Author Archive
Worship is warfare (5)
National defense:
“Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest. You shall observe the Feast of Weeks, the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year’s end. Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year. (Exodus 34:21–24 ESV)
See also: Worship is warfare (4), etc.
A child forever
When I think of the small passions of men of our day, the softness of their mores, the extent of their enlightenment, the purity of their religion, the mildness of their morality, their laborious and steady habits, the restraint that almost all preserve in vice as in virtue, I do not fear that in their chiefs they will find tyrants, but rather schoolmasters.
I think therefore that the kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing that has preceded it in the world; our contemporaries would not find its image in their memories. I myself seek in vain an expression that exactly reproduces the idea that I form of it for myself and that contains it; the old words despotism and tyranny are not suitable. The thing is new, therefore I must try to define it, since I cannot name it.
I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself alone, and if a family still remains for him, one can at least say that he no longer has a native country.
Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industries, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?
So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of free will from each citizen. Equality has prepared men for all these things: it has disposed them to tolerate them and often even to regard them as a benefit.
Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, volume 2, book 4, chapter 6
HT: Brad Hodges
No longer under a guardian
Applying God’s commands requires wisdom.
Consider Romans 13. How shall we subject ourselves to governing authorities (Romans 13) when they reject or neglect God, when they have become a terror or nuisance, not to bad conduct, but to good conduct?
If there is ever an outright conflict, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), but not all cases are so simple. Sometimes different authorities are in conflict: the statute says one thing but the magistrate says another. In these cases we may make appeals; or one magistrate may empower us to disobey another, such as bringing a case before a judge. In many cases we simply submit to unjust authority (Matthew 17:24–27, 22:15–22), trusting for final vindication from “him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2).
But God has also set out for us a pattern of righteous deception in the face of unjust rule. By their deception, the Hebrew midwives saved lives (Exodus 1). Moses was concealed in a basket (Exodus 2) and so was Paul (Acts 9). Abraham and Isaac both used righteous deception to protect the mother of the seed from the Egyptians and Philistines (Genesis 12, 20, 26). Luther held (and I agree) that Jacob and Rachel righteously deceived Isaac and Esau. Gideon hid wheat from the tax man (Judges 6); and Saul, Jonathan, and David did not have their firearm permits in order (1 Samuel 13, 21). David hid from and deceived Saul (foreshadowing Jesus’s messianic secret); and he hid from and conspired to deceive his son Absalom.
Much of how we think about this could be prudential: counting the cost of what is likely to be discovered, punished, and how (Ecclesiastes 9: “a living dog is better than a dead lion”), but also and especially considering what will bring the greatest advantage to the church and kingdom. Peter escaped jail when he had the opportunity in Acts 12, but Paul and Silas remained in jail in Acts 16. Our greatest heroes are men who valued God’s kingdom over their own lives. Paul knowingly exchanged his life for the sake of the kingdom with his submissive appeal to Caesar. The case of Daniel 6 and the decree of Darius is an equally notable sacrificial act of disobedience. Daniel could have easily modified his regular worship to avoid discovery, and without sinning, but he did not do so at all; in fact the text gives us the impression of haste on Daniel’s part to disobey the decree. God blessed his faithful disobedience, using it as a great occasion of public witness.
Romans 14 requires wisdom as well. Now, I take it for granted that believers may not despise one another and must walk with love and complete patience (2 Tim 4, 1 Thess 5) toward one another, whether we are strong or weak. What I want to consider is this: who is the weak man, and how might we cause him to stumble?
Setting aside for a moment the question of the weak man, we see that bearing with one another is a complex question: there are cases where Paul advises us not to eat (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, 10), and cases where he requires us to eat (1 Corinthians 11, Galatians 2). There are cases where he will not circumcise someone (Galatians 2) and cases where he will (Acts 16). Clearly the right principle here is not to simply go with the flow. Paul wants us to “please our neighbor for his good, to build him up” (Romans 15:2), but this does not mean that we please every whim arbitrarily, because he immediately reminds us that it might result in our suffering reproach (v. 3).
Looking carefully at Romans 14, we see that our actions might be a “stumbling block or a hindrance” (v. 13), which might “grieve” our brother (v. 15). The actual stumbling occurs “by what he eats” (v. 20), that is, the weak brother. This process is more clear in 1 Corinthians 8, where weak brothers “eat food as really offered to an idol” (v. 7), and are “encouraged [by our example] to eat food offered to idols” (v. 10). So what Paul has in mind in these passages is that we should not partake of a Christian freedom where a new believer might be tempted to follow our example and be led back into sin or idolatry. The words for stumbling and offense both seem to have this fairly narrow meaning (compare 1 Peter 2:8; this passage is interesting because it highlights that there is a kind of strong–willed stumbling and offense that cannot be avoided).
This stumbling is a much more narrow case than the way we often casually speak of the “weaker brother,” but of course it is not the only case where God wants us to relinquish our freedom. Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians 9 to exhort us to “endure anything” for the sake of the gospel, and in 1 Corinthians 10 to not allow our Christian freedom to lead either a weak believer or unbeliever to stumble into sin. But remembering that Paul behaved differently in different circumstances, we recognize that wisdom is still required for us to understand a situation and discern what words and actions will bring about our brother’s and neighbor’s good, and will build him up. Today the case of the young believer tempted back into idolatry is somewhat rare in our circles. We can think of several additional cases that may require varying responses:
1. There may be a brother who rejects our own behavior in a disputable matter, but is not tempted to follow us in it. This brother’s conscience is actually strong; he is not the weak brother of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, so there is no need for either strong brother to voluntarily suspend their freedoms. Of course, neither may we be obnoxious; Paul’s exhortations to be fully convinced, but not to judge or despise, remain applicable. If either brother despises or rejects the other, he is liable to be walking out of step with the gospel as in 1 Corinthians 11 and Galatians 2. It is one thing to be personally scrupulous; it is quite another to be scrupulous on behalf of your brother.
2. There may be a brother who is actually injured or inconvenienced by our freedom. This is not a case of the weaker brother, but it is obvious that love may call us to joyfully “endure anything,” whether we alter the food we serve, the fragrance we wear, do a deep vacuuming before extending hospitality, etc.
3. We live in an anxious time, and there are sometimes cases where a brother has an unfounded fear of our freedom. Perhaps he fears that our freedom will reflect poorly on him, or that it will injure him or another. Although this brother may be beset with anxiety, he is not weak or grieved in the Romans 14 sense of being tempted to abandon the faith. It is better to think of him as immature. This clarifies what will be for his good, especially if we have some degree of spiritual authority in his life. The sin of anxiety is a fire: the more you accommodate it, the more you inadvertently fuel it. The parent whose only tool is to avoid his child’s fears and anxieties will have a child forever. Comparing Daniel 1, although there are a number of interpretations of why Daniel refuses the king’s food, it is clear that the chief of staff feared for his life and also that Daniel had great faith that this fear was unfounded. Although there was no clear command from God for his dietary practice, Daniel worked, urgently but patiently, to contradict the fear rather than cater to it.
Of course, this simple taxonomy does not exhaust the many factors we must consider: we ought to have a healthy sense of proportion; it may make a difference whether we are considering to give something up versus add something new; it may make a difference whether our neighbor is a believer or an unbeliever; things may be complicated (or clarified) if we are in authority or, as in Daniel’s case, under authority. In all cases, love and patience and humility must be guiding us.
May God grant us wisdom!
Semper reformanda
Understand that the glory of God and the good of others are ever the twin purposes of moral action, and that the merely good or permissible must never be allowed to obstruct the quest for the best.
ESV Study Bible, “Biblical Ethics: An Overview”
Assembly
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12:22–24 ESV)
The church is not analogous to a movie theater or sporting event. The church is analogous to the general assembly. Where the general assembly can meet to conduct business, the church must also be meeting to conduct business with her king. The life of the world depends upon this.
A week’s answer, or none
‘Hullo, Sam!’ Said Rosie. ‘Where’ve you been? They said you were dead; but I’ve been expecting you since the Spring. You haven’t hurried, have you?’
‘Perhaps not,’ said Sam abashed. ‘But I’m hurrying now. We’re setting about the ruffians, and I’ve got to get back to Mr. Frodo. But I thought I’d have a look and see how Mrs. Cotton was keeping, and you, Rosie.’
‘We’re keeping nicely, thank you,’ said Mrs. Cotton. ‘Or should be, if it weren’t for these thieving ruffians.’
‘Well, be off with you!’ said Rosie. ‘If you’ve been looking after Mr. Frodo all this while, what d’you want to leave him for, as soon as things look dangerous?’
This was too much for Sam. It needed a week’s answer, or none. He turned away and mounted his pony. But as he started off, Rosie ran down the steps.
‘I think you look fine, Sam,’ she said. ‘Go on now! But take care of yourself, and come straight back as soon as you have settled the ruffians!’
Tolkien, “The Scouring of the Shire,” The Return of the King
Klaas Schilder
Schilder’s response was not to plead submission in the name of Romans 13. Other churches, like the Netherlands Reformed congregations, reluctantly did. Schilder constantly opposed the Nazis, one of his final articles having the headline, “Leave your hiding-place. Don your uniform.” Schilder appealed to international law to oppose them, and he used his pen constantly, especially from May to August 1940 to point out the anti-Christian ideology of national socialism. The magazine had earlier been put on the black list in Germany and censored, but in Holland it was sold at station kiosks. The last straw was when he wrote in that “Don your uniform” article in August 1940 these words, “Authority and power, fortunately, remain two different things. Eventually the antichrist shall keep the latter and the church the former. And after that, the day of the great harvest comes. Come, Lord of the harvest, yes come quickly, come over the English Channel and over the Brenner Pass, come via Malta and Japan, yes, come from the ends of the earth, and bring along your pruning-knife, and be merciful to your people; it is well authorised, but only through you, through you alone, at your eternal good pleasure.”
Geoff Thomas, Banner of Truth, January 1999
Van Til
Kees [Cornelius] loved the soil. That was a characteristic he never lost. Even in older years he enjoyed that. He always loved to visit farming country and to see what was being done in the production of crops. At his home at 16 Rich Avenue in Flourtown, he always had a large garden from which they ate all summer and canned much of what that garden produced. . . .
My Mother was very concerned about having such a great man be with us for several weeks. What would he be like and what would his demands be? That question was answered the first morning after breakfast when Oome [Uncle] Kees got up from the table and picked up the dishes, walked into the kitchen, put on my Mother’s apron and began doing the dishes. This we later learned was a task he joyfully did in his own home, chattering as he worked. My Mother knew then, Oome Kees was a very down to earth person and would fit into the family well. . . .
As mentioned above, Oome Kees loved the farm. When he was at our house, at least every week he would go with my grandfather to see what the sons and son-in-laws were doing each of the farms. My grandfather probably never had more than a sixth grade education but he was well read and would discuss with Oome Kees those developments which were taking place in the Netherlands and the development in the thinking of G. C. Berkouwer. Grandpa was aware of the thesis of Dr. Alexander de Jong and wanted to discuss it with Oome Kees. These discussions were a regular occurrence between these two as they did “roadside farming.”
Robert den Dulk, Banner of Truth, March 2001
Regulations
The question at once arises whether medieval thinkers really believed that what we now call inanimate objects were sentient and purposive. The answer in general is undoubtedly no. I say ‘in general’, because they attributed life and even intelligence to one privileged class of objects (the stars) which we hold to be inorganic. . . .
If we could ask the medieval scientist ‘Why, then, do you talk as if they did,’ he might (for he was always a dialectician) retort with the counter-question, ‘But do you intend your language about laws and obedience any more literally than I intend mine about kindly enclyning? Do you really believe that a falling stone is aware of a directive issued to it by some legislator and feels either a moral or a prudential obligation to conform? We should then have to admit that both ways of expressing the facts are metaphorical. The odd thing is that ours is the more anthropomorphic of the two. To talk as if inanimate bodies had a homing instinct is to bring them no nearer to us than the pigeons; to talk as if they could ‘obey laws’ is to treat them like men and even like citizens.
But though neither statement can be taken literally, it does not follow that it makes no difference which is used. On the imaginative and emotional level it makes a great difference whether, with the medievals, we project upon the universe our strivings and desires, or with the moderns, our police-system and our traffic regulations.
C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, 93-94
I gotta have my orange juice. 