that sought to ameliorate the hardships of the indigent and the poor. We could speak of adoption agencies and orphanages. We could speak of the pressing need for schools and education so as to teach children to think God’s thoughts after Him. We could speak of the valuing of human life that informed our Doctors and nurses for generations. We could speak of the Trustee family and how it informed generations of family life in the West.

Some of this existed before the rise of the Reformation but all of it was reinvigorated by the Reformation and all of it and a host of other unmentioned issues worked to form a Reformed culture that existed in order to do all that was done to the glory of God.

But now we are told, even by many of the Church, that all this must be shoved aside. It is whispered that all of this is the result of cultural bigotry…. white privilege … institutional racism even. Many in the Church are insisting that this concern about the Reformation in terms of how it leaves a decided stamp on cultures and social orders is something that the Church need not be concerned with.

But as for me and my house, it remains sola deo gloria whether we eat or drink … in word or deed, in every area of life.