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.

Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, & Cries Of “Institutional Racism” In The Christian Reformed Church

Though the term “institutional racism,” has been around at least since the 1960’s it seems, of late, to be entering more and more into the conversational lexicon of the Church. The Christian Reformed Denomination, for example, as a overture before it that calls,

“The denomination to repent of the personal and institutional racism that causes separation between fellow members, excludes some from full participation in the life of our denomination and hinders the denomination in achieving the diversity goals it has set for itself.”

When the overture insists that we need to repent of institutional racism we should back up and consider the meaning of institutional racism so that we can know what we are repenting of. The term “institutional racism” describes societal patterns, as implemented through our various cultural institutions, that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. “Institutional racism,” it is thought, is so pervasive that only those people who admit to its existence can see it for what it is. “Institutional racism” has so stacked the deck in its favor that if one denies that “institutional racism” exists that only proves that one has been infected by “institutional racism.” So, if one agrees that “institutional racism” exists in our culture, it is an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism,” but if one disagrees that “institutional racism,” exists it is also an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism” in as much that such disagreement only proves that “institutional racism” is successfully doing its evil work causing the “institutional racism” deniers to not see that they are victims and so perpetrators of “institutional racism.” It is always convenient to back a theory where those who agree with you prove your theory, while those who disagree with you also prove your theory.

The phrase “institutional racism” was coined at least as far back as the 1960’s by Kwame Ture (nee — Stokely Carmichael). Carmichael felt that it was important to distinguish personal bias, which has specific effects and can be identified and corrected relatively easily, with institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. So, as originally coined, “institutional racism,” is a incarnating of personal racism into our civil-social institutions that remains pushing the culture as a whole in a racist direction because the institutions themselves supported racism. So, here we are as a culture which transfers billions of dollars annually to minority communities through various entitlement programs and people want me to believe that we suffer from “institutional racsim? Here we are as a culture which has created affirmative action programs, quota requirements, and minority set aside expectations in order that minorities might get ahead and still we are being told that we suffer from “institutional racism?” Here we are absorbing, millions upon millions of minority immigrants and the intellectual elite want to convince me that there is work yet to be done in tearing down “institutional racism?” We just elected a Black President, who named a Black Attorney General, who has refused to apply the law to Black Panthers because they are Black and we are yet informed that “institutional racism” is a ongoing problem in these united States?

What most folks don’t realize is that “institutional racism,” is just the most recent expression of the critical theory Hermeneutic that belongs to the Cultural Marxists. Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist tool of destructive criticism intended to pull down Western Civilization, as influenced by historic Christian categories such as domestic family, commonwealth, authority, hierarchy, tradition, decentralized and diffuse civil government, sexual boundaries, and other similarly Christian informed realities that comprised historic Western culture. Critical theory’s technique was to see all of these historic Christian categories as wicked tools of oppression against minorities, women, and heretofore those considered sexual deviants. The work of Critical theory was and is to place and spin these Christian Categories so that they are seen to be the means of power by which victims are kept down, abused, and negated their rightful place of cultural hegemony. Critical theory has, as its goal, the replacing of the formerly Christian cultural gatekeepers with new cultural gatekeepers who will build cultural institutions that reflect the values of cultural Marxism. The cry of “institutional racism,” is, more often than not, the cry of those who desire the values of variant forms of Marxism to be the shaping influence on Western Society — values that include Marxist economics that call for redistribution of wealth, Marxist sociology that calls for a leveling of all formerly stratified hierarchic relationships (men vs. women so that matriarchy is superior to patriarchy, heterosexuality vs. homosexuality so that the marriage of two men is superior to the marriage of a man and a woman, children vs. parents so that children have equal rights with parents). The end goal is to create a distinction-less, egalitarian New World Order. And as all this is embraced by large swaths of the Church it has the added benefit of having a Jesus candy coating on it that makes it “Christian.”

Critical theory’s technique is akin to what C. S. Lewis described as the technique of the “Spirit of the Age,” in his book Pilgrim’s Regress,

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

In Lewis’ story the Spirit of the Age (Waiter) had captivated John (Lewis’ main Character) and insisted that what was intended for nourishment was garbage. Like the Waiter, in Lewis’s work, the Cultural Marxist critiques the healthy and normal as unhealthy and abnormal.

Our prevailing zeitgeist is not interested in creating a conscience that tells us that cow milk is a secretion akin to urine or feces. No, what our Cultural Marxist Spirit of the Age is set upon convincing us is that Christ informed culture is evil and that Christian white people are the devil.

Martin Luther anticipated the rise of Critical theory 500 years ago.

“It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

Critical theory is the technique of the false prophets of Cultural Marxism to create a false consciousness in white Christians, and the cry of “Institutional Racism,” is just one of the many buzz phrases that Cultural Marxists are using to overthrow Christian civilization.

Finally, on the score of “Institutional Racism” we must wonder if that buzz phrase from Critical theory is in point of fact a desire on the part of those who use it to decimate what little remains of White Christian civilization. When someone laments institutional racism they are lamenting the meager existence of white Christian institutions, and thereby, it would seem the very existence of Whites themselves.

The amazing success of the Critical theory cry of “institutional racism” is driven by its ability to laden people with guilt. Guilty people are people who then can be manipulated at will by the sense of guilt that they are seeking to overthrow. So strong is the guilt that Western Man feels now, in part due to the work of Cultural Marxism, but more because Western man has turned his back on God, that those who offer relief from that guilt (the Cultural Marxists) essentially become movement Messiahs to modern man. The Cultural Marxists use critical theory to make Western Man feel guilty. The Cultural Marxist offer a plan on how Western man may atone for his sins. Western man gladly will do anything to deliver himself of this contrived and artificial guilt.

And the blood atonement that Cultural Marxists are requiring of Western Man is his own death. The guilt that Critical Theory lays on Western Man is of such a nature that it can only be atoned for through the death of Western man as Western Man as been influenced by Biblical Christianity. And so cries of “Institutional Racism” can only be alleviated by Western Man going all masochistic and destroying himself so that he can be replaced by a new Soviet (cultural Marxist) man, who will be informed by the new faith of Cultural Marxism.

The first part of the solution to resist this is by Western man to repent and turn to Christ. In Jesus Christ Western man’s real guilt is taken away and he is raised up to walk in newness of life with Christ. Only once our guilt is seen as being carried by Christ can Western man no longer be manipulated by false Critical theory charges of “Institutional Racism.” Only once Western Man’s guilt is seen as having been born with Christ can he deal with whatever racial problems might yet remain in a way where his eyes are wide open to the agenda of those who have as their desire what is left of Christian civilization.

The second part of the solution to resist this is by thinking Biblically. As long as we are not thinking God’s thoughts after him in every area of life (History, Social Order, Economics, Family Life, Education, etc.) we are prime candidates to be blown about by every strange wind of doctrine. Cultural Marxism is a strange doctrine and critical theory is the wind that fills its sails. We have to return to the conviction that there exist distinct ways of thinking that Christians are identified by. If we refuse that conviction then Christianity becomes a wax nose that the Cultural Marxists can shape in their direction in order to call their cultural Marxism “Christianity.”

God grant us grace to repent for the open window for repentance is closing fast upon us as a civilization.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Question 9 (b)

Caleb,

Continuing now with the answer to Heidelberg Question #9.

4. Lord’s Day

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Answer: Not at all; (a) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, (b) and his own wilful disobedience, (c) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

First, since Scripture teaches that God is just (II Thessalonians 1:6) we knew that the Catechizers were not going to answer question #9 in the negative by saying “God is unjust.” Scripture is our touchstone for all truth so that if Scripture says that God is just, we therefore know that whatever God does, is by definition “just.”

Second, the Catechizers, following Scripture, inform us that God is not being unfair or unjust to man by requiring of him what, as fallen, he cannot give. God created man in righteousness and true holiness (Ephesians 4:24). God created man upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29). So, God is not responsible to man for man’s sin nature since God made man capable of performing all that God required. The reality that man is not able to meet his responsibility before God is not something that God can be charged with.

Third, note that the Catechism traces the reason for man’s total inability to man himself as through his willful disobedience he partnered with God’s arch enemy against God. Man, moving outside of God’s authoritative Law-Word (Genesis 3:3-4) which defined all reality yielded to the subtilty of Satan’s temptation (II Corinthians 11:3) that man could be his own authoritative law-word, in order to overthrow God in hopes that he might en-god himself in the place of God.

Karl Barth (a well known 20th century theologian) once said that one of the greatest mysteries of all is how someone bent towards God without a sin nature could still sin. How did bad water come from a good well? I can not answer that question precisely (it is a bit of a mystery) though I can say that whatever nature Adam had his nature was one that obviously was “still able to sin.” Clearly Adam, before the Fall, was both able to sin and able to not sin. Before the Fall Adam was judicially innocent before God having committed no sin. Before the Fall Adam was innocent, meaning that he had no guile in him predisposing him to sin. Still, Adam was not confirmed in this state though and so was able to sin and did sin.

Because of the Fall of Adam, men outside of Christ, like Adam when he gave into the instigation of the Devil, are of their Father the Devil (John 8:44). This is because in Adam’s fall we fell all. Adam did not just deprive himself of his divine gifts (a bent towards God, judicially righteous, innocent, favor with God, etc.) but he also deprived all of his posterity of these divine gifts. Whereas before the Fall Adam was able to not sin, now after the Fall, all of Adam’s descendants are not only able to sin but also are unable to not sin. This is the sin nature that results from the fall and this is the sin nature that must be cured before we are once again able to not sin and so choose Christ. Note, that the cure for our inability to not sin must be conferred before we can once again gain a nature that is able to not sin. The implication of this is that man must be regenerated unto faith in Christ.

Here we have being taught again the organic unity of mankind. As Americans we are so prone to think individualistically and atomistically but Scripture teaches that by our first Father sin entered the world and that sin nature, (as well as the guilt of Adam’s sin) was passed on to all of Adam’s descendants (Romans 5:12).

All of this begins to point to why Biblical Christians go on and on about the Sovereignty of God. Man is dead in his trespasses and sins. He is unable to not sin and so increases his debt against God daily. The only hope that dead men walking can have is if the Sovereign God, out of His free favor, sends forth His Spirit to make us alive.

Tomorrow we will move on to question #10.

Caleb’s Baptism — Lord’s Day IV (a)

Caleb,

Lord’s Day #4 is the final Lord’s Day in the first section of Man’s Sin & Misery and it begins by explicitly bringing forward what was implicit in Lord’s Day #3 and that is the issue of “fairness.” Lord’s Day #3 began with, “Did God create man so wicked and perverse,” so as to clear God’s name for man’s depravity. Lord’s Day 4 begins with

4. Lord’s Day

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

Just as in question #6 of the previous Lord’s Day the reason that question #9 is framed the way it is, is in order to clear God’s name of doing man injustice. So, God did not create man so wicked and perverse and so is not responsible for man’s wickedness and perversion and God does not do fallen man a disservice by requiring of fallen man what he cannot preform.

This simple idea that fallen man is responsible to obey God though not able to obey God is foundational to understanding Biblical Christianity Caleb. The Christian Church that is orthodox everywhere teaches that responsibility does not imply ability. Fallen man is responsible to have faith, repent, and obey God but fallen man is not able to do that because of the depravity coming from the fall. Simply phrased, man’s responsibility to keep God’s law does not imply the ability to keep God’s law.

Most Churches deny the truth established here that man is responsible though unable. Most Churches, whether they are epistemologically self conscious regarding this issue or not presume that because God holds fallen man responsible to his law therefore fallen man is able to obey God’s law. As a result of believing this most Churches, somewhere in their evangelism, tuck the idea in their message that fallen man can do something in and of themselves that God requires in order to get right with God. Yet, Heidelberg Catechism (HC) question 9 forbids that kind of Humanist / Arminian thinking. If fallen man is able to get right with God by his ability to do something in and of himself (even if God is giving him co-operating grace) to meet what God requires in His law (faith, repentance, obedience) then fallen man saves himself. And yet, we learned from the last Lord’s Day #3 that man is totally depraved and so can contribute nothing to his salvation. Indeed, man is so dead in his trespasses and sins that apart from God’s grace alone he can not even become aware of his sin apart from God opening his eyes to see his sin.

So, when churches deny that responsibility does not imply ability they are denying a fundamental truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and do overturn the graciousness of grace in our salvation. If Churches hold in their evangelism that someone’s decision to choose Christ is the pre-eminent fact that differentiates Christians from non-Christians then that Church believes mans responsibility to choose God implies his ability to choose God and so has given up the graciousness of grace. The pre-eminent fact that differentiates Christians from non-Christians is that the Spirit of God, because of the death of Christ for His elect, regenerated a man so that for the first time he has the ability to recognize his inability and cry out to God for mercy in the face of his responsibility to God.

While we are here we might as well give the flip side of this that some also hold in error. There are those who avoid the mistake of thinking that as God holds us responsible therefore we are able,” but fall into the error of thinking that “since fallen men are not able to obey God, therefore fallen men are not responsible to God.” God holds all mankind responsible to Himself and the lack of fallen man’s ability to obey God does not mean that we do not tell men that they are responsible to render up faith, repentance, and obedience.

Addressing the confusion of those who think they are addressing the confusion about the two kingdoms doctrine: what about the law?

I stumbled across the blog of a irenic young man who is working on his Ph.D on something related to R2K. On his blog he was, in his most irenic fashion, seeking to help dissipate what he perceived as the confusion of an Elder in his denomination that does not agree with him on R2K. This entry is intended to be my irenic address of the irenic and well intentioned blog post of our earnest Ph.D candidate. We will call him “Irenic” for posting purposes.

Irenic

In this first post I want to take up two of the concerns mentioned by the elder at once. The first is the idea that the Decalogue is not binding in the common realm. The second is the idea that natural law provides the exclusive ethic for the civil kingdom.

Now a basic familiarity with the classic Reformed two kingdoms doctrine as expounded by Calvin, as well as with the writings of a contemporary two kingdoms advocate like David VanDrunen, suggests that there is confusion underlying these concerns, particularly when viewed side by side. Simply put, for Calvin, as well as for VanDrunen, the Decalogue essentially is the natural law. So how could the Decalogue not bind the common realm, while natural law does? The reality is that both bind the common realm fully, even though neither should be fully enforced by the state.

Bret

First, as we want to avoid confusion we should immediately note that the two Kingdom theology of John Calvin is not the two Kingdom theology of David VanDrunen. For example, could VanDrunen’s two kingdom theology agree with Calvin’s two kingdom theology when Calvin says,

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginning of His Kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s Kingdom, I deny that on that account it nature is changed. For, although, it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed w/ the Word alone like sheep among wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring Kings under his subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Last four Books of Moses.

And again,

John Calvin 1509-1564

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

I have many more quotes like this from two kingdom Calvin that radical two kingdom VanDrunen would likely choke upon.

On this score, secondly we would say that obviously Calvin would not agree w/ Mr. Irenic that neither the Decalogue nor Natural Law “should be fully enforced by the state.”

Third, if the Decalogue and the Natural Law both bind the common realm fully why is it that neither should be enforced fully? And, so as to help with our confusion, is it the Natural law or the Decalogue that teaches us that even though they bind the common realm fully they are not to be enforced fully?

Mr. Irenic,

This is a classic example of how misunderstanding among Christians caused by differences in terminology and emphasis can make a minor disagreement seem like a major one. Let me explain.

When two kingdoms advocates (or Reformed people generally) say that the Decalogue is not binding in some sense, they do not mean that the moral will of God (the law of love) as revealed there is not binding. What they mean is that as a covenantal document, as the two tablets of stone representative of the Law (the Sinaitic Covenant, or, as Calvin would have called it, the peculiar ministry of Moses), the Decalogue is no longer binding. Christians are justified by faith alone, and they now fulfill the Law by obeying the law of love.

Here Mr. Irenic seems to assume that the Mosaic covenant was a recapitualtion of the covenant of works. This is something that is not conceded by many Reformed men. So, the differing views of the Mosaic covenant would have to be hashed out (and great would be that work) in order to deliver all of us from all the confusion that currently exists on all sides.

Second, when we talk about God’s law for the common realm we are talking about the civil use or the normative use of the law and not the pedagogical use. It is the pedagogical use of the law that leads us to Christ so that we might be justified by faith alone. All Christians rejoice in God’s justifying of sinners apart from works. However, when we talk about the law as it applies to the common realm or as it is taken up by the Christian Magistrate (something at least some R2K’ers do not believe exists) we are not asking whether or not we can be saved by keeping the law (we can’t) we are asking, “what is the standard for the Christian life as he lives out his life in the common realm” and “what is the standard by which civil magistrates must rule.” The answer to both those questions is God’s Law Word as exhibited in the Decalogue which might also be called, “the law of love.”

And of course the “Law of love,” is exactly synonymous with the Decalogue so that if I want to know what love is I refer to God’s law in order to give love stable definition.

Mr. Irenic continues,

Now when two kingdoms advocates say that the Decalogue is not binding on the state, they might mean several things. They might mean that the state is not obligated to enforce all of the Ten Commandments. The state cannot, for instance, punish people for coveting.

Bret

And of course we remember that nowhere in the Old Testament law (Decalogue or Case law) did God require the Magistrate to handle the sword against thought crimes such as coveting. The OT has a distinction between sin and crime.

Mr. Irenic,

Nor should it punish people for worshiping false gods, let alone for using images in worship. On the other hand, they might simply mean that the ceremonial law as found in the Ten Commandments is not binding (for instance, the commandment not to work on the seventh day Sabbath, which just so happens to be Saturday). Finally, they may mean that citing the Ten Commandments is not a sufficient reason for demonstrating that the state should do something, given all of the above reasons. To prove that the state should do something one would need to show that it is part of God’s timeless moral law (i.e., natural law), and that it is within the state’s realm of responsibility. But I do not know anyone who would say that the moral law as revealed in the Ten Commandments is not binding on all people everywhere. No one says this.

First, let’s remind ourselves that Mr. Two Kingdom John Calvin did believe the State was responsible to punish people for worshiping false gods.

Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Second, note that Mr. Irenic holds a not universally agreed upon view that the 4th commandment is ceremonial and so eclipsed. Mr Irenic suggests that because the 4th commandment of the Decalogue is ceremonial therefore the Magistrate is not obligated to it. Of course those Reformed folks who don’t agree with Mr. Irenic’s view of the fourth word are hardly going to agree with his peaceful reading on this matter.

Third, if the Decalogue and Natural Law are one and the same why would it be necessary to appeal to Natural law to support a Civil Magistrates decision if the Decalogue clearly supports it? If the Decalogue and Natural Law are one in the same then why would an appeal to the Decalogue not be sufficient reason for the State to do something?

Mr. Irenic set out to dispel confusion must I must tell you that my confusion increases with each sentence.

Mr. Irenic,

The key here is to remember that in Reformed theology going back to Calvin, the law of love, the Decalogue (interpreted properly in light of Christ), the principle of equity, and natural law are all the same thing. What this debate is about is not whether or not the civil kingdom is under the law of God. What this debate is about is how we should determine what parts of God’s law the state should enforce by means of the sword, and how we should go about persuading people who are not Christians that the state should enforce something like say, traditional marriage, or the sanctity of life.

Bret,

Ah … has Mr. Irenic slipped us a Mickey? Mr. Irenic talks about, “the Decalogue interpreted properly in the light of Christ.” But wasn’t the Decalogue always supposed to be interpreted properly in the light of Christ even when it was first given? In terms of the civil use of the law and the normative use of the law how does “interpreting in the light of Christ” cause the law to differ from the OT to the NT?

The debate is about whether or not the civil kingdom is under God’s law. If Tommy Two Kingdom comes along and insists that God’s word has nothing to say on Marxist economic policies pursued by the State I am going to see him saying that God’s Law does not condition the civil realm even though he might be insisting that all he is saying is that God’s law does not speak to Marxist economic policies. So, we are left debating what it is we are debating.

Finally, of course we are going to disagree upon how we should go about persuading people who are not Christian that the state should enforce something if we can not agree upon the scope of God’s law.

Mr. Irenic,

In truth, we should be clear to our neighbors about the fact that we keep God’s law because it is revealed in his word. We should not hide the fact that we are Christians, but should always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us. But we should also clearly and lovingly show our neighbors how the law is written on their hearts and how it is part of the very fabric of creation. By doing this, we can better communicate to our neighbors that God’s law is for their own good, intended for their prosperity, and in so doing, indirectly point unbelievers to the Gospel. In fact, as my recent posts on marriage have sought to demonstrate, Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage in this country if we approached it in this way, rather than by simply quoting Scripture ad nauseum to those who reject it. The same is true for abortion or for any number of issues. But I am now getting into the subject of my next post, on the concern that two kingdoms proponents claim the Bible is not for the civil realm. I’ll return to that issue in the next post.

Bret,

Here we are back to the first use of the law. If I want to lovingly communicate to my neighbors how the law is written on their hearts then I must also lovingly communicate to them that they are suppressing the truth of that law in unrighteousness. I must also communicate to them that they can not keep God’s law. I must do this to them so that they might despair of their ability to keep God’s law. We must keep in mind that only lovers of God can conclude that “God’s law is for their own good.” And so, while we seek to convince them that God’s law is for their own good, we realize that they will never see that apart from a regenerating work of grace.

I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Irenic that Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage if they appealed to Natural Law over the Decalogue. People who hate Christ hate God’s law whether you serve it straight up or with a beer chaser.

Redrum … The 6th Word

Scripture — Exodus 20:11
Subject — Thou Shalt Not Murder
Theme — A introductory examination of what it means to not murder.

Proposition — A introductory examination of what it means to not murder will begin to give us the lay of the land on what God commands regarding life and death.

Purpose — Therefore having considered the 6th word in a introductory fashion let us be diligent in upholding God’s cause.

Introduction

Thou Shalt Not Kill — 6th commandment

Horizontal move — Is connected to the Vertical by virtue of the fact that man retains the image of God.

So to attack man, in ways murderous, is to attack God, since man is God’s image.

In this section of God’s Moral law we find the definition of love to neighbor.

Jesus said the summary of the law was to love God and neighbor. In what is known as the first table of the law we have learned what love to God looks like. In the second table our love to God reveals itself in or love to neighbor.

There is a relationship between love to God and love to neighbor.

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Of course this relationship explains why love of God always expresses itself in love of neighbor. If we do not love our neighbor we cannot say we love God and if we love God we cannot but help but love our neighbor. So, even though Jesus summarizes the law by reducing it to “love God and love neighbor,” we see that those loves are inextricably linked. Distinctions are made between loving God and neighbor but one can not be done w/o the other being done.

So, what this means is that if I have murderous, hateful, envy filled thoughts towards my neighbor then I am testifying against any confession that I love God.

The 6th commandment, like the others, follows the preamble about deliverance and liberation. King Pharaoh wanted to destroy Israel by killing God’s people. God delivered his people from death, thereby making life a sign of grace for His people. To destroy life would be an attack this grace. Life originated from God, through creation and redemption (even from Egypt), and exists for the purpose of God’s praise (Ps.118: 17). Every human being is someone who declares God’s praise. To kill a human being in this sense is to rob God.

Note here that murder is defined as within the context of Biblical law. We are to have reverence for life but reverence for life in the larger context of reverence for God. The motto “reverence for life” can not be absolutized. Only God is absolute. As such when we talk about reverence for life it is always in the context of God’s Word.

I.) Murder is the unwarranted taking of life

So we observe that Murder is the unwarranted taking of life. However, if Murder is the unwarranted taking of life that implies that there are times when the taking of life may be warranted.

A.) One example that we know of where the taking of life is warranted is when the Magistrate enforces penalty against someone for taking the life of another.

Genesis 9:5-6 5 And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; At the hand of every beast will I require it. And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.

Note first in this passage that the reason the penalty is visited upon the one who un-righteously sheds blood is because the guilty has struck at the image of God. An important point that we should not miss along the way. The sin and guilt is found first and foremost in the fact that the murderer has attacked God, before it is found in the fact that the murderer has attacked man.

The implication of this is that even if it could be proven that the death penalty, as visited upon murderers, was not a deterrent against others committing future murders that would not mean that we therefore should get rid of capital punishment for the primary reason for capital punishment is not its power of deterrence but rather the primary reason for capital punishment for murder is to communicate that God’s image, as seen in man, is not to be trifled with. The murderer has his blood spilled because he attacked God.

This teaches us that man has value only because of who he is in relation to God. If man had no objective relation to God, or if God did not exist there would be no reason to hold murder as being wrong or wicked in any kind of transcendent sense.

That observation then gives us insight into why life is cheapened and coarsened in cultures that throw off God. Without a Transcendent view of God who has come near to us in Christ human life has no consistent objective intrinsic meaning or value and so is disposable in the Gulag, the health care system, or the abortuary.

Back to the point at hand which is that not all life taking is murder,

God required this blood for blood in the context of the new beginning of human civilization with Noah. He reinforced it by requiring in the Mosaic code for murderers to be visited with capital punishment.

“Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death…. You shall have the same law for the [foreigner] and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.” Lev. 24:17-22

“But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer (ratsach as in Ex.20:13); the murderer shall surely be put to death.” Num.35:16

This is why we speak of the Magistrate bearing the sword. The Magistrate has the responsibility to bring God’s justice to bear and that justice sometimes means the loss of life. In that context the loss of life as a just visitation of God’s penalty is not considered Murder and so is no violation of the 6th commandment.

Elsewhere we find in Scripture times when the taking of life is condoned by God’s law,

B.) Self-Defense

Exodus 22:2-3 2 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 “If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.

There are two cases here. In the first case, if someone breaks into your home at night, and you kill him, you are not held guilty of murder. You are not deserving of capital punishment. You do not need to flee to a city of refuge to preserve your life. The understanding is that at night, it is dark, and if someone has invaded your house, they do not announce if they are there merely to steal or if their intent is more ominous like being in your home to kidnap, to rape, or to murder. You are thus blameless if the criminal is killed in the situation where they are breaking into your home during the night. The passage does make it clear that if a man is breaking in at night with the intent of theft or worse (rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.), the defendant can righteously defend himself with lethal force to defend himself and presumably his family.

Matthew Henry comments here,

“…if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it, unless it was in the necessary defense of his own life. … We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves.”

So, God forbids unwarranted taking of life, but we learn that there are times when taking of life is warranted.

1.) The Magistrate
2.) Self Defense

C.) Another place where killing would be legitimate is in the defense of the innocent or the Defenseless

In Ps. 82:4 we are commanded to intervene on behalf of others: “Deliver the weak and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked.”

Proverbs 24:11-12 also supports this,

“If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;… shall not he render to every man according to his works?”

Here we see God weighing the heart thus communicating our accountability to God. What is likewise communicated is the eternal rather than merely the social consequences of failing to help others in need. So if you don’t aid the judicially innocent and defenseless from being slain when God has put them in your path God will remember.

The idea that we are responsible to defend especially others who are our own is also seen in Abraham’s defense of his household. Genesis 14:12f

12 They also took Lot, Abram’s nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom.

13 Then a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew. Now he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and these were allies with Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. 16 He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people.

So … the prohibition of Murder we have seen is a prohibition against the unwarranted taking of life because man is God’s Image. However we have seen that there are times when the taking of life, though regrettably necessary, is warranted.

1.) Magistrate 2.) Self-Defense 3.) Defense of the judicially innocent / family

II.) Counter Examples of Christians Who Do Not Believe That Taking of Life Is Ever Warranted

We take time to note this because there are many Christians out there who insist that it is always wrong all the time to take life. Anabaptists,

The Mennonites most recent confession adopted in 1995 states clearly in Article 22 that they witness against all forms of violence including war among nations, capital punishment, abortion, hostilities among races, abuse of women and children, and domestic violence.

An example of this mindset from Amish history is Jacob Hochstetler who, during the French and Indian War, offered an example that resonates today with his many descendants. Facing an attack by Native Americans, Hochstetler forbade his boys to fire back in defense. Jacob and two sons were subsequently captured, and his wife, son, and daughter scalped.

Hochstetler chose not to retaliate in the spirit of non-resistance, as he belived it wrong to take human life. As a result Hochstetler lost his loved ones and his freedom. While modern Americans might find it hard to understand Hochstetler’s decision, Amish today take inspiration in the early Amishman’s example, seeing it as how Christ himself would have acted.

So, the Amish believe that it was Christ-like for Jacob Hochstetler to allow his family to be tortured and murdered as opposed to defending them against the wicked.

Increasingly the Church is taking this kind of pacifistic non resistance to violence approach.

I was brought face to face w/ this some years ago when, after finishing a evening sermon on the 6th commandment and capital punishment, one of the congregants approached me afterwards and gently chided me since I was advocating a position that might not allow the person who would be executed time to repent. I was told, and given literature informing me of my error, that by advocating Capital punishment I might be sending a soul to eternity who might otherwise if they had not been executed would have repented and asked Jesus into their hearts.

I tried to gently tell this person that in the Reformed understanding of Christianity it is not possible to kill the elect before they trust Christ and that because we have this confidence we can obey God’s clearly revealed law and advocate capital punishment. My pleadings were of no avail.

When we refuse to protect life by obeying God’s law we are guilty of the God’s 6th Word. Not only is it a case of breaking God’s word when we kill those we ought not to kill but it is also a breaking of God’s 6th word when we do not kill those who God says should be visited with the penalty of their blood guilt.

Conclusion

Preach Christ

Cities of Refuge for involuntary manslaughter
There people could go to escape the avenger of blood of the person you accidentally killed
You had to stay there in order to be safe from the blood avenger until the high priest perished

Jesus Christ is our city of Refuge

The city of Refuges is a picture of Christ’s work. Christ is our city of refuge in whom we must remain hidden in order to escape a rightful wrath. As we will look at more next week we are all guilty of murder by our thoughts and tongues but as we find safety in Christ, our refuge, there is forgiveness for our sins.

Christ is also the high priest whose death takes our guilt and sets us free.