The Black and Gold
Opening Day of Camp

War is ongoing in the Middle East, John Bolton is being grilled in the Senate and heat is crippling the US and Europe, but the big story is…the opening of training camp for the defending World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers! All eyes are on St. Vincent’s College in Latrobe, PA. Can the Stillers repeat? Will Big Ben show the effects of his accident? For the 5 big story lines as the quest for 6 Super Bowls begins can be found at www.post-gazette.com/pg/062079/709184-66.stm Time to get out those Terrible Towels for another season.

A 21st Century Parable
Jesus Saves

[Sometimes children, unburdened by theological claptrap; unsullied by thinking as the world thinks, make the most sense out of believing. This is a case in point.]
“Knock, knock.”
The man behind the desk on the other side of the knock quickly looked at his watch, 3:35 pm. He wondered where Lulu was. Then, he remembered, she went to Communion and Cup to pick up bulletin inserts announcing the “Holy Ghost Hop” to be held at the church on Saturday night.
“Who is it?” intoned the man.
“Jimmy Paul,” a young voice answered.
The kid with two first names the man thought. A good kid, always at the Thursday night “Family, Food and Fun Fest”, went to the pre-teen “Riot for Jesus” event in Cedar Rapids last year and has been bugging about going on the church mission trips. The man reflected that this was the type of boy who benefited from the programs of the church.
“Come in Jimmy.”
“Hi, Pastor K,” Jimmy cheerily said as he walked into the Pastor’s study. That’s what all the kids called Knox J.W. Luther, pastor of the First Church of E&E for the People.
Jimmy was a typical skinny 12 year old dressed as an athletic company advertisement. He was carrying his school backpack.
“Come in and sit down Jimmy. What can I do for you?”
Jimmy sat down and pulled his Bible form his pack. “I’ve been reading my Bible and have a few questions.”
Knox Luther suddenly remembered that Lulu mentioned Jimmy wanted to see him. He was also told that Jimmy was asking hard questions in Sunday School. The kind in response to which the teacher says: “Ask the pastor.”
“Did Jesus die for everyone?” Jimmy asked while Knox Luther was still thinking.
“Sure Jimmy. Jesus died for everyone.”
“Does everyone go to heaven then?” Jimmy inquired.
“No, Jimmy, some people will not accept Jesus as their Savior.”
“I’m confused,” Billy retorted. “My Grandma says ‘Jesus saves’. Is she wrong?”
“Of course not, Jimmy,” Pastor Luther nervously said, “Jesus alone saves sinners. I believe that too.”
Jimmy knitted his brow and looked straight at Knox Luther. “Pastor K, you said Jesus died for everyone. You then said not everyone is saved because we must accept Jesus to be saved. It sounds to me you are saying that Jesus alone cannot save us. We need to save ourselves. And, the poor person that doesn’t accept Jesus goes to hell even though Jesus died for him. I’m still confused.”
Knox Luther began beading sweat on his brow. “No, Jimmy, we do not save ourselves . . . er, ah. . . this is a hard concept for a twelve year old to grasp.”
“But Jesus said we must have the faith of a child, didn’t He?”
Just then the intercom buzzer sounded and Knox Luther quickly picked up the receiver. He listened intently and, looking relieved, he put the receiver down.
“Jimmy, I have an appointment at 4:00 pm so I have to cut this conversation off.”
“O.K. Pastor K, I guess I will have to wait until I’m like you to understand what Jesus really did. Goodbye…and thanks.”
As he watched Jimmy walk out the door, Pastor K realized he had a pounding headache. He took two aspirin and headed out the door. He in fact had an appointment. He was chairing a special session of the local ministerium. They were considering an application by a Mormon group to become part of the organization. As he walked to his car, he banished thoughts of his conversation with Jimmy. He was pondering the up coming meeting. Why not admit the Mormons? They were moral folks, good citizens and had great family values. The kind of people Knox Luther could identify and work with in the community.

Church/State Matters
The Pledge of Allegiance

Remember back in the summer of 2002 when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a California case (Surprise!), declared the phrase “under God” in the US Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. [Elk Grove United School Distric, et al. v. Newdow et al]? There was an immediate firestorm of protest. Even those not prone to comment on “separation” decisions made by federal appeals courts weighed in. Then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the decision “just nuts”. Dick Gephardt, then House Minority Leader, saw “no reason to challenge the time tested venerable pledge.” Two who deemed themselves liberal Democrats chimed in on a “values matter”. Both, interestingly, are out of government today [I am not implying a connection.].

A fair reading of “separation” jurisprudence does not make the decision foolish. The course of church/state decisions has been steady in the direction of sanitizing the public domain from any religious [actually Christian] references. The “under God” phrase was added in 1954, so technically, it is a late addition to Gephardt’s “time tested venerable pledge.”

The suspicion is that the Pledge Case was really not illogical based on case law, but it gave the willies to even those indifferent to religion in the public square. The 9th Circuit presented the question: What next? And, that is a question no politician who has to run for office wants to ponder. Will all coins have to be taken out of circulation? Will Congressional chaplains have to stop praying in the House and Senate? Will George W. Bush be enjoined from saying “God bless America”?

It is more than a little disingenuous for those who have not responded to the “separation” decisions until now to suddenly be champions of religious expression. They were responding to the hew and cry of the public, worried about what the courts may do next and, more importantly, how it would affect them. It was hardly a consciously motivated decision to upbraid the 9th Circuit. If the august 3 judge panel is wrong on the Pledge it is not because they went too far in this case. It is because the whole line of reasoning that desires to purge reference to the Biblical God from the public is, to steal a phrase, “just nuts”. Religious expression has never been prohibited by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution—in a classroom, football game, commencement, or on our coins. The courts created the morass we find ourselves in and the 9th Circuit merely followed the path laid out by their brethren.

The USSC eventually ruled in the case that Newdow did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter as “next friend”. The child’s mother, Sharon Banning, had exclusive custody of their daughter and she had intervened in the case objecting that the child should be a party to Newdow’s lawsuit. In an 8-0 decision, the Court dodged the constitutional question based on a procedural matter, although 3 of the justices believed the decision should have been on the merits, affirming the Pledge as a patriotic exercise without the establishment of any particular faith or religion. [Read the full decision www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC.html ]

This decision did, however, bring to the attention of professing Christians some issues with The Pledge not considered since Jehovah’s Witnesses were exonerated from reciting it. Some Christians want the pledge thrown out completely. Why? Because it requires reciting allegiance to the state rather than to God. Others object to the phrase, “with liberty and justice for all”, a fantasy and fallacy in 21st Century USA. Still others object to “indivisible” as a deistic claim of immortality without division. Christians know a division is coming—goats and sheep. So this God of the pledge is not the Biblical God, but the faceless, nameless god of unity without distinction in Christ.

As well meaning as the objections are to The Pledge, there is a symbolic meaning to The Pledge. There can be no doubt that there is a call to unity in The Pledge, the National Anthem and various other patriotic expressions. This country is still the most diverse in the world. All colors, races, ethic backgrounds, and countries of origin are represented in the citizens of the USA. The illegal immigration issue, is in some measure, a test of unity in language and living under the law. That we seek a sense of indivisibility is not homogenizing our religions beliefs or forcing anyone to bow down to Dagon the State. After all, Christians agree with Paul that no state has authority except from God (Rom. 13:1) and we are to be subject to the state for conscious sake (Rom. 13:5).

In addition, the statement in the pledge “under God”, is a recognition of the One true, Biblical God. Why else the cry that it should be stripped? And, with this statement, there is a concession to the role the providential and sovereign God of the Universe has played in the founding and prospering of our country. It is not establishing the Biblical God as the God of the country, but an expression of recognition for what He has done. Hence, it does not violate principles of “establishment” of religion set forth in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Anyone is free not to believe that the Biblical God is important to this country. But, their unbelief is not a basis for calling The Pledge unconstitutional. The Biblical God is not forced to be their God. For the confessing Christian, his faith is in Christ. By reciting The Pledge, he merely reaffirms his obedience to the state as ordained by God. The nation is, after all, “under God” as is all else.

Hiatus

I will be away from this site for about a week for business and then time with kids and grandkids enjoying God’s creation at the seashore. Upon returning, if the way be clear, we will continue to look at various church/state matters, including the pledge and 10 commandment issues as they pertain to Christians and open topics on millennial views; environmentalism; apologetics; sanctification and holiness.

Until then……..live by faith; walk in the light.

Church/State Matters
The role of the governed

My friend Huguenot John www.zanga.com/uprisingyouth had an interesting post on July 15. He offered a series of questions in examining whether the church is cultural or counter-cultural. His point 5 under counter-cultural: How as a counter culture would you affect society, is followed with 5 choices. I would like to look more closely at that issue in regard to the church and state. For it is a question of what is the role of the people governed…specifically Christians in our case…in the state?

Unless you are a dictator of a banana republic or live alone on your own island, you are part of a people governed. Citing the Apostle Paul, John Calvin calls on all the governed to obey rulers because the authority of the ruler is from God. And, not just from fear of wrath but out of good conscience. To resist is to resist God Himself (Rom. 13:1, 2, 5).

This applies to good and evil rulers. While there is an inborn desire to hate and curse tyrants, unjust magistrates are to be obeyed [Institutes 4.20.24]. We in the west, having been thoroughly “democratized”, find that hard to believe. But Calvin cites plenty of Biblical warrant for his position (See Dan. 2:21, 37; Ezk. 19:19,20; 1 Sam. 8:11-17; Jer. 25: 5-8, 17). Calvin concludes that the most worthless kings are appointed by God’s decree and we should never believe we cannot serve a wicked king [Institutes 4.20.24-27].

The princes of this world are to fear the correction of the Lord. The Lord will crush those who refuse to kiss the Son (Ps. 2:10,11) and all those who do injustice to oppress the poor, do violence to the lowly and prey on widows and orphans (Is. 10:1,2); [Institutes 4.20.28,29]. Calvin does set down a principle for disobedience to the magistrate. “We are subject to men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it.”[Institutes 4.20.32]. As always, he looks to Scripture. Daniel disobeys because the edict of the king is impious (Dan. 6:22,23); Peter tells the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).”

For the Christian, this teaching certainly eliminates much of what colors contemporary political debate. That is not to say a Christian is not to contend in the arena of political ideas. However, his argument must be tempered. His objection to policies can be ideological, economic or even personal, but disagreements on those bases must never lead to disobedience.

A magistrate may not order a Christian to perform immoral or anti-Biblical actions. But, if the magistrate performs wicked, evil acts, it is not your personal duty to disobey that magistrate. Seems strange in this age of self-empowered democracy, does it not? To do so is contrary to the Biblical command to obey the magistrate.

Christians are to be the best of citizens, serving the civil magistrate and obeying the laws. Our duty is not to compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the citizenship we have in the Kingdom of God by virtue of that Gospel. When the civil government asks a Christian to act like a pagan, the Christian must refuse. But, no matter how personally offensive and objectionable the policies of the magistrate are, we have no authority or duty to disobey. We must never attempt to usurp the authority of God over the rulers of this earth.

The Church
Are we all egalitarians now?

Last week I posed the question of whether one can be theologically conservative and support the ordination of women. Today, I want to explore whether those who oppose the ordination of women are still egalitarians. Christian Smith contends in his book Christian America that American evangelical men speak complimentarian rhetoric but life egalitarian lives. Sure, conservative, evangelical Christians proclaim a male headship but it is patriarchal headship mediated by popular culture. His thesis is akin to the title of W. Bradford Wilcox’s book Soft Patriarchs.

So, that battle is lost because of societal factors accepted by all churches. Women working outside the home because of the need of two incomes to be able to live, dual parenting responsibilities, concepts of mutual submission, home decisions made by consensus and/or negotiation, are all concepts of modern family life that are foreign to Biblical patriarchy. Sally Gallagher in her book Evangelical Identity and Gendered Family Life sets forth and excellent example of well meaning that shows the egalitarianism in the Christian family:

A 35 year old wife and mother discussing her husband going to a Promise Keepers event: I had Mike go this year. I kind of sent him…I said “I’m not sending you to get fixed in any area. I just want you to be encouraged because there are other Christian men out there of your age who want to be good dads and fathers.”
This highlights some of the contemporary problems: the wife “sending”; the wife knowing what is best for her husband; wanting her husband to be encouraged rather than taught; and her desire not for him to be a better Christian and leader but a better dad.

This scenario points up another problem. Men go to PK events rather than church. It has been said that PK is interested in making men more like women. If so, how can we expect male leadership from a Biblical perspective to emerge from a PK event. The church must train up men to male headship. Interestingly, Gallagher says the woman in her example never heard a sermon on Biblical headship in her church. This is another case of the church not doing what a church should do.

Ronald Regan used to talk about “trickle down” economics. What happened at the top ultimately benefited everyone. Egalitarianism seems to be moving up to the church from the family influenced by the culture. So, the objection to women’s ordination may only be the last gasp of Biblical complimentarianism since we are all really egalitarians now.

[For an excellent and thorough discussion of this issue, to which I am indebted for this post, see “After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate”’ by Russell C. Moore, Dean, School of Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, accessible through Touchtone Magazine at their website http://merecomments.typepad.com ]

World Cup 2006
Apology?

Zinedine Zidane has issued an apology of sorts for his actions in the World Cup final, reports BBC Sports http://news.bbc.co.uk in their World Cup reports. Zidane reportedly said in a French TV interview:

I want to ask for forgiveness from all the children who watched that. There is no excuse for it. I want to be open and honest about that.

Does that mean he is not apologizing to the adults who watched? In any event, you must give credit where credit is due. He admits he is without excuse. That is a step in the right direction for Zindane…and all of us.

Christian Thinking
Not your respectability morality

The true Christian mind will bring to bear upon the human scene those specifically Christian moral criteria which by no amount of casuistry can be equated with the generally accepted respectability-morality of our day. In the Christian moral system the key sin is pride—that perversion of the will by which the self is asserted as the centre of the universe. That is the mark of an utterly lost soul; an established and constant habit of manipulating all people and all interests in the service of self. Likewise, the key virtue in the Christian moral system is obedience; that self-commitment in thought and act by which God is asserted as centre of the universe. That is the hall-mark of the Christian moral life; a persisting and cheerful effort to make all life’s activities and relationships a fit offering to God.

Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind, How Should a Christian Think? (Ann Arbor, Mi: Servant Books, 1963), p. 89.

The Church
Ordination Issues

There are loads of folks who approve of the ordination of women but who oppose the ordination of homosexuals. Is this an inconsistency? In a recent post on his blog www.dougwils.com , Douglas Wilson points to this inconsistency in a discussion on the precarious position N. T. Wright is in over ordination matters:

The push for women being ordained as priests (or pastors, or bishops, whatever) is not coming from a Church crowned with glory after several centuries of faithfulness, martyrdom, and exuberant evangelism and discipleship. It is coming from a Church addled with various and rampant sexual confusions. In other words, the ordination of women and the ordination of homosexuals are not two separate issues, but rather two manifestations of one issue. What is that issue? We do not want God to define who we are. Because these are not two separate issues, an evangelical support for women's ordination is actually an ignorant support of homosexual ordination. This is true theologically, but it is also true practically. If this were not practically the case, we could just as easily be hearing calls for all practicing homosexual priests to be defrocked, and then after that, we could move on to the pressing business of ordaining women. Think that will happen soon? Don't hold your breath.

When the ordination of women was first posited, some argued this is the slippery slope to other ordination issues, such as homosexuals. That position was pooh-poohed. But, it seems to have come to fruition. So, food for thought: Can you embrace the ordination of women and oppose the ordination of homosexuals and be consistent? Or: Can you be a theological conservative holding such a position?

2006 World Cup
Woody and Zizou

Not since 29 December 1978, did a sports giant exit his game in such an ignominious manner. The 1978 Gator Bowl was winding down. An Ohio State [OSU] forward pass was intercepted by Clemson linebacker Charlie Bauman. He was pushed out of bounds near the OSU bench. As Bauman was accepting congratulations from his teammates for sealing a 17-15 victory over OSU, a white haired man in a black ball cap pushed to Bauman and swung and struck him on the collarbone. A 65 year old man hitting a college student in a football uniform was no problem for the Clemson linebacker. But, that punch K.O.ed Woody Hayes’ coaching career.

Hayes was the legendary coach of OSU for 28 years. He amassed a 238-72-10 record, won 2 or 4 national championships [depending on whose awards you count] 13 Big Ten titles and coached in 8 Rose Bowls [4 in a row from 1972-75]. His career was illustrious, and the late coach is beloved to this day by legions of Buckeye fans. Yet to many, the only remembrance of Hayes is his striking Bauman at the conclusion of the Gator Bowl. His action was so embarrassing to the university that he was fired before he returned home with the team. The incident has placed a cloud over the accomplishments of the volatile coach that time has not yet removed.

In the World Cup final, won by Italy in penalty kicks, Zinedine Zidane met a similar ending. In the 110th minute of the match, Zizou, as he is affectionately known by his adoring French fans, head butted Italian defender Marco Materazzi. Matterazi went down immediately. After consultation, the referee showed Zidane a red card sending him off the field by disqualification thereby ending his game, his career [he announced the Cup would be his final matches] and the hopes of the French for victory.

Zidane is considered by many to be the finest player of his generation. He lead France to the World Cup in 1998, has won 3 World Player of the year awards, was player of the tournament while leading France to the Euro 2000 title, and in 2002 won a Champions League Title with Real Madrid. Stellar accomplishments all, yet his senseless head butt in front of 1 billion viewers will be all that many remember of Zidane. He showed he has better control of a soccer ball than his temper and the incident has cast a shadow over his brilliant career.

What is it that leads such successful men to self destruct? Zidane’s agent says it was a racial epithet that Matterazi shouted that lead to the foul. But does that condone a violent response? Woody never publicly apologized for his roundhouse. It doesn’t look like Zidane will either. In what must grieve the world football sanctioning body FIFA, Zidane won the Golden Ball for the MVP of the entire World Cup [In all fairness to the voters, ballots were cast at halftime; I am sure many, if not all, would like to vote over!]. Apologists for Woody and Zizou blame inner flaws and internal battles they could not overcome. They are correct, but fail to call it as it is…sin. We see it everyday in newspapers and on television…all the reactions to outward circumstances we do not like or cannot control resulting in crime, abuse, hate, violence and mean spiritedness. So, we shouldn’t be surprised at Woody Hayes and Zinedine Zidane’s reactions. They are sinners too. Only by God’s grace does it not happen more often.

Church/State Matters
Taxation

Last week my friend Huguenot John www.xanga.com/uprisingyouth raised some interesting issues about church/state relationships in this country. Has the church made a bargain with the devil over taxation and exemption issues? I would like to look at the church/state matter and taxation from a different angle. How far can the civil magistrate [the state] go in areas of taxation without violating the mandates of God? When does rendering unto Caesar that is required by Caesar exceed his authority?

William Einwechter, editor of The Christian Statesman, poses an interesting argument in the March/April 2006 issue [Vol. 149, No. 2]. He posits that Hosea 5:10 [The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound: Therefore, I will pour out my wrath upon them like water] applies the protection of private property recited in Deut. 19:14 and Deut. 27:17 against the civil magistrate. In other words, the civil magistrate can go too far in affecting the private property of citizens. And, in the modern day application that applies to matters of taxation.

What belongs to Caesar is, therefore, proscribed in some way. This is news, I am sure, to civil magistrates in the federal, state and local governments in the US. Modern day theory has it that rights, liberty and property are granted, determined and regulated by the state. This thesis in The Christian Statesman, based on Biblical interpretation, is that the state can be guilty of stealing private property. And, this is not just in the recent dustup over the Kelo case and condemnation actions by the state. Einwechter believes a Biblical case can be made for the state stealing through taxation.

God has placed property rights in the hands of individuals and families. The Deuteronomy citations above concern the moving of boundaries of real property by other citizens. Hosea speaks to the government acting “like them that remove the bound”. So, in some way the state can exceed the commands of God in its actions as to private property. The state, as well as individuals, “shalt not steal”. The question is how and when is the state stealing private property?

Does the allowance of taxation permit the government to do what the church should be doing? And, is this interfering with the church’s influence on the world? Without the myriad of taxes enacted, the government could not be the god of today’s society. After all, as every high school student knows, the government produces nothing on its own. Einwechter offers some interesting questions: Why should the government be able to tax anyone greater that God’s tithe? Why should any tax be permitted on real property because that effectively moves the bound by making the property less valuable than without tax? Should any tax be permitted that redistributes income since that affects ownership of private property?

Think of it. If the state does not have access to massive tax revenues, it cannot affect the culture as it does. Huguenot John has raised important questions. But, it may be worse than it seems. The “deal” the church struck with the government has kept the church from speaking to the issue of what Caesar is entitled to in God’s economy. The church is exempt don’t you see, so why do we care? As a result, we have allowed the creation of a leviathan that has a tax appetite that can never be satisfied because of its expenditures, including on the things the church should be embracing, are constantly increasing. The church is culpable in many ways in church/state taxation matters.

A 21st Century Parable
Grace Alone

He could not quite pinpoint when he realized there was a buzzing in the line ahead. He was wondering why the line was so long and about the guy immediately ahead of him. Agitation seemed to accompany the mummer as it passed back the line. Suddenly, the man in front whirled around and whispered, “They gots a new way of judgin us.” The words did not sink in at first because he was repulsed at the personal appearance of his messenger. Well over six feet tall and obese with an unkempt appearance. His odor reflected an aversion to soap and water and when he spoke his breath was like burned bacon grease. How could this guy be here, he thought?

Then it sunk in, “what was this new way of judging?” As he pondered the meaning, the line began to move more quickly. In a manner of minutes, he was approaching the front of the line. The slovenly one reached the front position. He heard the name “Harry Ball” called and the wretch in front stepped forward about ten feet. He stood beneath an arch of the whitest light he ever saw, around ten feet high against a blue-black background. One lone man stood beneath the arch under the intense white light of the arch. In no time, the disheveled one moved through the arch and seemingly melted into the background.

“Al B. Good” a disembodied voice announced in a flat unemotional way. Hearing his name resulted in an emotional jolt. He recovered and stepped forward. He looked into a face of perfect features and into brown eyes of crystal clarity with intensity he never before experienced. This was not how Al envisioned St. Peter. A voice spoke but the lips on the face did not move: “Because you humans are so interested in competition, comparisons and personal achievement, we have instituted a new 100 point system of earnings to enter heaven. Any questions?”

Al thought, this should be easier than I expected. Al was startled when St. Peter said, “Maybe not.” He read my mind, Al thought nervously. “That is right, nothing is hidden here…deed, word or thought, now and forever.” Beads of sweat beaded on Al’s brow. “Do you have anything you deed to be an accomplishment in your life you wish to submit for consideration?” Al swallowed hard. What he had done with his life started to seem insignificant in the present situation.

Al squeaked out, “I was Rotary Man of the Year in 1987. I was on the United Way Board of Directors for 30 years, served on the school board, always voted and paid all taxes when due. “One point,” St. Peter announced in a monotone. Al grimaced and began to protest. “Acts of civic righteousness have very little value in eternity for the Gospel of Christ,” Peter responded before Al could say anything.

“O.K.”, Al said. “I was married for 45 years, never cheated on my wife, my kids were always on the honor role and they all have good jobs. I coached little league when my kids played and attended all their school events.” “Three points,” was St. Peter’s response. “Wh..,” Al tried to exclaim, but before he could say anything, St. Peter injected, “Those who do not know my Lord and Savior have the same list of merits.”

Al began to feel very queasy, so he gave it his best shot. “I was on the church board for 15 years, taught Sunday school for 12 years, have been a church member for 51 years, attended services whenever I was in town, put $50 in the offering plate every Sunday, made 3 mission trips to Banana Republic and served at the church dinner for the poor every year.” Without emotion, St. Peter said, “Five points.” Al was beside himself. “That’s not fair,” he screamed. “Didn’t you hear what I did?” The crystal brown eyes narrowed. “Why do you humans think you should be rewarded for doing what you should do?”

Al was shattered. He broke out in tears and stammered, “If all I did in my life counts for so little, I can only rely on God’s saving grace to enter heaven.” A voice like thunder and a thousand waterfalls boomed: “Enter the portals of heaven my child.” Without effort, Al walked through the arch, not into a black/blue background, but into a place illuminated by God’s glory where those of His saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone eternally walk in light.

Culture
The war rages on

Two appellate courts, the Georgia Supreme Court and the NY Court of Appeals, issued decisions that “outlawed” gay marriage. The Georgia high court reversed a lower court and reinstated the state’s ban of gay marriage. The lower court held that the ballot measure that decided against gay marriage was violative of the single-subject rule for ballot measures. The measure was approved by 76% of Georgia voters in 2004. Lawyers objecting to the measure argued that the measure was confusing because voters were asked to vote on same-sex marriage and civil unions. The Georgia high court, however, unanimously held that Georgians knew what they were voting for when they overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

In NY, the highest court of the state, in a 4-3 decision, upheld the state legislature’s declaration that limits marriage to one man and one woman. They emphasized that the decision on marriage is a legislative, not judicial decision. They also rejected the concept that gay marriage is a “fundamental right” since same sex marriage is not “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”

Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party issued this statement in response to the NY Court of Appeals decision:

As Democrats, we believe that every American has a right to equal protection under the law and to live in dignity. And we must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal.

As that essential process moves forward, it is up to the State legislature to act to protect the equal rights of every New Yorker and for the debate on how to ensure those rights to proceed without the rancor and divisiveness that too often surrounds this issue.

An interesting statement by the former Presidential candidate. He labels all of us who believe marriage to be exclusively between one man and one woman as outdated bigots. Yet in the next paragraph he wants his position debated “without rancor and divisiveness”! Yikes! Maybe Howard should start with not being rancorous and divisive toward us old fashioned folks with traditional virtues?

Scripture
Christian Historical Criticism

The Enlightenment principle of exalting reason over faith is not a Christian principle of Biblical criticism. Imposing analogies of what man experiences today as a test for Biblical truth is also improper from an historical standpoint. J. Burton Payne enunciates that proper Biblical and historical criticism:

… can be conducted only on the basis of the testimony of competent witnesses…as is the procedure in any other historical discipline. We cannot infer from analogous events today what must have transpired centuries ago.
Inerrancy, p.94.

The Biblical witnesses to Scriptural facts cannot be dismissed merely because they appear contradictory or impossible from our vantage point. Where is the witness that what it states is not true? That is, where is the contradictory witness?

I may not like what the Bible says, or want to dismiss what it says, but without competent evidence otherwise, I am not free to reject what it says. Seeming contradictions in the Scripture is not sufficient to dismiss what is said. Such contradictions may stem from [1] different aspects or points to be made by the different Biblical witnesses; [2] descriptions of different parts of like events; [3] language difference when translating Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek and/or [4] events that seem to be the same because of similar locations but are different in time.

J. I. Packer stresses the importance of inerrancy over and against historical criticism based not on contrary evidence but on the concept of contradiction:

Inerrancy keeps us within the bounds of the analogy of faith, directing us to eschew interpretive hypotheses that require us to correct one Biblical passage by another, on the ground that one is actually wrong, and to explore instead hypotheses which posit a unity and coherence of witness at every point under the Bible’s wide pluriformity of style.
J.I. Packer, Beyond the Battle of the Bible [Westcheeton, Il: Cornerstone, 1980], p. 60

Biblical higher criticism, like all historical criticism, should have as a goal the enlarging of our understanding of Scripture. What does it mean and say at all points to bring about a unity and coherence of the Biblical witness? If Scripture comes from God, it must be inerrant and infallible. Any other view does not interpret Scripture but rather eliminates it as God’s Word. Historical criticism that seeks to debunk is no longer an inquiry into an object but a reconfiguring of the object. Criticism is not to replace Biblical revelation with human reason. Scripture is received by faith and reason should help us understand our faith, not destroy it.

The question here is what is to be limited, faith or reason? Over one hundred and twenty-five years ago, J. Aiken Taylor in the Presbyterian Journal [April 12, 1878] answered that inquiry:

It is very much a matter of how respectfully one is prepared to treat the material found in the Holy Writ…Millions of words are being wasted on efforts to eliminate alleged contradictions through textual criticism, archeological findings, and interpretive principles. Such efforts are fruitless because one finding is dealing with the foundational attitude toward Scripture and not with the text of Scripture. The issue is one of faith, not scholarship.

No one can fully be persuaded of the inerrancy and infallible truth of Scripture except through the inward work of the Holy Spirit. Historical critics who are not Christians cannot know truth and cannot be prepared to limit their own opinions. Until a scholar comes under the Lordship of Christ through faith in his heart and mind, his historical criticism of Scripture will seek to limit faith by reason and replace God’s revelation with human reason. Historical criticism is not to negate Scripture but to understand it better through reason that affirms the Biblical witness to the faith of believers.

Christian Thinking
Conflict with the secular mind

It needs no argument to prove that the supernaturally oriented view of the human situation proper to the Christian mind is remote indeed from the view nourished by secular culture. This is most clearly shown at the popular level…Ask yourself what kind of world is pictured there, Is it the world known vividly to the Christian mind? A world in which angel and demon are locked in conflict? A world packed full of sinners desperately dependent upon the mercy of God? A world amok with fundamentally powerless creatures, running hither and thither, foolishly imagining that they can do without God, and making an appalling mess of things as a result? A world voyaging like a little vessel across the sea of time, taking its passengers to their final home? A world fashioned by God, worried over by God, died for by God?
No. The secular mind has a totally conflicting view of our world and our situation in it. The world pictured by modern secularism and present to the current popular thinking is very different. It is a self-sufficient world. It is a world whose temporality is conclusive and final, whose comprehensiveness of experience embraces all that is and that ever will be. It is a world run by men, possessed by men, dominated by men, its course determined by men. It is a world in which men have got things taped.

Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind, How Should a Christian Think?, (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1963), pp. 73.

Scripture
The basis of Historical Criticism

It is very important to understand that historical criticism of Scripture comes with its own presuppositions. J. Barton Payne, in his article “Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy”, puts it thusly:

They interpret the Bible within the presuppositions of contemporary scientific world view. Such world view assumes that all historical events are capable of being explained by other known historical events….the supernatural is not the immediate activity of the living God; for it belongs to the area of legend and myth not to the area of historical reality. The real issue: Which will we choose: to limit the Bible and thus also the Christian faith, along with God Himself, or to limit the critic?
Inerrancy, edited by Norman Geisler, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980], pp. 90-91

One historical critic of the Bible, R.N. Soulen, refers to historical criticism in the following terms:

The term Historical Critical Method refers to the principle of historical reasoning…that reality is uniform and universal, that it is accessible to human reason and investigation, that all events historical and natural occurring with it are in principle comparable by analogy, and that man’s contemporary experience of reality can provide an objective criteria by which what could or could not have happened in the past is to be determined.
Soulen, R.N., Handbook of Biblical Criticism, [Atlanta, GA: John Knox. 1976],
p. 62

Soulen makes three basic points: [1] that reality is universally apprehended by human reason; [2] that all historical events are comparable by analogy and [3] that the experiences of man represent objective criteria by which to judge the past. With such standards, what is stated in Scripture is treated in the same manner as every other book. The idea of the supernatural or of divine inspiration is out of bounds. Scripture is in the first instance discredited. The proper analysis is “what it really means based on human reason” and what we “know” can happen is based on our own experience.

The result of historical criticism on the pattern established by Soulen is discrediting Scripture and faith. Another historical critic, S.T. Davis frankly admits the result of applied historical criticism:

It is true that no Christian who believes that the Bible errs can hold that the Bible alone is his authority and practice. He must hold to some other authority and criterion as well. That authority, I am not embarrassed to say, is his own mind, his own ability to reason…I am the final judge of what I will believe.
Inerrancy, p. 109 citing, S.T. Davis, The Debate About the Bible, [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1977], pp.71, 75.

This is a candid acknowledgement that historical criticism is about what man thinks about Scripture. Where Scripture is not treated as the inerrant Word of God, there is admitted another authority, the reason of man. We have the circumstance then of man judging God. There is no attempt to see how criticism can deepen our understanding of Scripture. It is a discrediting process whereby the judgment of man is substituted for that of God. J.I. Packer, the leading Reformed scholar of the 2nd half of the 20th Century says this about such an approach:

Any view that subjects the written Word of God to the opinions and pronouncements of man involves unbelief and disloyalty to God.
Inerrancy, p.110.

While Biblical critics like to pass themselves off as objective scholars, they are not. As honest critics, like S.T. Davis, admit, it is personal preference based on individual reason that is the basis of what they believe. It is all about substituting the judgment of man for the judgment of God. What we can “know” is based solely on human reason and human experience. Either the Scripture is inerrant as God breathed or its validity is determined by man. Let’s rephrase Payne’s question: Whom do we limit, God or man?

History
Gettysburg, July 1-3, 1863

The cataclysmic event known as the Battle of Gettysburg has been the subject of reams of paper and cinematic events. Here, from the official report of General R. E. Lee to General Samuel Cooper, Adjutant and Inspector General of the Confederate States of America entitled the “Battle Report of the Gettysburg Campaign” is Lee’s assessment of the sacrifice, courage and bravery of his men in their horrific loss:

The privations and hardships of the march and camp were cheerfully encountered, and borne with fortitude unsurpassed by our ancestors in their struggle for independence, while their courage in battle entitles them to rank with the soldiers of any army and of any time. Their forbearance and discipline, under strong provocation to retaliate for the cruelty of the enemy to our own citizens, is not their least claim to the respect and admiration of their countrymen and of the world.
I forward returns or our loss in killed, wounded, and missing. Many of the latter were killed or wounded in the several assaults at Gettysburg, and necessarily left in the hands of the enemy.
I cannot speak of these brave men as their merits and exploits deserve. Some of them are appropriately mentioned in the accompanying reports, and the memory of all will be gratefully and affectionately cherished by the people in whose defense they fell.
The loss of Major General Pender is severely felt by the army and the country. He served with this army from the beginning of the war, and took a distinguished part in all its engagements. Wounded on several occasions he never left his command in action until he received the injury that resulted in his death, His promise and usefulness as an officer were only equaled by the purity and excellence of his private life.
Brigadier Generals Armistead, Barksdale, Garnett and Semmes died as they had lived, discharging the highest duty of patriots with devotion that never faltered and courage that shrank from no danger.

The Wartime Papers of Robert E. Lee, Dowdey and Manarin, editors, (Boston: Da Capo Press, 1961), pp. 584-85.

We are wont to look at history as events somehow detached from human agency. Yes, humans make history, but history can be explained independent of individuals. Lee recognized the sacrifice and efforts of his men generally and trusted officers who fell in battle specifically. As, we prepare to celebrate the 4th of July, take time to think of those individuals who have contributed to the life of this country generally and your life specifically. And, thank God for the efforts, courage and bravery of all those folks. It will make your view of history far richer.