Newspeak On The Word “Compassion”

“After being criticized over illegal immigrants getting health care, the president said, “It is very important that we have compassion as part of our national character.”

Wall Street Journal Article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116004575521901674416306.html

1.) Compassion, in the way that it is being used here, is not infinite. The compassion that B. Hussein Obama wants to give to illegal immigrants in the way of “free” health care will be, to those who are being taxed to fund this compassion, a certain meanness, coldness and hardness. Compassion given to illegal immigrants in the way of “free” health care means a lack of compassion to American citizens in the way of lost employment opportunities, lost wages, and lost quality health care. Compassion given to illegal immigrants in the way of creating a government large enough to administer “free” health care means a concerted meanness, coldness, and hardness towards the private sector as it is constricted in order that the public sector (i.e. — Government) may expand. Compassion given to illegal immigrants in the way of “free” health care means a lack of compassion to American citizens in the way of death panels and restricted access to quality health care.

There is a great deal of talk about compassion on this subject. The theme of compassion was all the rage at the CRC synod I attended but it is the compassion of the muddleheaded who refuse to think through the coldness, hardness, and meanness that eventuates with the embrace of their addlepated compassion.

2.) Compassionate national character is expressed by citizens voluntarily giving their monies to help those who can not help themselves. Compassionate national character is not expressed by the Nation State’s centralized government being compassionate with money that must be stolen through confiscatory taxation in order for it to be compassionate.

3.) There is nothing compassionate in our character when our Government sets up death panels for our seniors and for the infirm in order that illegal immigrants might receive “free” health care. There is nothing compassionate in our character when we allow the Federal Government to create within the citizenry a dependence disposition where they learn to look to the Centralized state to meet all their needs. There is nothing compassionate in our national character when we provide for the alien and stranger while impoverishing our own citizenry.

If we pursue the compassionate national character that B. Hussein Obama desires we will become a people who are cold, hard and thoroughly mean.

Observing At Vanity Fair

I was in a pharmacy today where there was a cosmetic display. The cardboard cutout on the display had Ellen DeGeneres (Degenerate ?) as the spokesperson for the cosmetics. I thought to myself, … “How odd that you would market woman’s cosmetics using a Lesbian for your spokesperson.” I’m telling you… in America everyday is Halloween.

Of course all of this is about mainstreaming sexual deviancy. Lesbians are just like normal women also. Why they even purchase the same cosmetics as straight women.

Grudem’s Gross Caricature of Theonomy

“There is a view among a few Christians today in the United States today called theonomy. It is also called Christian Reconstructionism; sometimes dominion theology. Critics have labeled it dominionism which has echoes of ‘Jihadism.’ I will use the term theonomy which is the general term used in theological critiques of this movement. Theonomists argue that the OT laws God gave to Israel in the Mosaic covenant should be the pattern for civil laws used in the nations today.”

Wayne Grudem
Politics According To The Bible

1.) Theonomy and Reconstructionism are not synonyms. Theonomy is to Reconstuctionism what jet engines are to passenger jet airliners. Theonomy is an aspect of Reconstructionism just as jet engines are an aspect to passenger jet airliners but just as a jet airliner is more than just the jet engines so Reconstructionism is more than just Theonomy. Because this is true it is entirely possible for someone to be a Theonomist without being a Reconstructionist. (Whether they can be so consistently is a entirely different question.) Reconstructionism includes Theonomic principles but it also includes postmillennial eschatology, particular views on culture beyond just theonomy’s guidance on law, set hierarchical convictions on social order considerations, set views on theological issues like common grace and often some kind of patrio-centric views on family.

Grudem clearly is out of his depth here on this quote as seen by his inability to make the kind of distinctions made above. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned about civil law order for society while Reconstructionism has far broader macro cultural concerns. All Reconstructionists are theonomists (I think) but not all theonomists are Reconstructionists.

2.) Critics say all kinds of stupid things. For Grudem to include the jab comparing Reconstructionism to Jihadism in his book is outrageous. How many Reconstructionists do you know of since 1970 who have been suicide bombers? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have hijacked Airplanes and have demanded to be flown to the Reconstructionists equivalent of Syria? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have killed people for burning a copy of Rushdoony’s Institutes? To include this fatuous comparison to Jihadism (even if it is only “echoes”) is beyond the pale and requires the strongest possible rebuke.

3.) As we have seen theonomy is not the general term. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned with applying the general equity of the case laws of the Old Testament to a Nations civil law order. It is a theology that has been advocated, in one form or another, ever since the Reformation.

4.) The thing that is so maddening about Grudem’s position is that he critiques Theonomy negatively and then later on his book turns around and quotes OT law that prohibits incest. Now, if Grudem views the central premise of Theonomy — the abiding validity of all God’s law for all time unless specifically rescinded at a later point in revelation’s account of the History of Redemption — then how can he consistently appeal to that central premise later in his book in order to find support for the outlawing of incest? If the OT case law is no longer valid then what matters it what the OT says when it comes to incest?

For a discussion on this subject see

Not Imposing Christianity Through National Law

The Voice Of God Among Men

“The minister must remind himself in a lively manner that God has sent him, that he ascends the pulpit as an ambassador of God, speaks in the name of God, and is as the mouth of the Lord unto the congregation.”

~ Wilhelmus á Brakel (1635-1711), The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2, p. 138

“For in hearing us, you gave such heed, as if not hearing men, but as if God Himself were exhorting you.”

~ Chrysostom on I Thessalonians 2:13

“Yes it is I who admonish, I who order, I who command, it is the bishop who teaches. But…… it is Christ who commands through me.” “The preacher explains the text; if he says what is true, it is Christ speaking.”

~ St. Augustine — Bishop Of Hippo
Fourth Century Theologian

“Flesh and blood are an impediment. They merely behold the person of the pastor and brother … They refuse to regard the oral Word and the ministry as a treasure costlier and better than heaven and earth. People generally think: ‘If I had an opportunity to hear God speak in person, I would run my feet bloody’ … But you now have the Word of God in church … and this is God’s Word as surely as if God Himself were speaking to you.”

~ Martin Luther
16th Century Reformation Theologian

“When the Prophet says, by the breath of his lips, this must not be limited to the person of Christ; for it refers to the Word which is preached by his ministers. Christ acts by them in such a manner that He wishes their mouth to be reckoned as his mouth, and their lips as his lips; that is, when they speak from his mouth, and faithfully declare his Word (Luke 10:16)” (Comm. on Isa. 11:4).

~ John Calvin
16th Century Reformation Theologian

“Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached, and received of the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be feigned, nor to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; who, although he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God abides true and good.”

~ Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

Question — “What is required of those that hear the word preached?”

Answer — “It is required of those that hear the word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine what they hear by the scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the word of God …”

~ Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. & A. 160

“First, when you come to hear the Word, if you would sanctify God’s name, you must possess your souls with what it is you are going to hear, that what you are going to hear is the Word of God. It is not the speaking of a man you are going to attend, but you are now going to attend upon God and to hear the Word of the Eternal God … Therefore you find that the Apostle, writing to the Thessalonians, gives them the reason why the Word did them as much good as it did. It was because they heard it as the Word of God, I Thess. 2:13 … Mark, so it came effectually to work because they received it as the Word of God. Many times you will say, ‘Come, let us go hear a man preach.’ Oh no, let us go hear Christ preach, for as it concerns the ministers of God that they preach not themselves, but that Christ should preach in them, so it concerns you that hear not to come to hear this man or that man, but to come to hear Jesus Christ” (Gospel Worship, p. 200).

~ Jeremiah Burroughs
17th Century Puritan Theologian / Member of the Westminster Assembly

“It is not only man preaching, as he says to the Thessalonians in I Thessalonians 2:13: You listened, he says to them, and you realized it was not merely the word of man but it was indeed what it actually is, the Word of God. This is his preaching, and this should be true of our preaching” .

~ D. M. Lloyd-Jones — 20th Century Reformed Preacher & Theologian
Knowing the Times, p. 276

“… Christ is represented as being heard in the gospel when proclaimed by the sent messengers. The implication is that Christ speaks in the gospel proclamation.”

John Murray — 20th Century Reformed Theologian
Commentary – Romans 10:14

“Through the preaching it pleases God through Christ, the exalted Lord, the chief prophet of God, who alone gathers his church, to speak to his people unto salvation. This is evident from Romans 10:14, which, according to the original, asks, ‘How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?’ Through the preaching, therefore, you do not hear about Christ, but you hear him. The difference is easily understood. When you hear about or of someone, he is not present. You do not hear his own voice, but the voice of someone else who tells you something about him. But when you hear someone, you hear his own voice. He is present with you. He is addressing you personally. This is the sense of Romans 10:14, which teaches that you cannot believe in Christ unless you have heard him speak to you, unless you have heard his word addressed to you. This is exactly the meaning of the words, ‘How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?'”

~ Herman Hoeksema — 20th Century Reformed Theologian
Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, p. 289

“A true sermon is an act of God, and not a mere performance by man. In real preaching the speaker is the servant of the Word & God speaks & works by the Word through his servant’s lips … The sermon is God’s ordained means of speaking and working.”

~ J. I. Packer
20th Century Anglican Theologian

Preaching has fallen on hard times. Part of that reason for this is that we are decreasingly a word oriented culture and as such it is difficult for us to follow even the best 30-45 minute oral presentations. Another problem we have that mitigates against the rise of strong preachers and preaching is our cultures lack of willingness to hear an authoritative word. We largely live in a “each man does is what is right in his own eyes” culture and as such preaching will not be taken seriously because it cuts against our resistance to any authority besides our own. Another reason for this is that preachers, having been educated in government schools and that combine with their having been saturated in our culture Preachers have lost the ability to think (and so speak) outside of and in opposition to our dominant cultural paradigm.

Education Analogy

If you want to flavor Kobe Beef Tenderloin you marinate it letting it soak up the flavor of the marinade in which you place it. Everybody knows this. What people seem to have trouble understanding is that when a child is put in government schools for 13 years you are marinating that child in a humanistic marinade and like your Kobe Beef Tenderloin marinated in an orange and onion marinade that child is going to graduate exuding the humanistic marination with which he or she was saturated.