culture

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Prophet Amos

/ theroadofgrace / 32 Comments

In the last blog, we examined the public theology of John the Baptist who was the last Old Testament prophet. A question that we asked concerning our discussion was: Did John the Baptist operate according to the principles outlined for us in these days? In other words, are John the Baptist’s actions in the gospel accounts normative for the Church? In our article, we argued that there was much that we, as the Church, can learn from John the Baptist’s interaction with the religious leaders and the Roman leaders of his day. In this blog, we are going to examine another Old Testament prophet who dealt with numerous matters of social injustice in his time – the prophet Amos. This blog will primarily answer three questions: (1) How did Amos respond to the culture in his day? (2) Is his response to the culture normative to the church?

A Word of Caution

We must first start this discussion with a statement of caution. With regards to Amos, we must keep in mind that Amos is writing in a time when Israel was still supposed to function as a theocracy within its borders, both geographical and ethnic. In other words, Israel was still formally under the Mosaic covenant as the moral law and the law of the land. This fact governs our interpretation and application of the prophet Amos. This point is discussed in Chapter 19, Paragraphs 3-5 in the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

  1. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away. (Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:17; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 2:14, 16, 17; Ephesians 2:14, 16 )

  2. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use. (1 Corinthians 9:8-10)

  3. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Paragraph 4 is most relevant to our discussion. Based its scriptural justification, Paragraph 4 suggests that the general equity of the civil and ceremonial law applies most pointedly to the covenant community of the church, not unbelieving civil magistrates, since Christ’s first advent. However, Paragraph 5 states that moral law binds all persons, whether it is the church or unbelieving magistrates. Whatever principles we apply from the prophet Amos to the culture at large must keep these considerations in mind.

The Background

Amos was a shepherd from a rural area in Judah whom God called to preach at Israel’s royal sanctuary. His prophesying took place during the reign of Jeroboam II and lasted only a few days. Amos found in Israel great social extremes of comfortable prosperity and abject poverty. His message was against the wealthy. The poor were being exploited and cheated. Merchants were greedy and dishonest. The judicial system was corrupt. There was religious arrogance, as well, and even the attempt to corrupt some of the religious leaders. In essence, affluence had lulled the wealthy into such apathy that they refused to recognize the sickness of their society. Amos’ warning to the worshipers at Bethel was that, because of their sins, destruction was coming upon them from both Egypt and Assyria, a prophecy all the more bold because the international scene was relatively quiet, and Assyria was still in a period of decline. Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, made it clear to Amos that he was not welcome and that he should go home to his own country. Amos refused to back down, explaining that he was not a professional prophet, but he was there solely because God had sent him.

The Judgments on the Nations

Before addressing the sins of the covenant community, Amos delivers a series of six oracles from God, showing that no one can escape the consequences of his action. Hence, the major theme of the nations is the universal justice of God.

Amos pronounces his first oracle to Damascus in 1:3-4. In using the picture of separating grain kernels from their hulls, Amos says that Syria has treated the people of Gilead as though they were nothing but a pile of grain, crushing them to the ground. For this ill-treatment and extreme cruelty of the people, the Syrians were being sent back to where they started (Kir) with nothing to show for the intervening years.

The next three oracles deals with how the surrounding nations dealt with the capture and sale of Israelites during the reign of Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:16-17). Amos pronounces his second oracle to the Philistines in 1:6-8. The Philistines are condemned for selling a whole population of Israelites into slavery. In his third oracle, Tyre is accused of the same inhumanity as the Philistines in 1:9-10, but it is considered more heinous because they repudiated the covenant of brotherhood with Israel. In his fourth oracle in 1:11-12, Edom is judged for their perpetual and implacable anger, which extended at least as far back as Israel’s journey from the wilderness to the plains of Moab.

The next two oracles demonstrate the fact that the judgments on the nation is not due to ethnicity, but on the basis of the universal judgment of God. In the fifth oracle, the Ammonites are accused of a horrific human rights atrocity – they have “ripped open pregnant women in Gilead that they might enlarge their border”. This particular atrocity was also practiced by Hazael of Syria (2 Kings 8:12), Menahem of Israel (2 Kings 15:16), and Assyria (Hosea 13:16) with the intended goal of eliminating descendants who might try to reclaim the land. In the sixth oracle, Moab is accused of burning the bones of the King of Edom, which seems to be a sign of special contempt for the Edomites.

In all of these oracles, God brings judgment through the Assyrians via exile or death. From the prophet Amos, the picture is abundantly clear – no person, king, or nation escapes the judgment of God.

The Judgments on the Covenant Community

At this point, one can imagine that Amos’s Israelite hearers were very pleased with his message since he was reinforcing exactly what they believed. The “Day of the Lord” was coming to the godless nations. However, the last, and by far the longest opening oracle is addressed to Israel. Israel is guilty of gross social injustice and sexual immorality.

First, Israel is accused of “selling the righteous for silver and the need for a pair of sandals.” This appears to be a direct reference to the corruption of Israel’s judicial system in which judges are willing to convict the innocent upon payment of a bribe. In the Law, the Lord placed a special concern for needy so that their basic rights are protected (Exodus 23:6; Jeremiah 5:28). However, because of the corruption of the judicial system, the needy are being sold into slavery even for insignificant debts (i.e. “a pair of sandals”). The point here is that Israel committed the same sort of social injustice as the surrounding neighbors and as a consequence, they will also be judged.

Second, Amos decries unbridled sexual immorality in Israel. In Israel, a “man and his father go into the same girl, so that my holy name is profaned.” Such behavior is contrary to the sexual ethics defined in the moral law (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6) and would be otherwise forbidden through the Mosaic law (Leviticus 18:6-18). Their sins of sexual immorality are compounded in that they have slept on clothing taken as pledges for loans to the poor (Amos 2:8). According to the Mosaic Law, such garments are not to be kept overnight (Exodus 22:26; Deuteronomy 24:12-13).

After addressing Israel’s guilt and punishment, Amos turns his indictments to the wealthy citizens of Israel. Amos provides an extensive cataloging of their sins, which includes

  • The matrons of the wealthy Samaritans oppressing the poor and crushing the needy (Amos 4:1).
  • Trampling on the poor and exacting taxes of grain from them to build the own houses of luxury (Amos 5:7, 11).
  • Taking a bribe to afflict the righteous and turning aside the needy in the gate (Amos 5:12).
  • Living in luxurious ease without concern for sin and evil in the land (Amos 6:4-6).
  • Using false balances to unjustly profit from the poor (Amos 8:4-6).

It’s important to note that although each of these social injustices is definitely addressed within the Law of Moses, these sins are not peculiar to the nation of Israel (unlike the sins described towards Judah in Amos 2:4-5) – rather these are basic sins against humanity. These sins are violations of God’s moral law and thus are applicable to all peoples at all times. In particular, it is sinful for any judge to use their position of authority for self-aggrandizement and for their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure. It is required that we should all act truthfully, faithfully, and justly in our contractual and business relationships with our fellow human beings so that we give to all what they deserve, rather than exploiting them. Moreover, we are to make restitution for anything we have unlawfully acquired from its rightful owners. Finally, we must do our best, by all just and lawful means, to acquire, preserve, and increase our own and others’ possessions.

Our Response

Many of the social injustices described in Amos occur within our American society and in our world in general. The basic question is: how should Christians respond to this? I think we can learn much about how we should respond by examining how Amos responded to these things. Amos did not simply call for judgment, but he pleaded with the judges and wealthy.

“Seek good, and not evil that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said. Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate,” (Amos 5:15).

And again

“Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,” (Amos 5:24).

Amos’ response was to address the sin directly and to call the guilty to repentance. Amos is compelled to directly address this sin – “The Lord GOD has spoken, who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3:8). Even when Amaziah the priest tells Amos that he should go back to his own country (Amos 7:12), Amos remains resolute in his call. This is similar today to the idea that Christians should keep the law of God and the Scriptures out of the public sphere and only speak about them among other Christians in church (i.e. the so-called “freedom to worship” vs. “religious liberty” debate).

Some may say that it is not enough to simply call out the gross sins of our culture and to call them to repentance – there must be tangible social activism attached to it. It is at this point in which we can learn much from Amos. Amos is not a professional prophet, nor is he a wealthy Israelite. Amos was simply “a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs” who was called to prophesy to Israel. In dealing with the great social evils around him, Amos realizes that the only weapon that he has is the prophetic Word. He doesn’t have a coalition of faithful Israelites around him who can rally to the cause – all He has is the prophetic Word which he proclaims. Amos reproves the guilty and labors to persuade them of their guilt by the prophetic Word.

The same basic principle applies to the Christians in the public sphere. If we were honest, we would acknowledge that we hold a minority position in our culture. Today, we are not only considered backwards and outdated in our beliefs, but today, our views are considered immoral within our culture. We don’t have tactical allies that we can pull together to change the hearts of people; the weapon that we have is the prophetic Word, which is the written Word. We have the full counsel of God in the written Word – the Law and the Gospel. It is through the Law that we expose the sinfulness of man in the public sphere (such as the social evils that is discussed in Amos); however, it is through the Gospel that we found our deepest motivation to confront our society and that we call men and women out of darkness and into His marvelous light. It is only through the Gospel that lives are transformed by the grace of God. Since Christ is the Great Prophet, the Church is the steward and guardian of both messages and it is His Word that we proclaim, admonishing and warning every man. We confront, exhort, reprove, and persuade every man through His Word, relying on God to accomplish His purposes through it.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – John the Baptist

/ William F. Leonhart III / 30 Comments

Read the first eight posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

_________________________________________________________________

It’s been a long road to get here, but now we move into the section of our discussion of Public Theology where we observe pertinent biblical texts. There are several places in Scripture where one might start but, for our purposes, an examination of the life of John the Baptist will help us to understand some of the more important questions to ask as we proceed. The first glimpse that we see of John’s approach to Public Theology can be found in his interactions with those who came to him for baptism.

“So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. ‘Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.’ And the crowds were questioning him, saying, ‘Then what shall we do?’ And he would answer and say to them, ‘The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.’ And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.’ Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, ‘Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:7-14; NASB).

General Depravity

The first thing that we notice is John’s assertion of the universal depravity of mankind. John understood that all men, whether they be Jewish leaders, the Jews themselves, or Greek converts, were a “brood of vipers.” All men are born of Adam. We are all born into the City of Man and, therefore, we all have been blinded by the god of this world. A proper understanding of Public Theology, then, must start with a proper understanding of our inability to reason with a proper, biblical rationality.

John understood that the crowd that was coming to him for baptism—a crowd comprised of all types of men: tax collectors, soldiers, Jewish leaders, etc.—was coming to him with flawed thinking. The first thing they needed to understand was that they were the offspring of Satan, a “brood of vipers.” Only after they rightly understood their spiritual poverty could they rightly assess the riches of Christ. And understanding the riches of Christ, His mercy and His kindness, is what leads us to repentance.

John came preaching a message of repentance: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Mt. 3:2; NASB). Notice also that this is the same message Christ Himself came preaching (Mt. 4:17). However, the repentance they preached was not devoid of specificity. Once the hearts of the people were pierced to the core by the gospel John preached, they naturally wanted to know specifically what repentance looked like for them. John addressed them one-by-one according to the sphere of influence in which they operated. What should be observed here is that John the Baptist directly applies God’s moral law to the sphere of influence of each individual person.

Children of Abraham

For the Jewish leaders, it was important that they not teach a false hope in fleshly inheritance. Christ would prove to be the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16) in Whom all who believe as did Abraham would come to be descendants of Abraham. Thus, for the Jewish leaders to insist that they were the rightful heirs of Abraham’s promises, due to their heredity or the circumcision of their flesh, was to rob Christ of His rightful position as Covenant Head. Therefore, John called for the Jewish leaders to repent of their heresy:

“Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” (Mt. 3:8-9; NASB).

The Faith / Works Principle

Secondly, John addressed the entire group who asked, “Then what shall we do?” He responded, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise,” (Lk. 3:11; NASB). John was not here teaching works-based salvation. Rather, he was demonstrating what true, faith-based repentance looks like. As the apostle James explained, “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself,” (Jas. 2:14-17; NASB).

John wanted the people to understand that mere lip-service to the Savior is not genuine faith. Faith without works is dead. If a man truly has faith in God, true saving faith, it will change the way he lives. He will love God, and he will love his neighbor. He will not merely say to his neighbor in need, “Go. I have faith that God will be with you in your affliction.” Rather, the true Christian, saved by faith alone, will act in love to help his neighbor. This is the evidence that he truly has saving faith.

It’s important to note that John’s message is consistent with the message of previous Old Testament prophets. As Moses instituted, “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.” (Deuteronomy 15:7-8). Here, we have specific application of the Law given to the crowd.

Tax Collectors

Thirdly, John addressed the tax collectors. Tax collectors were agents for the government who were notorious for exploiting the people. Many of them were Jews themselves and were seen as traitors for the way they took advantage of their fellow countrymen. When John saw these tax collectors coming, he had specific instruction for them as well concerning their repentance: “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.”

Notice he did not tell them to stop being tax collectors. He did not tell them that a true Christian would have no part in government affairs, so they should find a new job. He did not tell them, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would, that governments are run by Satan, so they are working for Satan and must repent. Rather, he told them to take only what they were ordered to by the civil magistrates. In other words, one can be a Christian while living and operating in a public office. However, being a Christian means that we will operate according to Christian principles in that particular sphere of life. For tax collectors, this meant that they would not rob their fellow countrymen.

It’s important to note that John the Baptist is holding them accountable to the eighth commandment, even when they are operating in public office. The eighth commandment requires us people to act truthfully, faithfully, and justly in our contractual and business relationships. Previously, these tax collectors violated this trust with the people, but repentant sinners, the entire ethical code for tax collectors should change. Instead of being extortioners, they should be individuals who “love justice” (cf. Mic. 6:8) and refuse to oppress the poor through exploitation (cf. Zech. 7:8-10).  This message should continue to be proclaimed since we live in a day where numerous politicians enrich themselves off of the poor.

Soldiers

Fourthly, John addressed the soldiers that came to him: “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.” Now, it might be observed that these principles are universal principles to be observed by all Christians. However, they have specific significance for the particular groups John was addressing.

It could be noted that soldiers in a land of occupation have a unique vantage point from which they can exploit the people being occupied. If a soldier is not content with his wages, he might be prone to take the possessions of those under occupation, either by force or by false accusation. This was likely a very common practice in John’s day, so he instructed these men to love their occupied neighbors with integrity rather than with wicked hearts.

Unbelieving Magistrates

Now, it might be observed that John is here instructing people who had come to him for repentance, so we as Christians might seek to instruct Christians in similar positions in a similar way. However, since John was talking to converts and instructing them on how they should repent, it would be improper to talk to our pagan neighbors who have yet to repent in a similar way. Rather, we should speak only the gospel to our unconverted neighbors. At first glance, this seems a glowing, gospel-centered policy to have when formulating one’s Public Theology. However, was that really the approach of John the Baptist? Let’s look at another instance in which John calls a pagan to repentance:

“For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death and could not do so; for Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed; but he used to enjoy listening to him. A strategic day came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his lords and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee; and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests; and the king said to the girl, ‘Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you.’ And he swore to her, ‘Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom.’ And she went out and said to her mother, ‘What shall I ask for?’ And she said, ‘The head of John the Baptist.’ Immediately she came in a hurry to the king and asked, saying, ‘I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.’ And although the king was very sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests, he was unwilling to refuse her. Immediately the king sent an executioner and commanded him to bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard about this, they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb” (Mark 6:17-29; NASB).

So we see that John not only called converted Christians to a specific repentance, but he even called unconverted pagans to repent of their specific sins. His call for repentance even rose to the ears of Herod himself, whom he rebuked in strong terms. This rebuke was not a safe rebuke. He did not simply, generally tell Herod to turn from sin. He called out Herod for his specific sin, and it cost John his life.

Questions Moving Forward

There are several questions this study of John the Baptist raises. In the articles to come, we hope to answer several of these by looking at other texts in the word of God. These questions may include:

  • What is the role of government?
  • What is the role of the moral law in relationship to government?
  • What is the role of the church in relationship to government?
  • Did John the Baptist operate according to the principles outlined for us in these last days?
  • Does the church have a mandate to preach anything other than the gospel to our pagan culture and pagan magistrates?
  • What is the role of activism in our Christian witness to our culture?
  • What expectations should Christians have of our pagan magistrates?
  • What Christian principles might be governing John the Baptist’s approach to Public Theology that may help us govern ours?

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Reformed Confessions (Part I)

/ William F. Leonhart III / 37 Comments

Read the first three posts here, here, and here.

______________

When discussing the idea of the Two Cities and Two Kingdoms paradigms for understanding public theology, many leave a tremendous gap between Luther and modern scholarship. We would be negligent to do so here, though. For a uniquely Reformed Baptist perspective on these issues to be well informed, one must be aware of the fact that there is more than just a Lutheran perspective of public theology to draw upon. There is also a Reformed tradition, which just so happens to be the tradition from which Baptists sprung.

Luther’s further development of Augustine’s paradigm certainly plays a large role in the development of Calvinistic, Reformed, and Reformed Baptist approaches to public theology. However, Calvin and his predecessors did not adopt Luther’s theology without some contributions of their own. Luther’s views on the subject evolved throughout the course of his life and the life of Saxony. The same could be said of Zwingli in Zurich, Calvin in Geneva, and the Dutch, British, French, German, and American Reformers that would follow in their footsteps.

According to Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood, Calvin intermingled aspects of the patristics, the scholastics, and Luther in the development of his public theology with ideas and methods he’d received from classical political philosophy as well as humanist literary, historical, and legal scholarship (O’Donovan and Lockwood, From Irenaeus to Grotius, 662). Calvin’s take on public theology took into account not only the collective wisdom of church history and Western Civilization, but it also brought several disciplines to bear on the matter. Thus, it would be highly inappropriate to attempt to transplant Luther’s theory into the Reformed tradition without any consideration of nuance or further development by Calvin and his theological predecessors.

Recognizing the willingness of the Reformers to shift understandings of these matters to meet the ever changing political structures of their times and cultures, it’s important that we as 21st century Westerners seek to discern as best we can the most universal elements of the Reformed take on Public Theology. Perhaps the best place to look to find these universal elements are in the development of the Reformed confessions of faith. For the purposes of this series, we will look at four such confessions that particularly pertain to the Reformed and Reformed Baptists: The Belgic Confession, The Baptist Confession (1644/1646), The Westminster Confession, and The Baptist Confession (1677/1689). As we examine these confessions, we will see how historical considerations over time forced the Reformed to continue to revisit the biblical texts most pertinent to the subject matter at hand and further Reform their views on public theology. Semper Reformanda!

Separation of Church and State

Some would take issue with there even being a chapter on magistrates in the confessions. They argue that there should be a complete separation of church and state neither where the state speaks with authority to the church nor where the church speaks with authority to the state. Sam Waldron has offered a response to such reasoning.

“Does it surprise you that the Confession contains a chapter on the subject ‘Of the Civil Magistrate’? Are you inclined to ask, ‘What does politics have to do with Christ?’ If that is something of your response, may I suggest that you are a victim of a religious background which has retreated from its social responsibilities under a wrong view of the separation of church and state? Such an attitude has virtually denied the sovereignty of God over all areas of life. To restrict Christianity to the ‘spiritual’ realm is, ultimately, to destroy it” (Waldron, A Modern Exposition, 284).

The concept of the separation of church and state was a concept unique with Baptists in England and America. It was framed as a larger concept in which to set the gemstone of liberty of conscience, yet another uniquely Baptist doctrine. This concept was never meant to be taken as a separation of God and state. It is important to note at this juncture that not all Reformed confessions championed these concepts. Of course, we’ll see that quick enough as we examine our first Reformed confession: The Belgic Confession.

The Belgic Confession (1619)

589Reformed confessions have always dealt with the subject of the civil magistrate. Specifically regarding this subject the Reformed confessions are in general agreement that the role of government is to wield the sword granted them by God for the punishment of evil and the promotion of good (cf. Romans 13:1-7). Also, shared among the confessions is the recognition that duty is owed by the governed subjects to their magistrates, those magistrates having been given their office by God. The Belgic Confession goes quite a bit further than this, though.

“And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word” (The Belgic Confession, Article 36).

Thus, the Confession most commonly held by the Dutch Reformed community promotes the use of the magistrate to enforce church discipline and promote the furtherance of the gospel. Without doubt this is seen, at least in seed form, in the practices of Zwingli and Calvin. In fact, it was over this issue that Zwingli’s disciples eventually separated from him birthing what would eventually come to be called the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland. Tellingly, The Belgic Confession takes a clear stance against the Anabaptists, anarchists, and revolutionists in its pronouncements.

“Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

And on this matter we reject the Anabaptists, anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings” (Ibid.).

This being the earliest of the Reformed confessions, the Westminster Assembly and the Particular Baptists developed much of their public theology upon it. While an argument can be made that it is the most Reformed position, in that it is most faithful to the views and conduct of Calvin and Zwingli, such an argument does not allow for the application of the Semper Reformanda (always reforming) principle. As circumstances changed in Luther’s and Calvin’s political and cultural situations, their understandings of these matters adapted. The Reformed tradition moving forward into the 17th century also adapted to the changing times, returning again and again to the Scriptures to determine the best approach to new considerations as they arose.

______________
In our next article, we will continue our discussion of public theology in the Reformed confessions by examining developments in some of the English confessions of the 17th century.

Complementarian Beliefs: Addressing Cultural Influences

/ wifewithpurpose / 3 Comments

I’ve been thinking long and hard about how I could critique egalitarianism in a meaningful way that can actually contribute, rather than repeat statements and conversations that have been made before. And considering the vast amount of resources that you can look at on the topic, I figure that it is best for me to keep this fairly simple and short. In the next few posts, I will be highlighting some key points in egalitarianism that kept screaming at me as I worked my way through the complementarian critiques.

What Culture?

One of the things that I appreciated most about the Danvers Statement was that the council provided a rationale for why they devised the statement in the first place. The influence of the culture was expressly mentioned twice in the rationale:

1. The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

10. and behind all this the apparent accommodation of some within the church to the spirit of the age at the expense of winsome, radical Biblical authenticity which in the power of the Holy Spirit may reform rather than reflect our ailing culture.

Now you can check out the Christian’s for Biblical Equality statement again, but you will see absolutely no mention or address of the culture or how the culture is influencing Christianity at all. And hearkening back to my college experience where discussing the influences of culture was the norm, this was one of the first things that stood out to me the most about egalitarianism. But let’s get on the same page first and define culture.

Culture – the sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another. Culture is transmitted, through language, material objects, ritual, institutions, literature, music, and art, from one generation to the next. (The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)

Learning this definition during my freshman year, I spent the remaining years of college often having internal dialogues about the things that went on around me, and I also asked myself a lot of questions. I knew that our country was founded with some Christian principles in mind, but our culture was far from being Christian or even God-centered. So I wondered if the whole world is not Christian, then what does a real Christian look like today, and should I be making an effort to be different than the rest of the world as a Christian? And if so, to what extent should I be different as a Christian? But, should I reject everything in the culture, or are there some things that can be useful to me as a Christian? Later on, my husband would ask me this question in a new way: How is every area of our lives distinctly Christian?

With this in mind, it has not appeared to me how egalitarians are addressing the influence of culture in their beliefs. Whereas complementarians directly mentioned the influence the culture is having in the hearts and minds of Christians throughout the church, egalitarians have largely remained silent on that particular topic. And it has caused me to wonder if egalitarians are aware that they are being influenced by the culture, and if they see the need to exercise discernment over how these things are influencing them.

As Christians, we have to be able to distinguish and isolate. We have to be able to discern, scrutinize, test, and yes, discriminate. We are called to destroy arguments and lofty opinions that assail the knowledge of God, and we must be able to buffet our own thoughts (as well as the thoughts of others) when they began to fall out of line with what is taught in the Word of God (2 Corinthians 10:3-6). We are engaged in a real spiritual war that has real consequences and real casualties, and I encourage my egalitarian brothers and sisters to consider these questions in light of that battle on their own time:

Do you believe that the culture has or is influencing your views and interpretations of the Bible? If so, is that proper, and should it be allowed to continue? Do you believe that there is a spirit of the age that you need to be aware of? And if so, how are you able to detect it and stand against it?

Egalitarian Beliefs: Clarifying What We Believe

/ wifewithpurpose / 3 Comments

Continuing from the last post, this blog examines the final application from Christians for Biblical Equality. Application #5 states:

In the Christian home, couples who share a lifestyle characterized by the freedom they find in Christ will do so without experiencing feelings of guilt or resorting to hypocrisy. They are freed to emerge from an unbiblical “traditionalism” and can rejoice in their mutual accountability in Christ. In so doing, they will openly express their obedience to Scripture, will model an example for other couples in quest of freedom in Christ, and will stand against patterns of domination and inequality sometimes imposed upon church and family.

In their fifth application, CBE believes that couples who embrace the egalitarian lifestyle will no longer experience guilty feelings or live in hypocrisy because they no longer have to live in biblical “traditionalism.” Thus, married couples will be able to rejoice and hold one another mutually accountability before Christ, and they will be able to model a good marriage relationship for other couples who are looking to avoid patterns of domination and inequality in their own marriages.

To be honest, it has taken me a while to figure out how to adequately critique the complementarian camp with this application, but thank the Lord for husbands who think differently! Considering that this is the last post critiquing complementarianism, this might be one of the more important critiques that we all need to consider. And I will begin with the only affirmation from the Danvers Statement that I believe would be of key importance here, Affirmation #10:

We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these [complementarian] principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.

As firmly as egalitarians believe that their beliefs and principles are Biblical, complementarians do so to the point that they believe that there will be “destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large” if complementarian principles are abandoned. As a complementarian, I agree; however, egalitarians have brought up some valid concerns when they mention “traditionalism” and “patterns of domination and inequality” that are at times imposed upon people in the church and in the family. So let’s think about that more closely.

For the sake of clarity…

  • How much of what we practice as complementarians is truly Biblical?
  • How much of our practices are really passed down traditions?
  • And how much of our practices stem from or attempt to counteract influences from our culture?

I’m not sure how many complementarians have taken the time to consider the questions or even how they live out their complementarianism, but I do believe it is always important to consider the ‘why’ behind what we do for three main reasons. First, it helps us figure out if we are doing things for the right reasons. Second, it helps us figure out how to instruct and encourage other couples who want to have a God-honoring marriage and be obedient to Scripture. Third, it helps us to be more credible and honest to the rest of the world, especially egalitarians. Let’s briefly consider these points.

How we label things

Coming from egalitarianism, having some solid reasons behind why I am doing things the way I do them now is paramount for me to walk and live in unwavering confidence in this world. Yet, I know that I have a very accommodating personality that desires for things to just go ‘smoothly’ even when I have problems with them, so I often find myself having done things for months or years because I never gave it real thought. This experience is the premise behind my first point. As Christians, we have to be careful to distinguish what are doctrinal standards, convictional beliefs, and our own cultural preferences. We clearly believe that complementarianism is Biblical doctrine that is expounded upon clearly in Scripture, but what about other things we practice?

Can husbands wash dishes, take care of the laundry, prepare meals, and/or take care of small children or is that purely the work of women as homemakers? Can wives cut grass, clean out the gutters, work on the car in the garage, and build furniture in the shed or is that stepping into men’s work? If your daughter likes to play with cars or paper towel tube swords, do you tell her to put it down to play with a doll or have a tea party instead? If your son likes to play house or is really interested in baking, do you try to distract him with some sports or other outdoor activities.

Now, I’ve picked the least controversial examples I could think of to drive home the point that we have to be careful what we label as ‘complementarian’ when it could easily be us sliding into ‘traditional roles’ or doing what we’re most comfortable doing. We also have to be careful that we’re not perpetuating traditional gender roles and calling it complementarianism because we’re uncomfortable that playing with trucks just isn’t ‘feminine’ enough for our daughter or baking isn’t ‘masculine’ enough for our son. I have all intentions to teach my daughter how to manage and care for a home properly, but if she wants to pursue a PhD and become a physicist like her daddy, I’m not going to tell her that she is going against God’s design and purpose for her as a woman. Basically, we ought to be certain that we have a solid understanding of what is actually Scriptural and whatever else is only traditional, cultural, or just our own personal preferences.

Determining what to teach others

One of the obvious results of being able to label things properly is that we will be able to offer more Biblically-sound advice to others. Whether it’s our own children, teenagers at church, or other young couples that we know, we are often put into the position of having to either teach, instruct, exhort, or encourage others about what a God-honoring marriage and family life look like. And these interactions happen either directly or indirectly, but regardless, the interaction will leave an impression upon the hearer.

For instance, most women have probably heard that housework is women’s work in some way or fashion. And from the Bible we know that we are to take care of our homes and our families (Titus 2), so this is perfectly sound to teach. However, if we couple that with something like…The reason you need to make sure that you are taking care of your home is because you really can’t trust a man to do a woman’s job. Men don’t know how to clean the way we do. They aren’t as detailed-oriented as we are, and you know you should never leave your little ones with your husband. God only knows what will happen to them when you’re gone. Really, you just have to learn how to manage it all. And don’t worry, God will give you the grace to be able to handle all of it because He made you a woman, and women are equipped to carry and handle a lot…then we have surely added some things to the Biblical text. But what is worse, the extra traditional and cultural things only cause people to become more burdened down and overwhelmed as they are likely to believe and feel that this is how they are to please the Lord in their roles. Christ told us in Matthew 11:28-30:

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Let us be diligent to not add to the burden in our own minds and hearts and in the hearts and minds of others who are serious about having a God-honoring marriage and family life. If we are going to teach, exhort, and encourage ourselves and others, let’s be perfectly clear about what is Biblical and what just follows traditional norms, our present-day culture, or what just works for us.

Building some credibility

Finally, all of this leads to us, as complementarians, building up our credibility with egalitarians and others who think the way we live our lives in the face of our culture today is just crazy and outdated.

Now, there will always be some people who will simply be contentious and look for a way out so they don’t have to feel guilty about not obeying Scripture, and honestly, we can only pray for those people. But for the other people who are jaded, ignorant of the truth, or searching for some clarity about their role as a man/woman and a husband/wife, I encourage my fellow complementarians to hold fast to the Bible alone first and foremost. And then be open about what they will have to work out depending on their own circumstances. Talk about the things that complementarians have historically gotten wrong. Even touch on the abuses and sins that have often been committed under the guise of complementarianism or being Biblical. By all means, be forthright, frank, and honest in everything that you have to say because as we know that complementarianism is God’s design and purpose for men and women, we are obligated to represent it rightly, fully, and faithfully so that others will have a proper view of what God requires of all of us and so that we will not be a reason why some will choose to abandon it altogether.

This post concludes my critique of complementarianism, and I will pick up my next blog with taking a closer look at egalitarianism.

Interracial Marriage and the Ordinary Means of Grace

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

This past week, I had the privilege of teaching the 9-12 year old class at my church. We are going through the Bible, piece by piece, and discussing each section. This week our discussion was on Genesis 6-11. Now, I understand that there are multiple orthodox views on who the sons of God were in Genesis 6. I exposed the kids to three, but only argued for the one I think to be best supported by the text: the godly line of Seth view.

When holding to this view, the question naturally arises, “What was the big deal with the sons of God marrying daughters of men?” A little context goes a long way in understanding how this is a problem. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), the people of Israel were on the plains of interracial-marriageMoab awaiting their conquest of the land of Canaan (Numbers 22:1). There, God commanded them through Moses not to intermarry with the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

I recall one time at a training exercise in the Army being asked by a guy where the Bible forbids interracial marriage. He wanted to know so that he could discourage his daughter from marrying outside her race. In fact, the Bible nowhere forbids interracial marriage for the sake of keeping people of different skin colors from joining together in matrimony. What it did forbid in Deuteronomy 7:3-4 was interfaith marriage. The Israelites were forbidden from taking foreign wives because they would entice them to follow after false gods.

In my estimation, the best understanding of the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters of men in Genesis 6 is that they were being led away from God by these women. What is interesting is that, when I asked the kids if the Bible anywhere explicitly forbids interracial marriage, they unanimously agreed that it does not. When I asked them why God forbid people in the Bible from marrying foreigners, they agreed that it was because they would entice them to follow false gods.

I bring all this up not to brag on how smart our children are at my church. Rather, I wanted to highlight the fact that the ordinary means of grace are sufficient for helping our churches, and even our the children in our churches, deal with the major issues that the church will face in our culture. The church does not have to resort to conducting a complete reset of its worship service or starting up a multi-culturalist project in order to be the church.

These children came to a right understanding of this deeply important cultural issue by partaking of the ordinary means of Bible reading. They have sat under the preached word week-in and week-out, they have sung psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs that promote biblical truth, and we as a church have regularly prayed over their souls for the better part of their lives. What the church needs is to commit itself to the ordinary means of grace and expect that this will be the medium through which God will perform His extraordinary, transformative work in the lives of believers both personally and corporately. What she does not need is a multi-culturalist agenda pushing for extra-biblical traditions to be added to the means God has ordained for the dispensing of His grace.

[HSLDA] Building the Machine: The Parent Interviews

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

Watch the first video here.

We live in Texas where the prevailing thought is often, “Well, that’s those other states. Here in Texas, we are free.” Knowing that this type of thinking can lead to blindspots, I did a little research (shorthand for, “I googled it.”).

___________

ht: Breitbart –

“DALLAS, Texas — It is like a Texas sampler platter of the 2014-15 Common Core offerings served up around the state — Sadlier “Common Core Enriched Edition” Vocabulary, Springboard and Carnegie Math. There is even a kindergarten handout that defines the importance of the term “Common Core.” Parents are up in arms. More so, they are worried. They have heard endlessly that there is no Common Core in Texas. It is the law. Yet, this is what is coming home in the backpacks.

To her surprise, a Boerne Independent School District (ISD) parent pulled out the ‘6 Math Terms to Know (in primary grades)’ from her kindergartener’s Fabra Elementary take home folder in the Texas Hill Country. Apparently, ‘Common Core’ itself is a math term that five year olds need to know.” Read more here… And you know if it’s happening in Texas, it’s only a matter of time before it’s at your doorstep. How do you want your child to be educated?

CCF Episode Thirty-One: Chapters 4-7 of Brave New World

/ William F. Leonhart III / 4 Comments

CredoCovPodcastMaster

In this episode, JD and Billy sit down with Pastor Jason Delgado to discuss chapters 4-7 of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

–

MP3 Download | stream:

–

Subscribe to future podcasts and leave us a review on iTunes: RSS | iTunes  

–

The book we’re currently reading…brvnwwrld

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

We’d love your participation. Contact us with your comments and questions about the books contents:

CCF Episode Thirty: Chapters 1-3 of Brave New World

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

CredoCovPodcastMaster

In this episode, JD and Billy sit down with Pastor Jason Delgado to discuss Chapters 1-3 of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Featuring music by Pink Floyd, Charles Gounod, and Beautiful Eulogy.

–

MP3 Download | stream:

–

Subscribe to future podcasts and leave us a review on iTunes: RSS | iTunes  

–

The book we’re currently reading…brvnwwrld

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

We’d love your participation. Contact us with your comments and questions about the books contents: