McAtee Contra Van Drunen Regarding The Family

A response to this

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1618&var3=main&var4=Home

“Rather than being an additional fourth life sphere alongside these (church, state, and culture), the household or family is the foundation and the model of these other three life spheres. The family possesses a religious moral element in its piety, a juridical element in its parental authority and sibling affection, and an element of culture in family nurture. All three life spheres lie embedded within the family in a complex way, and each is connected to the family. Since the Kingdom of God consists of the totality of all goods, here on earth one finds its purest image and most faithful representation in the household family.”

Herman Bavinck
“The Kingdom of God, The Highest Good.”

In a recent “Modern Reformation” article R2K Maestro Dr. David Van Drunen (Hereinafter DVD) concedes that the the family is important, while at the same time warns Christians to not get too hung up on family changes that are occurring within our broader culture. DVD informs us that there is a real danger that we Christians would emphasize the importance of the institutional family so much that we might fall into the danger of forgetting the importance of the institutional Church. DVD writes this article in order to make sure we don’t make that mistake.

What DVD doesn’t tell the reader explicitly is that DVD does not believe in the idea of the “Christian family.” Oh, DVD hints at this conviction, but he does not come right out and say, “the idea of the Christian family is a myth.” Yet, it is precisely because DVD does not believe in the reality of Christian family that allows him to warn against those who are warning about the impact of the demise of the Christian family. For DVD, while family is important, the incremental destruction of the Christian family model, while unfortunate, is not something, that Christians should get too ginned up about, especially if that means that care for the institutional church suffers because of too much concern for the institution of the family.

At this point, already, DVD introduces a false dichotomy into his “reasoning.” He posits that the Church Institution is more important then the Family institution, thus suggesting that the two institutions are somehow in competition, when in point of fact these two Institutions are complimentary. Together they are the left leg and the right leg of Christian walking and the demise of either institution is the demise of the ability to walk without crutches.

That the two Institutions can not be separated the way that DVD is seeking to do is seen in the way that God has ordained that the health of the Church is derived from the root of its supporting Christian families. In Scripture God has given us an integrated model where the Christian family and the Christian Church, while being distinct jurisdictions, cannot be divorced from one another. This is seen in the reality of our covenant theology. God has ordained that the Church is built up by His faithfulness to the family in their generations.

“He remembers his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations…” (Psalm 105:8)

“That those generations are thought of in terms of the family is seen in the commentary of Psalm 105:8 in Psalm 103:17,

“But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children’s children…”

Indeed when God promises the vast blessings of salvation to Abraham, He does so in terms of “all the families of the earth.”

 Gen.12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

This indicates that God thinks that family is important.

This relation between Church as institution and family as institution is put on display every time a Christian family brings their child to be baptized by a Christian minister in the context of God’s Christian Church. God’s faithfulness to His Church as institution is guaranteed by His faithfulness to His covenant as dwelt in by the Christian family. To mark the kind of false dichotomy between the two such as DVD enters into is both un-scriptural and unnatural.

DVD insists that it is the Church as institution which is the centrality in our Christian lives. If one did not know better one would swear, that with such a statement, one was listening to a Roman Catholic Priest and not a Reformed Doctor of the Church. Rome long taught and still teaches the “centrality of the church in our Christian lives.” To disagree with this DVD conclusion is not to dismiss the importance of the Church as institution but merely is to note the Protestant emphasis that insisted the centrality of God in the totality of our Christian lives. The centrality of God in our families, the centrality of God in our Churches, and the centrality of God in our social orders. By insisting on the centrality of the Church in our Christian lives vis-a-vis the centrality of the family DVD both creates a false dichotomy  (dare we say a hyphenated dualism?) — in our Christian lives and gets very close to not realizing that God alone is to be central in all our doings.

In his article DVD damns the family with feint praise. For all that DVD does in speaking up the family he undoes it all with his insistence that there is no such thing as a Christian family. DVD goes so far as to suggest that family life, unlike Church life, is not part of the Kingdom of God. With such a sentiment DVD clearly circumscribes the Kingdom of God to the Church. And yet we have all those Kings (Rev. 21:24) and Nations (Rev. 22:2)  in the new Jerusalem, a reality that cannot exist without retaining extended family categories. Kings don’t make sense without Nations and Nations don’t make sense without blood families. When DVD insists that our family relations do not follow us into the eternal Kingdom one wonders if DVD is saying that in the eschaton we will no longer be sons, daughters, Fathers, or Mothers, Aunts or Uncles, Husbands or Wives? I assume though that DVD agrees that the Son of David remains sitting on the throne? If we do not retain these familial identity markers maybe we should go all the way and dismiss the idea of other identity markers such as a retention of maleness or femaleness in the eschaton? But, again, we have “Kings” in heaven, and that also requires Maleness as well as family connections. DVD’s eschaton begins to sound like a Gnostic excitable dream.

DVD makes this explicit when he writes, “This brings us to another reason why the church is ultimately more important than the family. While family relationships are temporal, relationships in the church are permanent. To put it another way, family relationships are natural and belong to this present age, while relationships in the church are eschatological and extend into the age to come.”  Is DVD saying that when I bump into my earthly Christian family member in the eschaton the relation we had as family members will be forgotten while what is remembered is that we attended and were part of the same visible Church?  Others may disagree, but I invoke the charge again of creeping gnosticism. All that matters in the DVD’s eschaton are spiritual realities. The corporeal realities on earth are no more.

DVD rightly notes that our allegiance to God must be higher than our allegiance to family. This is true. What DVD does not say is that our allegiance to God must also be higher than our allegiance to the institutional visible Church. All because or allegiance to God must be higher than or family allegiance in no way proves that our allegiance to the visible Church must be higher than our allegiance to our family … unless of course one is identifying the visible institutional Church with God.  Isn’t it good to know that a Reformed Doctor of the Church would never make that kind of basic reasoning and category error?

DVD’s confusion on this issue is magnified by a quick look at Scripture. When God desires to give His people symbolic speech in order to understand His person He often uses the language drawn from the family. The God of the Bible compares Himself not only to a Father who taketh pity upon His children (Ps. 103:13), but He also compares Himself to a Mother who cannot forget her nursing child (Is. 49:15). In Hebrews 12:6 God chastens like a Father, while in Isaiah He comforts like a Mother (Isaiah 66:13). In Matthew 6 we are taught to address God as our Father in Heaven.

When DVD writes, “Family is clearly not the most important thing in Scripture. Our relationships to and within the church are ultimately more important than our family relationships,” he puts the cats among the pigeons. First, we might ask, “What if the Church is comprised of a series of extended and related family units?” There was a time when that was not as far fetched as it is today. Second, it is not clear that the relationships within a Christian Church are more important than the relationships to and within Christian family.  It is certainly not clear when the Christian church in question has departed from the faith as much as the Church in the West has done. Thirdly, as God alone is absolute, loyalty to Him trumps both loyalty to the family or to the visible institutional Church when there is a contradiction between God and family or God and the visible church.

When DVD writes, “Family is clearly not the most important thing in Scripture. Our relationships to and within the church are ultimately more important than our family relationships,” it is like saying that “Our Right legs are clearly not the most important thing in walking. Our relationship with and to our left legs are ultimately more important than our relationship to our right legs.” It is a false dichotomy. It presupposes a false dualism. It is a false creation of a hyphenated life. One needs to note here that it is in the family where catechism is supposed to happen (Deut. 6).  It is the family where children first learn about covenantal government. In the family children begin to form an idea of God via God’s parental covenant representatives. The home is the child’s first notion of heaven. None of this is to say that the Church is less important than family. It is only to say that the family and the Church are equally ultimate before God who is alone absolute. DVD’s insistence to the contrary has introduced a false dichotomy in the thinking of Christians.  This is the fruit of R2K thinking where the Kingdom is only applicable to Church life.

No one doubts the passages that DVD cites as teaching that loyalty to the Lord Christ is above loyalty to family but what DVD glosses over in those passages he cites is that those passages are not teaching loyalty to the visible Church as being equal to loyalty to the Lord Christ. They are teaching loyalty to Christ above the highest competing loyalty in existence imaginable, whether that loyalty would be to family or to the visible Church. It is interesting though that Christ chose “loyalty to family” as the highest competing loyalty in existence imaginable that might conflict with loyalty to Himself as opposed to choosing membership in the “Israel of God” at that time.  My objection here is that DVD is conflating loyalty to the visible institutional Church with loyalty to the God of the Bible. In these time they are seldom the same. Really, to put this kind of emphasis on loyalty to the visible institutional Church, apart from seriously needed qualifications borders on a cult like loyalty towards the visible institutional Church.

If family is only penultimate vis-a-vis the Church then what are all those genealogies doing in the Bible? God’s inspired writers certainly saw that family was important.  If family is disintegrated in heaven then why does Jesus tell a parable where Lazarus cries out for relief to “Father Abraham” who is in heaven? If family is only penultimate how was it a source of comfort when the prophetess Huldah told Josiah he would be “gathered to his fathers” (2 Kgs. 22:20)? What comfort would there be if he could not recognize his “fathers”? Was he to dwell in eternity, among his own family, as a total stranger? If family is penultimate then why are the leaves of the trees, in the eschaton, for the healing of the Nations? If family is penultimate why is it important that, in the eschaton, the Lord Christ remains “The Son of David?”

Consistent with this observation is the desire of DVD to have it both ways. On one hand family relationships disappear in the eschaton, while on the other hand DVD still insists that in the eschaton we will still think in familial categories. DVD offers, “There will be only one family in heaven, made up of millions of brothers and sisters—with Jesus as our husband (Eph. 5:25-32) and brother (Heb. 2:11-12).” But if family is only temporal, per DVD, then how is it that we will still be able to think in temporal categories in the eternal realm? Words like “Brothers” and “sisters,” and “husbands” don’t retain any meaning unless their originating referent point remains operative.  In a eschaton where familial categories no longer exists thinking of someone as a “Husband” or a “Brother” is the same thinking of them as a “dxils” or a “mizeek.”

When DVD says, “Every Christian will enter heaven single” I hear more of John Locke then I do St. John. How very Libertarian of him. Now, let no one mistake me to be saying that our salvation is not by Grace alone. Instead let me be heard to be saying that such a anarchistic atomization and individualization of heaven as offered here by DVD could only happen to someone who has both been stripped of their Reformed covenantal sensibilities and has bellied up to the bar for too many Boilermakers at St. Locke’s bar and grill.  Scripture teaches we are gathered to Christ because the promise was to the Fathers and to their children (that embarrassing family language again) and as many as the Lord God called. Gathered by households on Earth there is no reason to think the idea of household disappears  when entering the eschatological household of God.

It is not often when one can read a piece by a Reformed Doctor of the Church that is both too Romish, too Libertarian and too Gnostic all at the same time but DVD has accomplished just that.  Of course all of this is primarily driven by DVD’s

1.) R2K theology that commands that families cannot and must not be considered “Christian.”

2.) R2K theology which insists that the “Kingdom of God” is limited and defined only in the context of the Institutional Church.

3.) R2K hard dualism that sees little or no continuity between this life and the life to come.

4.) Embrace of Lockean social theory as extended to defining the eschaton where atomized individuals only exist

Much much more could be said in refuting  DVD’s article. I think I could easily squeeze three more essays in refuting the details of his meanderings but enough has been said in order to point out the errors in this R2K version of Christianity.  In the end, if we fail to emphasize the Biblical model of the Family, given the times we are living in it will not only be the Christian family that goes into a long dark age but it will be the Christian Church also that continues in its already long established dark age residency.

 

 

 

 

 

John 15:1-8; Vinedresser, Vine, and Fruitful Branches

Text — John 15:1-8
Broadest Context — Re-capitulation
Broader Context — Johannine “I am” discourses
Narrow Context — Upper Room Discourse … Last teachings before Cross in John

“I am Statements of John”

1. Bread

“I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger.” John 6:35

2. Light

“I am the light of the world; he who fallows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12

3. Gate

“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9

4. Good Shepherd

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11

5. Resurrection and Life

“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” John 11:25

6. Way, Truth, Life

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6

7. True vine

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1

The fundamental role of the “I am” statements is to reveal the person of Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and imagery. We should note that when Christ speaks of Himself as “The Vine” He is taking upon Himself the supreme symbol of Israel. This is seen in the great golden vine that trailed over the Temple porch. Further, when Israel would revolt against Rome after Christ’s death it would be the vine that they stamped on their coinage.

Israel itself was often compared in the Old Testament to a vine (Hosea 10:1-2, Isaiah 5:1-7, Jeremiah 2:21, Ezekiel 15:1-5, 17:1-21, 19:10-15, Psalm 80:8-18). The overwhelming preponderance of  the Old Testament passages which use the symbol of the Vine appear to regard Israel as faithless or as the object of severe punishment. So, just as when the Lord Christ speaks of Himself as “the good shepherd,” in contrast to faithless shepherds of Hebrew establishment leadership up till His arrival, so now He speaks of Himself as the “true vine” in contrast to the false vine of failed Israel. Just as the Good Shepherd gives His Life for the sheep so the true vine is the Life for the branches unto the reproduction of Christ in the branches.  Mixing the metaphors of the Good Shepherd and the True Vine we might say that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the Sheep to the end that, as the True Vine, He might reproduce Himself in His people.

All of this reminds us that it is Christ Himself who put Himself as the central reality in the Christian faith. It is Christ as the Good shepherd who takes upon Himself our death and it is Christ as the True Vine who nourishes life within us. Christ is the central truth of Christianity. Note here that it is not the Lord Christ as our great moral example to follow that is emphasized with these metaphors but it is the Lord Christ who gives His life for the Sheep and as the one in whom the nourishment of life is found that is emphasized.  This means that those “Theologies” that focus on our work in following Christ’s moral example, to the neglect of  articulating Christ’s work on our behalf and for us are “Theologies” that are not Biblical.

We would also note that while the Good Shepherd emphasizes the work of the Christ for the Sheep, the True Vine emphasizes the work of Christ in the branches. The Good Shepherd emphasizes the mission of Christ. The True Vine emphasizes the mission of the branches (Fruitfulness) as in the True vine.

These “I am” statements of John’s Gospel as well as other motifs that we find in the Gospels remind us again that there is much in the life of Christ, as given in the Gospels, that communicates recapitulation. Christ, as God’s faithful Son, recapitulates with victory, where God’s faithless Son Israel failed. Christ is the Israel of God and was all  God called faithless Israel to be. OT Israel was to be a Good Shepherd … it was to be a True Vine but it failed of its calling. The Lord Christ is the True Israel of God and in gathering to Himself the Church (Branches) as reconstituted Israel the mission work of God’s people is taken up again in the Church’s call to be a light to the Nations.

And it is this idea of Mission, as we shall see, that is emphasized in this passage. Christ recreates Himself in His people just as the vine recreates itself in the fruit of the Branches. As the Lord Christ is our sustenance what is produced in us, as the fruit of the vine, is the Character of Christ. And that Character of Christ is to the end that God is glorified (John 15:8).  Think about this for just a moment. As the fruit of the branches, drawing its life from the vine, we reproduce the Character of Christ. This is axiomatic. We become that which we draw our life source from.

Now, if the Character of Christ is the incarnation of God’s Grace and God’s Law that means that what is recreated in us, who abide in Christ, is God’s Grace / Law.  As we abide in Christ we become living and breathing instantiations of God’s Grace and God’s Law. It might be bold to say it but we increasingly become embodied Scripture as we, as branches, draw our nourishment from Christ the Vine.

Well having now drawn together some threads of thought from the passage as it is informed by its broader context, let us turn directly to the text.

I.) The Occasion

We should keep before us that this “I am” statement was spoken during the evening of the Passover meal and more precisely either during or shortly after the the institution of the Lord Table.  On that night the company of Christ would have had before them the lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine (wine.)

The lamb, the bread, and the fruit of the vine. In John’s Gospel the Lord Christ is spoken of repeatedly as the great embodiment of the Symbology of Israel. John the Baptist spoke of Christ as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World.”  The Lord Christ spoke of Himself saying that “I am the bread that comes down from heaven,” and now here Christ says “I am the true vine.” Perhaps He said this prior to saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

It is interesting to note the association. We understand that  the Wine at the Table is the elixir of eternal life when we drink in faith but at the same time we are to recall that we ourselves find only find life as we abide in Christ as a branch to a Vine.

II.) The Participants

Father — Vine-Dresser
Christ — Vine — Giver of life
Church — Branches — Receiver of Life … bearers of fruit

Note the harmony of interests between the Vine-dresser and the Vine. They are both interested in producing fruit. We might note this harmony of interest between the Father and the Son points us again towards a Trinitarian understanding of the harmony of interests that exists between the members of the Trinity. They always work in concert together.

By this Vine-Dresser / Vine Metaphor the Lord Christ is affirming His equality in essence with the Father.  We affirm this by acknowledging that in this metaphor, both vine and Vine-dresser — Father & Son) are source and sustainer of the life of the Branch.

Yet the Lord Christ is also emphasizing the fundamental difference in His role and that of the Father. The point is that the Father cares for the Son and for those joined to the Son by faith. Thus we see in this passage the Unity of the Father and the Son and the diversity of roles of the Father and the Son. We see then the continued reliance of the Son upon the Father. The Son see’s Himself as the agent of the Father. His concern is for the glory of the Father but as we know the glory of the Father is reflected upon the Son.  We thus see here again the unity of purpose between the Father and the Son.

The Father, as the owner of the Vineyard, does what it takes in order to insure that the vineyard produces fruit. We should remind ourselves that this is really the emphasis of this passage. The passage is concerned with insisting that fruit production and the Father is the one responsible for the care of the vineyard to that end.

Well, what does the Father do? (Read vs. 2)

The text says (vs. 2) “He takes them away.” However, I’m not confident that what is being aimed at here is the same that is aimed at in vs. 6 where the unfruitful branches are gathered up and burned.  The Greek word here can be translated also as “Lifts up” or as “purgeth.”

If it should be translated as “lift up” the idea communicated is seen by what was often done by Vindressers in the ancient world. Often the branches would run along the ground and get diseased by mildew as the dew would not dry soon enough off the branch. In such a case the Vinedresser would take several thin shale rocks and build up a small elevation in order to place the branch upon it so as to expose it more readily to the sun in order to heal it.

If it should be translated “purgeth” (as in the Geneva Bible) the idea would be pruning.  Branches that don’t produce fruit are pruned back to the end that they would produce  fruit. This idea of pruning is painful to think about.  What would a plant say if it could talk during the pruning process? And yet God prunes us as His people to the end that we might better produce fruit for the Kingdom that His Name might be honored.

If and when the pruning seasons come in our lives we must keep in mind during the pruning that,

11  No chastising for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: but afterward, it bringeth the quiet fruit of righteousness, unto them which are thereby exercised.

In either case the idea is that the Vinedresser will do whatever it takes in order for His branches to produce fruit.

The passage also says that the Vindresser cleanses.

Peeling off the old crusty dead bark where disease and damaging insects might hide.

Christ informs the disciples that they are clean because of the Word Christ has spoken. This idea of cleansing reaches back to 13:10 where, in this same “Upper Room Discourse” the Lord Christ says,

10 Jesus said to him, He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

This cleansing doubtless refers to the fact that the Disciples had faith in Christ as the Word.

III.) Branches necessity to Abide and be Fruitful

Both John’s Gospel and 1st Epistle as this theme of “abiding.” We find this idea of abiding 118 times in the NT … 64 of those occurrences are in John. Such frequency and focus supports understanding the word “abide” as an synonym a mutually defining word for “believe.” Together “believing” and “abiding” point both to the reality of “life in Christ” and to the characterization of that life not in some hope of a future reunion in heaven, but to the promise of that abundant life in the here and now. In this passage the verb abide like the phrase bear fruit appears over and over — eight times in four verses here — and will be repeated in part two of the passage next week when we learn that abiding in Jesus means abiding in Jesus’ love.

So, to abide is to believe on Christ and to continue in faith, the same word Jesus used in John 8:31: “If ye continue (abide, remain) in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed”. Paul said to Timothy: “But continue (remain. abide) thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:14-15). To abide in Christ is to continue believing and obeying the Word of the Gospel.

Perhaps the reason why it is emphasized that we are to abide is because as Christians we are

Prone to wander, Lord I feel it
Prone to leave the one I love.

As the Branches we are to go from abiding to abiding … from belief unto belief and this abiding and believing is connected to the work of the Word in us (7). Notice, Christ here the Incarnated Word, points to Himself as the Inscripturated Word as the means by which we abide. This is one reason why we attend the Word with each passing Lord’s Day. The intent of our assembling here is that Word might be preached into us that we might go from abiding unto abiding.

So, what is highlighted by the text is the necessity to abide in Christ. Bringing fruit is not a result of personal human effort, but of abiding in Christ.44 The natural, human self can never bring forth the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Believers are called to abide in Christ the same way Christ abides in his heavenly relationship to the Father. They are indeed one single being. Left on their own and by their own power, Christians can do nothing. This is why Jesus says here “for apart from me ye can do nothing” (15:5)

Next we go on to see that the the overwhelming thrust of the passage is fruitfulness. The words bear fruit appear six times in these eight verses. Fruit-bearing is not something that the branches do by force of will. The fruit happens organically because the vine is true and the gardener good. But the branches of this passage do choose to abide.

Now when we speak of Fruit here we needs be careful that we see this text in its largest context. The thrust of this passage is the renewal of the Mission of Israel. Israel was to be God’s light to the Nations. Thus fruitfulness here, in this context,  does not primarily have to do with our inward relationship with the Lord Christ, though that is not entirely absent (see vs. 10, 12, 17). The primary emphasis is the objective missionary impulse of spreading the Gospel to the Nations and extending the Crown Rights of King Christ into every area of life. The disciples would be sent into the world to carry on the task of Christianizing the World (i.e. — Discipling the Nations). This is the fruitfulness in mind.

So when we stand for Christ against opposition we are being fruitful. When we build beautiful community for the world to see we are being fruitful. When we evangelize and and when we give a reason for the hope that lies within us we are being fruitful. When we shut the mouths of God’s enemies with a Spirit inspired apologetic we are being fruitful. When we die to the desires of personal glory and rewards so that the Gospel is not embarrassed we are being fruitful. When the character of Christ is reproduced in us to the end of extending Gospel and His Crown Rights we are being fruitful.

All of this is bearing of much fruit so that the Father is glorified (vs. 8)

IV.) The Branches burned up

So we’ve seen the importance of the Christian’s life, which must bear fruit. Should a life be fruitless, that life will be rewarded with punishment. The New Testament clearly explains that the fruit is a sign of the true Christian.

Think Judas

Not all of Israel is of Israel

Wheat and Tares

Matthew 13 — Seed sown that produces plant but no fruit … it is the fruit that identifies the plant as genuine.

Outward attachment to the covenant vs. Inward attachment to the covenant.

Quoting Rev. Mahan

“Many people today have a religion that is outward, external, and formal. It is possible to join a church, give money, sing hymns, confess the Creeds, pray prayers, listen to sermons, partake of the Sacrament, and speak openly about religion with no grace in your heart or inward work of the Holy Spirit.”

I would add here that it is possible to mount a pulpit every Sunday and not abide. It is possible to go to be considered part of the leadership in a Denomination and not be abiding.

Continuing to quote Lutheran Mahan,

“The Christian faith is the new birth by faith in Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus said to the church at Sardis: “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent” (Rev. 3:1-3a). You have two choices, either you will abide in Christ by faith in this life or one day you will be separated from true believers and like withered branches, be gathered and cast into everlasting fire.”

Conclusion

Re-cap

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justifying Sodomite Marriage … McAtee Analyzing Ginsbur

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Here we find this the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG), using a mere five sentences to explain, in oral arguments yesterday, her opinion, as to exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality.

We should note here,

1.) If we accept her tacit presuppositions the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG) is right. If one posits an egalitarian (vis-a- vis Patriarchal) foundation for Marriage then sodomite “marriage” makes perfect sense. This reminds us that the contest here must be waged at the presuppositional level. This debate is not primarily about sodomite “marriage.” This debate is about what worldview sodomite “marriage” can exist in in order to be seen as rational.

2.) In order to tease #1 above out it is necessary to observe that LG explicitly begins with the premise that marriage is a man made institution dictated by social and political circumstances. She argues that marriage once operated one way but men changed the way it operated and now, because this man controlled institution changed to become egalitarian, it can now change to become non gender specific.

Of course the problem here is that Christians do not agree that marriage is a man made institution. Marriage, because it is God ordained and defined, cannot be changed in its definition, like a wax nose, in order to satisfy the most current wandering lust of modern Luciferians. Unless we challenge sodomite “marriage” thinking at the presuppositional level of “who gets to define ‘marriage’ sodomite “marriage” will become legal.

3.) #1 and #2 together remind us that this decision is all about religion in the public square. It reminds us that it is not possible to separate Church and State. If SCOTUS requires the legality of sodomite “marriage” in all 50 states it will be due to the religious presupposition that man, playing God, can redefine words and create fiat meaning at the bang of a gavel. Such a decision would provide clear linkage proving that Church and State are never segregated. Conversely, if SCOTUS rules that the meaning of marriage is static and unchangeable that also will be due to some a-priori, (even if left un-articulated in the decision) religious presupposition.

4.) Note how clever LG is when she uses the language of “a millennium ago.”   She is trying to make it sound as if 1000 years ago marriage was one way but now, being so much smarter, marriage is another way for us moderns. However, the fact of the matter is that all this change has happened not over the course of a millennium ago but over the course of just a few decades. Indeed, when LG was married in 1956 the marriage laws then were far closer to a millennium ago then to what she envisions marriage transforming into.

5.) LG uses the term “egalitarian”, but imports her leftist meaning into it. She was talking about old “coverture” laws that provided no property rights to women. She thinks the very nature of man/woman is one of *improper* subordination. We can argue about whether the change ditching coverture law was good/bad/indifferent, but that change occurred in the context of man/woman as fundamental foundation of the relationship. What we are dealing with today is altogether different. It is one thing to tinker around the fringes of marriage amending coverture laws. It is quite another to allow the fringe element of society to redefine marriage.

6.) Note LG rightly defines what marriage once was which she is seeking to change. She is entirely accurate when she describe that marriage used to be defined as a dominant-subordinate relationship between the husband and wife. This is exactly how God’s word describes marriage (Eph. 5). However has the words “dominant” and “subordinate” have been so vilified even Christians cringe when they think of marriage like God defines it.

7.) Allow me to say again that as long as the Left’s presuppositions hold sway their conclusion (“sodomite marriage”) will be impossible to stop. LG’s beginning point (Man as the definer of what marriage is and means) her argumentation used to prove that beginning point, and her ending point arrived at (sodomites should be allowed to “marry,”) is all bound up together. 

Watching The Cultural Gatekeepers Go Mad

The defenders of homosexual marriage continue to equate it with interracial marriage.

Here is a blurb from an exchange between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when—when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

1.) Inasmuch as Scalia agrees concerning the evolution of interracial marriage from illegality to legality I’m not sure how Scalia can disagree that social evolution continues so as to include sodomite marriage. I mean, if the 14th amendment made a illegality a legality why can it not be determined that the 14th amendment also allows for the next step forward in the evolutionary cycle?

2.) Note that Olson’s invoking of the “evolutionary cycle” as a grounds for ever changing law reminds us that, it is the case now in the West, that law has no stable meaning. Law is no longer a transcendent category that is to be only recognized but never invented. This admission by Olson is a explicit embrace of the idea that we are ruled by men and not by laws.

3.) In the area of Law men like Christopher Columbus Langdell, Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo moved the discipline of law away from its Biblical moorings evinced in Puritan Commonwealth documents like “Abstract of the Laws of New England,” towards standards that evinced a humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic and Statist paradigm. In the late 1800’s Langdell did yeoman’s work moving law training away from a century of Lawyers in America concentrating on what the Constitution said to Darwinian inspired notions of where the law was perceived to be moving (case law training). By Langdell’s work the Constitution came to be seen to be evolving under the guidance of an imperial judiciary.

4.) With the law ever moving in a “evolutionary cycle” this means that yesterday’s criminals are tomorrow’s innovators in the law. In this worldview criminals are only those who are now where the rest of society will one day be.  Criminals are the moral and legal harbingers of the next evolutionary cycle in the law.

In another exchange we hear Justice Roberts,

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

To which we would answer,

Your Honor, it is only sexual discrimination if you think the definition of Marriage as between one man and one woman is itself discriminatory.  But, I would add, your Honor, that should we conclude that Marriage is discriminatory because it allows only for one man and one woman, we have needs likewise conclude that the fact that only a man can impregnate a woman is discriminatory against women and the fact that only women can conceive children is discriminatory against men.

 

Hillary’s Call To Change

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,”

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.  As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Hillary Clinton
Speech — Women in the World Summit

1.) Politically speaking this quotes represents Hillary playing to the extreme left base. Hillary almost has to say things like this because there are those who could jump into the Democratic Presidential primary contest (i.e. — Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) who could sap Hillary’s support from the lunatic fringe Left (lfl). This isn’t to say that Hillary doesn’t really believe this. It is to say that if she did not feel pressure from the lfl she might not say this kind of radical thing in public.

2.) Note here that we have a full admission of a candidate for President of these united States which explicitly tells us that those who are worldview Biblical Christians much surrender their belief system if they are to be Americans. This is the smoking gun admission that a Biblical Christian will not be allowed their convictions in the public square should they remain in this country.

3.) One can’t help but wonder that if these “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” how is that to be accomplished? Will we have re-education camps? Will we label Christians who have, what they consider to be desiderata beliefs, psychological unstable so that they have to be treated? Will we disallow them to function in the public square until those dangerous Christians get on board?

4.) Of course this requirement for “full participation  of women and girls in every aspect of their societies” does not include those girls who are tortured and murdered in their Mothers wombs. Those girls must not be allowed any participation.

5.) Notice the totalistic aspect of Hillary’s Worldview Feminism. Her worldveiw must cover the globe.

6.) If Hillary is elected we will have for Feminism the next 8 years what we’ve had for “Civil Rights” the previous six under Obama. Instead of minority rights it will be “women’s rights.” The consequence of both is the advancement of the Cultural Marxist Revolution — a Revolution that seeks to unravel what little is left of Christendom in the West.

7.) One wonders how R2K ministers handle this? Hillary is calling for these changes in beliefs as those beliefs affect the public square. I suppose R2K ministers could challenger Hillary by telling her that their Christian beliefs don’t have anything to do with what Hillary is concerned about and that she can go ahead an change away.