Windows Into Worldviews – Page 7

Tullian On “Morning Joe”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4hdC0GJY0g#t=20
1.) Tullian is introduced in identity with his Grandfather. Clearly he is trading off his Grandfather’s name. Maybe it is fitting because, like his Grandfather before him, he is serving up heterodoxy as orthodoxy.

2.) Tullian is on the program to hawk his book. Tullian, you cannot serve both God and mammon.

3.) Tullian tells us that there is a problem with people trying to fix themselves so he offers his new book as a fix for people who are always trying to fix themselves. How ironic Tullian.

4.) Notice in this 6:45 second interview the name “Jesus Christ” does not fall from his lips once.

5.) Quoting Tullian, 3:15f

“It is not so much religion in the public sphere as much as religion in the pulpit (behind the pulpit). That’s my primary concern. That as a preacher, my job when I stand up on Sunday Morning to preach is not to, first and foremost to address social ills or social problems or to try to find social solutions. My job is to diagnose people’s problems and to announce God’s solutions to their problems. So … over the course of the last 20 to 30 years — Evangelicalism specifically — their association with the religious right (Conservative politics) has done more damage to the branding of Christianity then just about anything else.”

a.) Notice Tullian’s Dualism. He can diagnose people’s problems and announce solutions but only as those problems and solutions are private and do not impinge upon the public sphere.

b.) Wouldn’t it be a solution to unborn people’s problems to preach, in keeping with the sixth commandment, against abortion. Wouldn’t outlawing abortion be God’s solution to unborn people’s problems Tullian?

c.) I wonder what Tullian would identify concretely as the damage that conservative politics has done to Evangelicalism? I am neither an Evangelical nor part of the religious right (since I don’t think such a thing has existed in any numbers of significance in the 20th century) but still, I would love to hear how he answers that question.

d.) Tullian is offering a solution to the problem of social issues. He is saying, by his demanded pulpit silence, that God has no solution to social issues. Tullian, by his silence, is offering that there is no “thus saith the Lord” on issues from sodomite marriage to abortion, to the social justice of Marxism, to Corporate & Statist machinations (Corporatism) to connive together against the righteous.

6.) Tullian is no friend of Biblical Christianity. The fact that he seized this pulpit upon D. James Kennedy’s passing should cause thoughtful people to ask serious questions about how such a man, who is philosophically the polar opposite of Kennedy, was able to get away with this coup.

Fisking American Vision Published Blog Regarding Immigration

http://covenantaldivide.com/open-and-closed-borders-lets-have-both/

I will not be fisking the whole article above. Those who want to read the whole article are encouraged to go to the link to read the parts that I’ve passed over.

Publisher American Vision writes,

“What about a scriptural alternative to the cacophony of opinions being blurted out on the issue? Notice I didn’t say Christian alternative. We Christians today are many times out of touch with what scripture has to say in the civil realm.”

Bret observes

The answers that are provided here, in this article, are not exactly clear. American Vision blog, while bringing out some great points, does not succeed in giving us a nuanced picture of immigration in the Old Testament.

American Vision Blog writes,

Beyond common sense and logic, the issue is biblical. Matt is on target in that the heart of the issue lies within a discussion of borders (boundaries), laws and enforcement. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of borders? Who makes the laws? Who has authority to enforce the laws? What laws should govern immigration? What is the source and standard for such laws?

1.) Biblical is beyond common sense and logic? How would we know that without using common sense and logic to determine that?

2.) R. J. Rushdoony asked these questions back in 1965. Here are some of the answers at which he arrived.

“The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

So, Rushdoony realized that the immigration push was to eliminate all borders so that the humanist global order could come to the fore. Rushdoony understood that the immigration act in 1965 (and what is currently happening is merely the flowering of that Legislation) was being pushed by Humanists desiring to destroy the Nation State order. Rushdoony understood that such immigration was not Biblical.

America Vision Blog writes,

Let’s begin with the last question first. I believe the Word of God should be the source and standard. With this pre-commitment in mind, it would make sense to look at the first nation in Scripture to tackle the immigration issue God’s way.

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Israel was to be a light among the nations. If they operated their nation in terms of God’s revealed law, all other nations would take notice. Not only would they take notice, many would be drawn to Israel.

Bret responds,

Certainly we can agree that God’s intent for Israel was to be a Witness to the Nations. However, that in no way implies that God desired open borders so that the Nations lost their National Identity as the various Nations’ identity was submerged with Israel’s National Identity. Nations were to be drawn to Israel so that they, as Nations, bowed to Yahweh.

A Reformed Old Testament scholar Martin Wyngaarden recognized this when he wrote,

“Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture pp. 101-102.

American Vision blog writes,

God promised blessing and freedom if Israel followed his prescription for running their nation. Freedom is only possible when men govern themselves according to the Word of God. God’s covenant people were required to render judgment in their families, the assembly and the state according to God’s revealed law. As they did so, their light would shine as a beacon to other nations that were in bondage.

Not only was Israel a light, it was a shelter. Someone could recognize the light and sojourn in Israel. If they subjected themselves externally to the law of the land (the law of God), then they would enjoy the blessings promised in the land.

For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. (Numbers 15:15)

Here the American Vision blog does not nuance enough given the different words for “stranger” in the Old Testament.

James Hoffmeier, in his book, “The Immigration Crisis proves that a State is under no compulsion to have a generous immigration policy and does have a responsibility to protect its borders –just as States did even in the Old Testament. The texts used by Christian organizations like American Vision, Sojourners, etc. are ripped out of their context in order to guilt the laity into thinking being a good Christian means disinheriting one’s self and children.

The book of Joshua goes into great detail about the allocation of the territories of the Promised land to the tribes of Israel but the ger (resident Alien) did not receive their own allotment. The Ger (resident Alien — perhaps our equivalent of a perpetual Green card holder) could receive social benefits (i.e. — gleaning rights, a portion of the third year tithes) but they could never own land and so they forever would remain ger (stranger).

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

So there was continuity between the native born Israeli and the ger but there was discontinuity as well and it strikes me that it is the discontinuity is what American Vision desires to ignore.

In short the ger (stranger) would always be known as “other.”

In the Old Testament the alien (ger) was a person who entered Israel and followed legal procedures to obtain recognized standing as a resident alien. Hence ger (alien) is the term for legal immigrants. However, the ger (legal immigrants) in the OT were still distinct from those who were permanent residents (citizens). In the OT then there is a distinction between the alien (ger) the foreigner (nekhar or zar) and the permanent residents of the Israeli tribes.

The American Vision Blog continues,

The stranger could worship who and how he wanted within the confines of his own home but as long as he was a resident in Israel he had to submit externally to God’s law….

This is a major component with the issue of immigration because with no handouts and a requirement to live according to God’s laws, the borders of Israel were to some extent self-regulated. Those that immigrated into the country were most likely law-abiding, productive residents that would add value to the society. This was inexpensive, inside-out border enforcement. It was in one sense an open border policy by God’s design.

Bret responds,

Hoffmeier differs with this assessment regarding “self-regulated borders,” as he points out that ancient territorial borders were taken seriously and that national sovereignty was recognized. Hoffmeier points out that not only were wars fought to establish and settle border disputes, borders were vigorously defended, and battles occurred when a neighboring state violated another’s territory. So, national boundaries were normally honored.

Numbers 20:16-21 yields an example of Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass, even with Israel paying a Toll. This was out of keeping with the socially accepted custom of offering hospitality to strangers in the ancient and modern Middle East. Still, it is worth noting that even a traveler — a foreigner — passing through the territory of another had to obtain permission to do so, thus revealing that in the OT borders were taken seriously. Likewise Judges 11:16-20 gives another example of borders being taken seriously.

These episodes demonstrate clearly that nations could and did control their borders and determined who could pass through their land.

On the individual, family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established. Personal property and fields were delineated by landmarks — stone markers of some sort. For this reason, the Mosaic law prohibited the removal of landmarks. (Dt. 19:14, 27:17). This parlayed itself into the idea of National boundaries merely being an extension of the reality of property owned by individual, family and clan. During the period of the divided Kingdom (8th cent. BC) the prophet Hosea decried the leaders of Judah for seizing territory of her sister kingdom Israel by taking their boundary stones (cmp. Job 24:2).

So we see that nation states, large and small in the Biblical world were clearly delineated by borders. These were often defended by large forts and military outposts. Countries since biblical times have had the right to clearly established borders that they controlled and were recognized by surrounding Governments.

The borders of countries were respected, and minor skirmishes and even wars followed when people and armies of one nation violated the territory of their neighbor.

All this meant that nations, including Israel had the right to clearly established secure borders and could determine who could and could not enter their land.

American Vision blog continues,

“There was though, another critical component to God’s open door policy. Those that did immigrate into Israel and lived as residents could not hold civil office as a judge. They could enjoy the blessings through submission to external laws but could not judge in the civil realm. This could only change if they professed that Israel’s God was their God and were circumcised.

Again, this was critical. Someone who was not in covenant in the visible community of God’s people, professing Jehovah’s Lordship and authority over them, could not exercise temporal authority over others. This includes their ability to vote. (Voting is rendering judgment against those who hold office.) Practically this means that if you did not profess God’s Lordship over you for all eternity, you would be restrained from having a voice among his people temporally. In order to preserve the purity of his people and blessings that come from living according to his laws, you would be restrained from civil authority.”

Bret responds,

This is all true but there are a couple other components that the American Vision blog is missing and that is important to this discussion. First, is the fact that a stranger and an alien could never own land in the Israelite community. Land was to be kept within the Tribes and returned to the various Tribal ownership upon every Jubilee. This provision ensured that the alien and the stranger (ger) would never rise higher than the native born.

“The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia” offers,

The Ger.

This word with its kindred verb is applied with slightly varying meanings to anyone who resides in a country or a town of which he is not a full native land-owning citizen; e.g., the word is used of the patriarchs in Palestine, the Israelites in Egypt, the Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:6 Judges 17:7, etc.), the Ephraimite in Gibeah (Judges 19:16). It is also particularly used of free aliens residing among the Israelites, and it is with the position of such that this article deals.

Secondly, the ger, if bond servants, were not released in the Year of Jubilee. This again is suggestive that distinctions were maintained between Native born and ger (Exodus 12:43,45; Leviticus 25:45,46).

All of this is suggestive that we need to be very very careful when we seek to translate Old Testament immigration reality from OT Israel to 21st century Immigration issues in the States. Would American Vision blog support Strangers coming here with the stipulation that they could never own land? Would American Vision blog support unfettered immigration if the condition was known before hand that the immigrant would always and forever be known as “ger?”

American Vision blog,

“To do otherwise would be to leave a crack in the door and the potential for an ethical invasion from within the camp. Don’t miss this concept. If my god is different than your god, I will inherently work towards a competing law-order. My god will skew my ability to render judgment according to the law of your god. In a practical and organizational sense it would be a structural, judicial compromise with God’s sovereignty. This competing law-order would no-doubt be a stumbling block given the sinful nature of man. There is only one alternative to God’s law. It is man’s. So, in essence, to give an outsider an inside voice would be to tempt the entire nation with the opportunity to captain their own ship rather than leave God in control.

In Israel you had to be a member of the “assembly” or Old Testament church to be a full citizen and judge within the civil realm. Upon formal acknowledgment that you were under God’s eternal sanctions, you could place yourself in the position of carrying out God’s temporal sanctions in history.”

Bret responds,

Here, we appeal again to Rushdoony who taught that the kind of Immigration that is going on now was a immigration that Christians should oppose precisely because it was seeking to establish an alien social order. Rushdoony lectured,

“… The continuing purpose of American history, according to President Johnson is union, union of the races, closer union of the states to the federal union. It is also civil rights, federal aid, the unity of man with the world he has built, the United Nations, the New Immigration policy, and the Great Society.’

Rushdoony understood what we fail to understand and that is that the immigration policy cobbled together in 1965 and which still guides our policy today is a policy intent on Humanistic Union. This is why Biblical Christians must oppose this immigration folly right now. This immigration policy, as Rushdoony knew, was about pushing us nearer and nearer to a Humanist Statist regime where tyrannical centralized control would be established.

Rushdoony, in the same lecture continues on pointing out the now obvious,

“The U.N. charter preamble declares that its purpose is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to gain fundamental freedom for all, the first chapter declares, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Disunity is the one great evil. The godhead must be united, and this faith, which appears in the U.N., is a product of a grassroots faith. We see it all around us. We see it in the churches, in the pulpits. We see it in a multitude of private agencies which indeed very often outrun the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state, this new god. But certainly it is a part of the United Nations program, and its IMMIGRATION LAWS is an expression of this policy, to unify mankind.”

Here we find Rushdoony saying explicitly that Churches and Organizations that support the kind of Immigration we are seeing this very day are Churches and Organizations who are “outrunning the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state.”

American Vision blog offers,

“So, if this was such a great system then why did Israel suffer from such a poor track record in history? First of all, guarding the nation from within through limiting citizenship was not a failsafe against national moral decay. This was only one aspect of God’s law. The fundamental principle was one of Lordship. If the people of God ceased to walk according to his statues in any area, they were liable to his judgment. There are no political solutions for sinful rebellion among citizens.”

Bret responds,

American Vision blog speaks about how Israel failed in Christ’s Lordship and yet were we,as Biblical Christians, to support the current Immigration boondoggle we our currently staring at we likewise would be failing in Christ’s Lordship.

Consider again the great Rushdoony when speaking against the 1965 immigration act,

“The purpose of this 1965 Immigration Act law is threefold.

First, it has been described by Senator Javits as the civil rights legislation for the world. Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is the civil rights legislation of the world. In other words it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is its first function.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective {?}.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill…. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

What we are facing right now with the borders on the edge of being extinguished is the full flowering of the 1965 Immigration act that Rushdoony was so animated against. As Biblical Christians should we not be just as animated as Rushdoony was in 1965?

This immigration policy is NOT about economics. It is about expanding the humanist global state by creating the North American Union which is a precursor step to the the global state. This immigration policy serves to capture the country irretrievably for socialism, because this policy will forever entrench the Marxist (Democratic)party as the ruling party. This immigration policy serves to bring socialism to the country because it provides cheap labor which in turns redistributes wealth upwards by 3% annually and so again, turns us ever more into a Marxist state, as the Uber wealthy eliminate the middle class in the push towards Corporatism. This immigration policy serves to socialize the country because it serves corporatism and the fact that people can’t see this merely means that they are not self aware enough of what the humanist globalist elites are doing …. which R. J. Rushdoony understood in 1965.

The American Vision article finishes quite well. I encourage the reader to read the whole thing.

In the end we must keep in mind the necessity to fight for the reality of nations as nations against the humanist global order that Rushdoony warned against.

Wyngaarden understood this as well. I finish with this quote,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25).

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

Sovereignty — Some Meaning & Implications

1.) Sovereignty is totalistic

Absolute sovereignty extends to complete rule. An absolute sovereign means that said sovereign has absolute and total government. God, being absolute sovereign rules so minutely that not even a sparrow can fall without His consent (Mt. 10:29-31). Amos teaches that God’s sovereignty is so totalistic that even if calamity comes to the city that God has done it (Amos 3:6). Isaiah teaches that God creates disaster (Is. 45:7). In Job, Satan must receive approval from God before Satan can touch God’s servant. Acts 17:29 teaches that “we live and move and have our being in God and His government.

We see the State seeking to pick up the prerogatives of Sovereignty when it seeks to create a environment where God’s revealed sovereignty is put into abeyance in favor of the States. The State longs to create a social order where we live and move and have our being in the State.

2.) Sovereignty is characterized by total planning

In the Scripture total planning is called predestination. Isaiah 14:24 teaches, “Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand…” Elsewhere in Isaiah 46:10 we find, “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'” And again, Psalm 33:9, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. 11The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation.…

When God’s Sovereignty is denied, predestination does not go away. Some other agency enters in in order to provide total planning. The more godless a people become the more they will turn to some other agency to provide total planning. Typically that is the State and Obamacare is a perfect example of the State seeking to do total planning. This is a example of humanistic predestination and another demonstration of the State’s attempt to seize God’s sovereignty.

3.) Sovereignty is characterized by Omniscience

Of course total planning can not happen without Omniscience. The idea that one can predestine the beginning from the end without knowing the beginning from the end is just absurd. The Scriptures teach that God is Omniscient.

Psalm 139:4
Before a word is on my tongue you, LORD, know it completely.

Proverbs 5:21
For your ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all your paths.

Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

Jeremiah 16:17
My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes.

Hebrews 4:13
And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Of course this overturns all other teaching that suggests that God does not know the future, or that God and man are co-operating in order to create a uncertain future.

When we deny omniscience to God omniscience does not go away, but instead it seeks to find itself seized by whatever immanent god seeks to be god. We are hearing of this all the time today. We are seeing reports about NSA — a Government agency — seeking to collect all kinds of information and data on Americans.

A Congresswoman (Maxine Waters) recently noted that,

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday.

“That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that…. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

Rushdoony noted here,

“When the State claims sovereignty, the logic of its position requires that a like total knowledge be acquired concerning all men and things, and the result is the inquisitive and prying state which aims at knowing all in order to govern all.”

4.) Sovereignty is characterized by claims of ownership

Deuteronomy 10:14
To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

Job 41:11
Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.

Psalm 24:1
The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;

Psalm 50:12
If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.

Psalm 89:11
The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it.

If we belong to God that means we do not believe to ourselves or the State. However, the State does claim the citizenry as property. We are assets to be used and resources to be exploited.

Jonathan R. T. Hughes in his book, “The Government Habit,” offers this,

“It would surprise most American landowners today, as it often does those who cannot meet their property taxes, to learn that the state owns the land outright. Owners in fee simple have possession only of right in real estate: this phenomenon is part of what historians call the English Heritage.”

But it gets worse than that.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated (pledge (money) by law to a specific purpose) all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they
assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

So, the idea of ownership inherent in Sovereignty, doesn’t go away when one denies it to the God of the Bible. Instead the idea of ownership is transferred to an immanent god.

5.) Sovereignty is characterized Law

In any social order Law is always reflective of the Law giver. God takes to Himself the authority to establish the boundaries of man’s rule. This includes, of course the issue of taxation (Ex. 30:11-16), (I Sam. 8:7-8). With God as law giver the tax is a tithe. When the State seeks to be sovereign it seeks a far higher percentage rate.

When it comes to the broader idea of the Law, we see that what the State invokes is called Positive Law

“There is no logic to the law in the “traditional” sense: it does not reflect in any meaningful way a constant standard of right or set of moral absolutes. Rather, the “path” of the law is historical in nature, weaving and winding through changing cultural norms and varying political circumstances. Thus judges (and now executives) who alter the law by fiat only hurry along the next stage of progress.” Oliver Wendell Holmes

When you rid yourself of God’s transcendent law you don’t rid yourself of Law. Instead what you get is legal Positivism. The key to legal positivism is in understanding the way positivists answer the fundamental question of jurisprudence: “What is law?” The word “positivism” itself derives from the Latin root positus, which means to posit, postulate, or firmly affix the existence of something. Legal positivism attempts to define law by firmly affixing its meaning to written decisions made by governmental bodies that are endowed with the legal power to regulate particular areas of society and human conduct. If a principle, rule, regulation, decision, judgment, or other law is recognized by a duly authorized governmental body or official, then it will qualify as law, according to legal positivists. Conversely, if a behavioral norm is enunciated by anyone or anything other than a duly authorized governmental body or official, the norm will not qualify as law in the minds of legal positivists, no matter how many people are in the habit of following the norm or how many people take action to legitimize it.

From The Pastor’s Mailbag — Christian Economics?

Dear Pastor,

1.) ‘Why would you have a seminary teach macroeconomics?

2.) What makes Sowell’s theory reflective of a “Reformed Worldview” when he’s not even Reformed, as far as we know?

3.) Why do we even have to frame macroeconomics in those types of terms?

4.) What makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and who gets to decide that?’

Thanks,

Jillian

Dear Jillian,

Thank you for writing. Before turning to your questions, which we will take one at a time, let us consider some macro aspects to this.

First we need to understand that Economics is theology dependent. The ancients had a saying, that yet remains true, that “Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.” This truism teaches us that all other disciplines are derivative of some prior understanding of Theology. What that means is that Economics, History, Sociology, Psychology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Arts, Politics, Law etc. are all dependent on some Theology, and are what they are as they are informed by some theology. Theology is an inescapable category from which all the humanities are derivative. Because this is true Economics, like all those other disciplines listed, are but the incarnation and manifestation of some Theology into the various theories that comprise the discipline. Because this is true, it is never a case of whether or not we will have an Economics that is driven by theology, but it is only a question of which theology will drive our Economics. Since this is so, Christian have to think about what the implications of our Christian Theology have for Economics because if we don’t think in those terms what will happen is some pagan theology, representative of some false god or god concept, will be what drives our Economics. As such if we will not have Economics as derivative of explicitly Christian theology, we will have Economics as derivative of Humanist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Theology. Theologically speaking, there is no Economics from nowhere. Theologically speaking there is no Economics wherein Economics is not serving as a handmaiden for some God or god concept.

Having opened with that we turn to your questions.

1.) Seminaries might teach a macro Economics course because,

a.) Our abstract Theology also needs to be concrete. There is a necessity to reveal to seminarian students that as all Theology is totalistic in its claims, Christian theology needs to challenge the paradigms of false theologies as they incarnate and manifest themselves in the Public Square via Economic modalities and paradigms.

b.) The Scripture gives us themes for a Christian Economics. For example, Scripture forbids theft, therefore, a Christian Macro-Economics would require us to hold that the holding of property by individuals is a necessary aspect of a Christian Economics. This simple tenant immediately informs us that all Marxist type of Economic arrangements are unbiblical since Marxist theory denies the individual claim to property to the individual. We know that individual property claims are biblical by looking, as just one example, at the account of Naboth’s vineyard in the Scripture (I Kings 21). Other Biblical principles for Economics that we can derive from Scripture is the necessity of the keeping of contract (James 5), the idea of a just wage (Malachi 3:5), the prohibition against oppression of the worker by the Rich (Deut. 24:14-15), and that Government theft is a positive evil (I Samuel 8). Another key Economic theme of Scripture is the reality that God’s people are Stewards of all that God has given them and all that God has given them must be handled, not as absolute owners, but as stewards unto God. After all, I am in body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Any Christian Macro Economic theory must reflect these realities.

These themes alone go a long way towards informing a Christian Macro-economics.

Now, to be sure, the Marxists and the Progressives who call themselves “Christian” will come in and deny these aspects but at that point all we can do is to go to the Law and to the testimony to see if these things are so (Isaiah 8). Also, we need to realize that there are those who will claim that Economics, like all other disciplines are NOT theology dependent. As previously, all that can be done is to appeal to Scripture and trust that the Holy Spirit will open people’s eyes to see that there is no Neutrality, no not even in what is called the “common realm.”

c.) In the end Marco-economics is needed for those who would be ministers because they are to speak forth the whole counsel of God. Christianity does not end at the Church doors. Christianity is not merely about Jesus living in my heart. Christianity is not restricted to some zone beyond which it is forbidden to go. As Abraham Kuyper once said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’ That includes Economics Jillian.

2.) Dr. Thomas Sowell is not Reformed. Of that there can be little doubt. However, having said that, his theories, as existing in the context of a Reformed Christian worldview support many of the idea set forth immediately above. Sowell believes in individual property claims. He is against totalistic Economic claims of the God state. He supports individual right of contract. Sowell, of course, is not to be absolutized. Only the Scriptures are absolute. And of course there will be aspects of Sowell’s theory that need to be reinterpreted through a Biblical grid. For example, the Austrian school of Economics, that he is associated with, does have elements in it that are thoroughly unbiblical and would need to be purged from a Christian Economics.

3.) We have to frame Marco-Economics in these types of terms because these types of terms are inescapable concepts that can’t be escaped. Because all of reality is Theologically driven, all that composes reality will likewise be theologically driven. Further, without Macro-Economics being framed in such a way we lose the ability to distinguish some time of Economic activity as “wrong” as compared with other types of Economic activity we would say is “right.” If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say, “Marxist Economics is wrong,” because Marxist Economics presupposes an Economic determinism that doesn’t submit to the reality that God rules. If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say Wall Street Crony Capitalism is wrong because Wall Street Crony Capitalism (Corporatism) absolutizes wealthy in their oppression of the poor and the needy. If we fail to frame Macro-Economics in these type of terms then we are forced to live with whatever oppression the State, as God, determines as our lot.

4.) God and His Word makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and it is the Scriptures that get to decide that since all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I believe that Economics is a good work that the man of God can be equipped for by understanding Scripture.

In the end Jillian, I don’t want to be the one to tell God that Macro-Economics is none of his damn business and he should just butt out of the whole discipline.

Thank you for writing Jillian,

With A Half-Twist

A reductio on an article that ran in a Reformed Denominational magazine. As originally published it found the word “homosexuality,” or “gay” wherever you find the word Necrophilia in my reductio.

by Name withheld

February 21, 2014 — I am a Christian. I was born and raised in a Reformed Church and educated in its schools from kindergarten through college. I am also a Necrophiliac. These two characteristics define my life more than anything else: more than my education, career, marital status, or the number of children I may have.

As a Necrophiliac Christian, I am an oxymoron to many.

I do not easily embrace myself as a necrophiliac man. I’ve only come to do that after many years of wrestling with the Scriptures, with God, with myself. I sought counsel from pastors and Christian therapists, tried ex-necrophiliacs for Jesus ministries and every reparative therapy program I could find. I begged God to change me and in despair attempted suicide. I studied every angle of the questions “How do I become ‘not necrophiliac’?” and “What must I do to love alive people?” In my study of Scripture, I wrestled with the passages interpreted to condemn Necrophiliac behavior, with creation order, the nature of sin, and the process of sanctification. And I prayed. My sexual orientation did not change.

Like every other Necrophiliac person in my Reformed denomination, I am mindful of my church’s understanding of Necrophilia. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a cliché implying that I am sin personified. Tony Campolo has observed that Jesus says the opposite: “Love the sinner and hate your own sin. And after you get rid of the sin in your own life, then you can begin talking about the sin in your brother or sister’s life.” Obviously therefore it is wrong for any sinner to denounce necrophilia as aberrant. I wish the Church would learn that. After all, the Church is full of sinners just like me. Our sins may vary but since we are all sinners no one should be allowed to denounce another person’s “sin.” (Unless of course we are denouncing the sinners who denounce other people’s sins or when we are denouncing Necro-phobia.)

Meanwhile, where have all the necrophiliac sons and daughters of your church gone? Many—I dare say most—have left your churches and your hometowns. Their church home became unsafe when they—like me—learned the pastor’s response to people like us.

It may surprise you that there is a deep spiritual longing within my necrophiliac friends, a longing and a struggle to reconcile “Jesus loves me, this I know” with an attribute that many in the church consider an abomination. My friends grew up loving God—that has not changed. But as a result of being rejected, many have given up on the church, and, tragically, on God.

The culture has is sure to change. Necrophiliac marriage is sure to become legal in Canada and in some states. The U.S. Supreme Court will one day surely strike down any laws forbidding necrophilia. The Boy Scouts of America one day will have special merit badges for sharing a sleeping bag with the dead. I foresee the day when celebrities, athletes, and business leaders will “come out.”

The church seems unprepared to respond to these situations legally and with moral authority. How do congregations pick up the pieces of shattered families after the failure of mixed-orientation marriages of necrophiliac people who enter into a heterosexual marriage, believing that it would make them acceptable to God and the church? How do they welcome necrophiliac couples who attend services or who wish to be married in the church?

My understanding of the Scriptures has changed dramatically over the years. If “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, I was going insane seeking “freedom” from being a necrophiliac. Jesus confronted me with the words “I have come to give life and life abundant” (John 10:10). These words trumped “abomination theology.”

Coming out has not been easy—for me or for my family. But it has brought life.

Isn’t it time for the church to welcome back its necrophiliac sons and daughters, along with their spouses and children? Isn’t it time to encourage everyone to know the love of God for each and every one of his children?