The Teacher, The Pastor, and The Darryl

Matthew 10:32-33 — RHV — (Revised Hart Version)

“32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, unless in the context of having to protect the State employer from a lawsuit, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, unless they are working for the State to insulate children from truth about me, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

First the story:

In mid-December, six-year-old Isaiah Martinez brought a box of candy canes to his public elementary school. Affixed to each cane was a legend explaining the manner in which the candy symbolizes the life and death of Jesus. Isaiah’s first-grade teacher took possession of the candy and asked her supervising principal whether it would be permissible for Isaiah to distribute to his classmates. The teacher was informed that, while the candy itself might be distributed, the attached religious message could not. She is then reported to have told Isaiah that “Jesus is not allowed at school,” to have torn the legends from the candy, and to have thrown them in the trash.

Such is the account of Robert Tyler of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, who is serving as media spokesman for the Martinez family. Organizations such as Fox News and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze latched onto the story with purple prose and pointed commentary to rally the base. The Daily Caller described the teacher as having “snatched” the candy from Isaiah’s hands, “and then—right in front of his little six-year-old eyes—ripped the religious messages from each candy cane.” Fox News said “it takes a special kind of evil to confiscate a six-year-old child’s Christmas gifts.”

Turns out the teacher in question is a putative Christian and her former “pastor” explains what may have happened:

Such behavior would be entirely unbecoming of Christians even if the teacher in question were all the things she has been called. In fact, she is herself a pious and confessional Christian, though it would be impossible to discern as much from the coverage of much Christian media.

I know this because I was present at her baptism; I participated in the catechesis leading to her reception into the theologically (and, overwhelmingly, politically) conservative Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; I preached at her wedding; my wife and I are godparents to her children, as she and her husband (who is himself on the faculty of a Christian university) are to our youngest. Needless to say, I have complete confidence that her far less dramatic version of events is much the more accurate account.

Some will say that precisely as a Christian she should have had the courage of her convictions and allowed the distribution of a Christian message in her classroom. And yet, precisely because she is a catechized Christian, perhaps she understands that in her vocation she serves under the authority of others.

Perhaps it was wise in the litigious context of America’s public schools to confer with and defer to the supervising principal. Indeed, a lawsuit arising from virtually identical circumstances is still, ten years on, bogged down in the courts. If the answers to the pertinent legal questions are not immediately obvious to the dozens of lawyers and judges involved in this previous case, one can hardly expect them to be **self-evident even to an intelligent primary school teacher. Thus, those critics who have dismissively counseled her simply to “read the Constitution” betray (in addition to a lack of charity) either an unhelpful naivety or a willful ignorance.

Now we add Dr. D. Gnostic Hart’s brief observation,

Of course, if you want to score points in some sort of publicity competition, demonizing this woman is not a bad strategy, though why Reformed Protestants also resort to such behavior (yes, I’m thinking the BeeBees and Rabbi Bret) is another question. But if you want to think through the layers of significance in such occurrences, maybe it’s better to check if as in this case the teacher belongs to a church and what her pastor thinks.

A few observations,

1.) Note that the teacher in question, the Pastor who came to her defense, and the Darryl by extension, while perfectly fine with keeping the Lord Christ out of the Government schools are perfectly fine with protecting the place of the God-State in the Government school. The Allegiance of the teacher, the Pastor, and the Darryl are all to the State as the God who can determine how far other competing gods can walk in their domain.

2.) It makes little difference what the Teacher and her Pastor thinks, or what the Darryl thinks since the Scriptures explicitly teach that we are to confess Christ before men. The Scripture does not teach that if we are working in the common realm we at that point can on longer be concerned with confessing Christ. The Scriptures do not teach, contra the Teacher, the Missouri Synod Lutheran Pastor, and the Darryl, that in the common realm one confesses Christ by not Confessing Christ.

3.) The Pastor, the Teacher, and the Darryl are all evidence of a Christianity that is no Christianity. This kind of pietism that practices a narrow other-worldly and predominantly effeminate spirituality is actually suggesting that it is the responsibility of pietistic Christians everywhere to make sure that the rest of us non effeminate Christians not confess Christ in the common realm.

4.) Why did the Pastor bother Catechizing this Teacher when she was a girl? It doesn’t take a great deal of memory work to learn that there is one realm where you are to be Christian and one realm where being Christian means not being Christian. It doesn’t take a great deal of memory work to learn that Christ is absolute Lord over the grace realm but only one of many lords in the common realm — all of whom are under the authority of the true Lord; the God-State.

5.) The Pastor, the Teacher, and the Darryl, are suggesting that it is God’s will, when under Christ hating authorities, to bow the knee to the Christ hating authorities instead of bowing the knee to Christ.

6.) Referring to the Missouri Lutheran Pastor’s argument about matters “**self-evident.” People argue that it is not self-evident that life in the womb is life. Does that mean that therefore it is difficult for Christians to see it as self-evident that life is life? All because Lawyers and Judges are so brain-dead that they can’t see the “self-evident” doesn’t mean we as Christians can’t see the “self-evident.” The Pastor is using a lame rationalization here to cover the Teacher’s sins and his own sins. The Teacher denied Christ before men and the Pastor and the Darryl are justifying her denying Christ before men and so are themselves denying Christ before men.

7.) Of course, if you want to score points in some sort of publicity competition, demonizing Pastors who believe that Jesus meant what he said in Mt. 10:32-33, then it is not a bad strategy, though why Gnostic Reformed Protestants also resort to such behavior (yes, I’m thinking Dr. Darryl Gnostic Hart here) is perfectly understandable. But if you want to think through the layers of significance in such occurrences, maybe it’s better to check if as in this case the teacher belongs to a church and whether the Church is Biblical and whether the Pastor and the Darryl supporting the Teacher are orthodox.

Look, this is serious stuff. We are seeing the Pastor and the Darryl here instruct people that it is fit and proper to deny Christ.

Matthew 10:32-33

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

4 thoughts on “The Teacher, The Pastor, and The Darryl”

  1. “The Teacher denied Christ before men and the Pastor and the Darryl are justifying her denying Christ before men and so are themselves denying Christ before men.”

    So, the teacher was under a Divine, scriptural and moral obligation to pass out the candy canes with the religious message, against school policy? She has “denied Christ” (a rather serious charge with rather grim consequences – Matt. 10:33) by refusing to allow Christian proselytization via candy canes in the classroom setting, and those Christians who defend her are likewise guilty of “denying Christ”? (Where does Scripture bind our consciences to “confess Christ” by distributing candy canes?)

    Let us say that she had decided to allow the student to pass out the candy canes with the Christian message, and the school authorities decide to allow students to share such religious messages with fellow students, provided no religion is excluded. Let us then say that the following week a student comes in with candy canes that have a religious message affixed promoting Islam. Would the teacher be “denying Christ” if she refused to show the Christian student favoritism by allowing the Muslim student to likewise promote his beliefs in class? Would faithfully “confessing Christ” in such a scenario necessarily involving going against school policy by allowing the Christian student to distribute his candy, but denying such permission to the Muslim student?

    1. GW asks,

      (Where does Scripture bind our consciences to “confess Christ” by distributing candy canes?)

      After I provide the text prohibiting denying Christ before men and then you turn around and ask if it’s ok to deny Christ before men in a particular way? We can’t deny Christ by saying “I deny Christ” but we can deny Christ by actions that communicate a denial of Christ? We can’t deny Christ by saying, “I deny Christ,” but we can deny Christ by making sure the message of Christianity is not communicated to others via the simplest means a child might use?

      You’re really not asking that question right?

      GW provides what I take to be a stumper of a question that he thinks I’ve never considered before,

      Let us say that she had decided to allow the student to pass out the candy canes with the Christian message, and the school authorities decide to allow students to share such religious messages with fellow students, provided no religion is excluded. Let us then say that the following week a student comes in with candy canes that have a religious message affixed promoting Islam. Would the teacher be “denying Christ” if she refused to show the Christian student favoritism by allowing the Muslim student to likewise promote his beliefs in class? Would faithfully “confessing Christ” in such a scenario necessarily involving going against school policy by allowing the Christian student to distribute his candy, but denying such permission to the Muslim student?

      Response,

      Yes, she would be denying Christ by allowing the Islamic message to be passed out just as she is denying Christ by not allowing the Christian message to be passed out. In both cases false gods are being preferred over her confession of Christ. In the example of Islam, Allah is the “god” being preferred over Christ. In the example of no Christ the god being preferred is the State. If the teacher does not confess Christ she will confess some other “God.”

      When all the gods are in the public square then the State is the institution which controls how far the gods can go in the public square. The State in essence becomes the god of the gods. One god says “Little girls must wear burquas to school,” while another god says little girls must attend school naked. Who will decide? The State, as God over the gods of course.

      Besides, if all the gods are allowed as god in the public square then none of the gods are god. To the contrary, when none of the gods are in the public square then the State is the institution that is the god of the putative empty public square (which really isn’t empty because the State is the defacto “god.”

      People tend to be worried about “what’s fair.” As if it is not fair for one God or “god” to be prioritized over another but what they don’t realize is that it is impossible to not prioritize some god. In every example you can give if the Christian teacher is not prioritizing the Christ she confesses at that point she confesses and so prioritizes some other god.

    2. A.A. Hodge saw where this was heading, and tried his best to warn everyone.

      It is self-evident that on this scheme if it is consistently and persistently 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.[4]

      He could have added Australia or Canada or Great Britain to that list, and he would still be correct. Wherever a system of education claims to be secular, there it is a vehicle of atheism, 180 school-days a year, five hours each day, for a minimum of 10 years. Do the math. But its not less than 9,000 hours of education in atheism that a child receives in the government schools, and a lot more if he stays until graduation, closer to 11,000 hours. That certainly qualifies as a consistent and persistent pursuit of secularism.

      http://biblicallandmarks.com/wpl/government-schools-scorched-earth-policy/

  2. (yes, I’m thinking the BeeBees and Rabbi Bret)

    My nickname for him when he was calling me names on Bayly Blog was Dark Heart. He got so incensed he complained to Tim and David. They then instituted a policy of no pseudonyms.

    Dark heart can dish it out, but he can’t take it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *