Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child. Psalm 131:1-2
David writes that he "behaved and quieted" himself "as a child that is weaned of his mother." If you are a parent, you understand full well the ongoing labor of instilling good behavior and calmness in your children. Children tend to fret over the simplest of trials, and the most serious matter in their little lives can be as basic as permission to cross the street. The psalmist, in these revealing passages, tells us that our "souls" can operate like small children in need of good behavior or proper weaning.
However, as older persons, our weaning is much more sophisticated than simply letting go of the bottle. What we have to break free from consists of a wide range of human hurdles such as ambition, dependence, distrust, discontentment, and concern over the fulfillment of our own life plans. We want to know all there is to know about our future, God's will, and how long we have to wait for things to develop. In short, it's the same desire to be as God that was found in Adam and Eve -- to "exercise ourselves in great matters, or in things too high for us."
The psalmist refers to this mentality as having a "haughty heart" and "lofty eyes." The problem enters in when that pride is challenged by having to wait for God's plans to develop; we either fret and complain over God's "silence," or we take matters into our hands and use some formula to achieve our goals. Until we are weaned from such an attitude, we cannot receive God's pure instruction:
Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. Isaiah 28:9
Those who are weaned are calm, quieted, behaved, and patient. This last character trait is often the most difficult aspect for children to acquire. They are not patient. As a parent, how many times have you had to tell your child "to wait," or "be patient?" As you know, it's a challenge for our little ones to handle such a tall order. They want things immediately. Who hasn't endured the repeated pleas from the backseat, "Are we there yet?"
Small children are not concerned with the reasons why they are waiting, or the reality that it takes time to travel long distances in a car. They don't understand why Mom and Dad can't simply manifest what they want in a timely fashion, i.e. NOW! Isn't this an appropriate description of our own "grown up" instances of fretting and impatience with God? We want our plans to develop in a timely fashion, and we constantly ask God, "Are we there yet?"
Waiting is a problem for the soul -- the childish part of our natural lives. We like to occupy ourselves with the great matters that are reserved for God alone, and we grow impatient when answers or plans don't come quickly. The Scriptures often speak directly to this basic flaw in our nature:
Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Psalm 37:3-7
The Lord is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him. It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord. Lamentations 3:25-26
Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually. Hosea 12:6
My soul wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him. He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defense; I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is refuge for us. Psalm 62:5-8
The Scriptures encourage us to wait upon the Lord for His plans to develop. The Amplified Bible provides us an empowering interpretation of this in Psalm 106:12-13:
Then [Israel] believed His words -- trusting in, relying on them; they sang His praise. But they hastily forgot His works; they did not [earnestly] wait for His plans [to develop] respecting them.
The King James renders verse 13: "Then soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel." Like Israel, we can easily disregard the counsel of God through impatience. Waiting for the development of God's plans seems like a waste of time, and we often fear missed opportunity as we see others -- often the ungodly -- move quickly into prosperity, fame, achievement, and honor. It's as if they are far more blessed then we. But, this would be a misguided view of God's blessing. John Calvin explains this well:
Therefore, suppose we believe that every means toward a prosperous and desirable outcome rests upon the blessing of God alone; and that, when this is absent, all sorts of misery and calamity dog us. It remains for us not greedily to strive after riches and honors--whether relying upon our own dexterity of wit or our own diligence, or depending upon the favor of men, or having confidence in vainly imagined fortune--but for us always to look to the Lord so that by his guidance we may be led to whatever lot he has provided for us. Thus it will first come to pass that we shall not dash out to seize upon riches and usurp honors through wickedness and by stratagems and evil arts, or greed, to the injury of our neighbors; but pursue only those enterprises which do not lead us away from innocence. [1]
Calvin is correct: it would be much easier if prosperity and a desirable outcome only came by the blessing of God, and that without it, "all sorts of misery and calamity dog us." But, this is not the case. We witness others -- again, the ungodly -- experience their dreams and prosperity without any reliance upon obedience. Is this the blessing of God on their behalf? Hardly. Often, it's simply God's way of heaping coals of fire upon their heads, i.e. they are receiving grace, but remain unthankful and disobedient. This will only increase their judgment on the final day.
When we as Christians see the prosperity of the wicked, and it seems God has our lives on hold, it becomes both confusing and difficult for our souls to comprehend. Is God mad at us? Has He forsaken us? Why does He have us on hold? Calvin says that we should not, during these times, "dash out to seize upon riches and usurp honors through wickedness... but pursue only those enterprises which do not lead us away from innocence." Calvin continues:
For with what shamelessness does a man trust that he will be helped by God to obtain those things which he desires contrary to God's Word? Away with the thought that God would abet with his blessing what he curses with his mouth! Lastly, if things do not go according to our wish and hope, we will still be restrained from impatience and loathing of our condition, whatever it may be. For we shall know that this is to murmur against God, by whose will riches and poverty, contempt and honor, are dispensed. To sum up, he who rests solely upon the blessing of God, as it has been here expressed, will neither strive with evil arts after those things which men customarily madly seek after, which he realizes will not profit him, nor will he, if things go well, give credit to himself or even to his diligence, or industry, or fortune. [2]
We risk too much if we allow our impatience to move us to dishonor God in the development of His plans for our lives. This is done not only by using sinful means to achieve something, but also by relying too much upon our own strength or abilities. The life of the Spirit is a delicate balance of diligence coupled with a God-honoring attitude of waiting -- a waiting that does not fret or complain. And, even if we never obtain the lofty goals we set for ourselves, we have a still greater treasure if we are truly trusting in God:
But if, while other men's affairs flourish, he makes but slight advancement, or even slips back, he will still bear his low estate with greater equanimity and moderation of mind than some profane person would bear a moderate success which merely does not correspond with his wish. For he indeed possesses a solace in which he may repose more peacefully than in the highest degree of wealth or power. Since this leads to his salvation, he considers that his affairs are ordained by the Lord. [3]
Our affairs, as Calvin said, "are ordained by the Lord." This is our comfort in life. God is never far from any one of us:
O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee. Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalm 139
As we discussed recently, the Bible is filled with prayers of judgment, and Psalm 139 reveals David's contempt for the wicked. Yet, he asks God to search his heart to "see if there be any wicked way in me." David wants his prayer of judgment upon the wicked to be a pure and holy anger -- the same kind of anger that God has. But, David also wants to be "led" in the everlasting way. He does not want to gain his objectives by traveling the same path of the wicked. He wants prosperity God's way.
The foundation to David's trust in God was his clear knowledge that God had been near to him since he was in his mother's womb. There was no place David could go where the presence of God would not be closer than his own nose. Therefore, David had to wait upon God. And when his soul began to fret and complain, David behaved and quieted it as a child weaned from its mother's milk. Such a child has learned contentment. It has learned to be satisfied in God alone while equally desiring and believing for His plans to develop.
This is the balance for which we must strive. Our contentment is found in the knowledge that we eternally belong to Christ, and despite the slow going development of God's plan for our lives, we are assured that God knows what is best for us. At the same time, we must also pursue with godly diligence the path that is laid out before us. Waiting upon God should never become an excuse for our not being faithful with our talents and giftings. Waiting upon God should not be equated with doing nothing. We can be very active while retaining a heart attitude geared to waiting upon the Lord.
So, what are your life plans? What would you enjoy dedicating your life to? If it's godly, and leads, as Calvin says, to a life of innocence, then make preparations and be diligent about your affairs. All the while, maintain an attitude of submission and humble waiting. God is blessed when our hearts reflect the image of a worshipful waiter:
Blessed is the man who listens to Me, watching daily at My doors, waiting at My doorway. Proverbs 8:34
1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Edited John T. McNeill, Translated Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960), 699. 2. Ibid., 699f. 3. Ibid., 700.
My favorite Hebrew presents a simple case for the wisdom of applying God's law to society. In the event that an entire community, state, or even nation, was entirely Christian, how then would we live?
Sporadically, I will comment on the corruption that moves throughout Christendom. Despite the fact that most evangelical ministries are decent, honest, and hard working, there remains that element which borders on criminal. Often, they are most popular.
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. Mark 11:23-24
Of all the Scriptures surrounding the subject of faith, these passages have challenged, puzzled, and inspired Christians for centuries. For some, the idea of moving mountains with faith is beyond belief. For others -- as in the modern faith movement -- these passages are central to their entire belief system, and have left the impression that the Bible, along with faith, is a way to get whatever you want out of life. You simply need only to believe, and you can write your own ticket with God.
Yet, we cannot avoid an obvious meaning to these verses. Though our Lord is using exaggerated speech -- i.e. He does not intend for us relocate a physical mountain -- He does so to encourage an uncommon faith among His followers. Even though you may not ever need to move a mountain, there are circumstances, events, and challenges that will befall you that appear equally insurmountable. It will be in such instances that we'll need what many faith teachers refer to as "the God kind of faith."
What is Faith?
Before we speak concerning the mystery of faith in Mark 11, it is essential to define what the Bible means when it speaks of faith; and in our discussion, the faith we're referring to is not the saving faith in salvation, but the faith we are to exercise throughout our Christian life. We might view it as our means of exchange with God.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb. 11:1
The word substance (Gk. Hupostasis) used here is translated as confidence or assurance. The word for evidence (Gk. Elegmos) carries the meaning of proof. When taken together this simple verse reveals the foundation of faith in the Christian life -- it is a firm belief in the otherwise unbelievable promises of God; a kind of faith that testifies that we are operating spiritually in an otherwise "materially" appearing world.
As the Scriptures say elsewhere, "hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why doth he yet hope for?" (Rom. 8:24) Faith and hope are evidence of things not seen. We cannot exercise faith or hope in something we already possess or can see -- this does not require faith. Faith is expressed when we are hoping for something from God which we cannot produce ourselves, or that which we cannot now see. Again, faith is our means of exchange, i.e. our commerce.
Faith to Move Mountains
Still, we have the problem of our Lord's illustration in Mark 11:23-24 of moving mountains. These passages created an entire movement (Word of Faith) that still thrives today within the Charismatic church. Millions of Christians have used Mark 11:23-24 as a means to obtaining whatever one desires from God. All that is needed is a "true faith" and all that you can imagine will be yours. When coupled with the prosperity gospel -- the doctrine that God wants us to be rich -- faith teaching has justified a materialistic pursuit of comforts and personal well being that exceed our Lord's meaning in Mark 11, and other like passages concerning faith.
However, what could possibly be the purpose of moving a mountain? Doesn't that appear to be a carnal, materialistic example of faith? If our Lord says we could randomly move a mountain, He must be implying we can have a Mercedes and a mansion, right? If we examine the context of Mark 11, we actually discover a different meaning.
[11] And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. [12] And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: [13] And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. [14] And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. [15] And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; [16] And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. [17] And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. [18] And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine. [19] And when even was come, he went out of the city. [20] And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. [21] And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. [22] And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. [23] For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. [24] Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. [25] And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. Mark 11:11-25
The context regarding faith stems from the entering of Jerusalem and our Lord's cursing of the fig tree. It is helpful, in accurately interpreting these passages, to note first that the Gospel writers were very selective in what they wrote concerning the life and teachings of Christ. In the Gospel of John, for example, the apostle writes:
And there are also many other thing which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. John 21:25
If the world could not contain the books written about the life, teaching, and ministry of Jesus Christ, then what the Gospel writers DID include in their accounts is pertinent and meaningful, i.e. they did not waste space with irrelevant descriptions. I say this because in verse 12 of chapter 11 Mark writes, "He was hungry, And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet."
Mark is not giving us information that is irrelevant to the overall point regarding faith. In fact, the encounter with the fig tree is central to our Lord's lesson regarding faith. In other words, Mark is not giving us unimportant information like: "Jesus was hungry, Peter had to use the bathroom, and John had a rash." This is not filler material. It is pertinent to the teaching.
Jesus was hungry. He desired something of the fig tree, found no figs, and cursed it for its lack of fruit. The meaning should start to appear at this point. He was about to go back into Jerusalem and visit the temple. When He does, He finds the money changers set up in the house of prayer and calls them a "den of thieves."
Israel is that fig tree, and she was fruitless. Mark was careful to note that the fig tree our Lord cursed had no fruit "for the time of figs was not yet" (v. 13). Was Christ being unjust to the fig tree, then? Not when the fig tree represents Israel, because God expected her to always bear fruit. During the time of her visitation by her messiah, she had nothing to offer him. By the next day, the fig tree had withered:
And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. Mark 11:20-21
The cursing of the fig tree dried it up from the roots. The meaning here, as it relates to Israel, is that she was about to be cursed because her corruption went down to her roots -- her immorality was found in the temple itself (the roots), and it could go no further. Her time of judgment had come.
Our Lord uses this instance to teach His disciples concerning faith. It should be obvious that He is not referring to a faith that can be abused for personal greed or gain, but a faith that in this instance is used for judgment. The "mountain" He refers to is the mountain He and His disciples just descended -- the mountain upon which the temple stood.
This is why He completes His teaching by making reference to forgiveness when His disciples would pray:
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. Mark 11:26
This relation of prayers of judgment and the moving of mountains is found frequently in the Book of Revelation. For example, after the cries of the martyrs came from under the altar after the opening of the fifth seal a succession of judgments culminate as "the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places" (Rev. 6:14)
This obviously parallels the illustration of the fig tree and mountain used by Mark in his gospel. Staying with the Book of Revelation we continue to see prayer and judgment moving mountains:
And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand... And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea... Rev. 8:4, 8
Despite the example of imprecations being used, there is no getting around the clear meaning that the cursing of the fig tree and the moving of mountain were an encouragement for faith. Even though Christ was using that faith to curse a rebellious Israel, that same faith can be used for something personally beneficial. Although, even personal "benefits" serve only the greater cause of the Kingdom.
However, there is still a clear line of limitation that prohibits selfishness in the prayer of faith, i.e. laying hands on a Cadillac! But, if we look carefully at the text, we see that Scriptures have a "built in" protection against greed and unbiblical praying or believing.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2
You cannot have mountain-moving faith and an uncharitable motive at the same time. You cannot have mountain-moving faith along with a heart filled with carnal desires -- you are nothing, and you will receive nothing:
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. James 4:3
Doubt is sure to enter in when your motives are questionable:
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:5-8
These verses, as in Mark 11, can be easily misconstrued when the context is not considered:
Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: But the rich, in that he is made low: Because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. James 1:9-10
Faith, as James describes it, operates according to the state of our hearts. The poor man cannot be excluded from faith because of his perceptions of being destitute. By having feelings that "you don't deserve anything" you are expressing doubt in the promises of God that are not given based upon social status, race, gender, or anything else. Equally, the wealthy, or seemingly blessed, must be "brought low" to understand that their existence is granted by God, their life is fleeting, and all that will ever have must be obtained by the same quality of faith utilized by the impoverished man.
Doubt enters in when the motive is sinful. You cannot believe for something God has not ordained for you. The disciples could not simply use faith to curse anyone or anything they wanted. When they prayed prayers of judgment they must be willing to forgive. In other words, as in Christ's encounter with Israel, the situation must be clear and beyond repair; then, and only then, is this judgmental form of prayer necessary.
So, if you cannot pray in faith without forgiveness (Mark 11:25); and you cannot pray in faith without love (1 Cor. 13:2); then you cannot have mountain-moving faith accompanied by greed, lust, covetousness, or any other ungodly motive. Not only will you not receive anything due to your sinful desire being mixed with faith, but you will never really have faith to begin with since the goal itself would not be God-ordained.
You will find it difficult to have genuine faith for something God has declared is unlawful for you. As we've learned, the Word of God is living and active, and it penetrates the very depths of our hearts to divide soul and spirit and is a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). The Greek word for discerner is "kritikos" -- where we get our word "critical"-- and it means a skillful judging. The Word of God judges, or critiques, in all our prayers, the motives, thoughts, and intents of our hearts. Imagine it's like being inspected as you go through customs or into an airport. Our prayers are judged by the Word and the Spirit, and if our intents are carnal, or ungodly, they are not permitted to pass into God's throne. This keeps the elaborate promises of God safe from the selfish motives of carnal man.
But great faith is still being encouraged, and we can be persuaded of great things, akin to us as a mountain being moved, if we will be sure that when we pray, "believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them" (Mark 11:24). Whatever God has promised can be believed when pursued with the proper motive and sustained with consistent faith. The doubter, as James said, should not "think that he shall receive anything from the Lord" (James 1:7).
Although it is important for us to learn to have faith for our own "mountains," our Lord encouraged His disciples to use their faith for the larger purpose of advancing the Kingdom. As in the first century, apostate Israel had become an obstruction because of her sin and rebellion, and the ministry of Christ and the disciples became one of ardent prayer and faith to tear down strongholds and execute the judgment written:
Let the godly ones exult in glory; Let them sing for joy on their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, And a two-edged sword in their hand, To execute vengeance on the nations And punishment on the peoples, To bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron, to execute on them the judgment written; this is an honor for all His godly ones. Praise the LORD! Psalm 149:5-9
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths. Proverbs 3:5
The Scriptures are replete with references and admonishments to trust the Lord. Psalms and Proverbs especially abound with the righteous casting their reliance upon God as an example to all of us: Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him (Ps. 2:12); Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (4:5); [L]et all those that put their trust in Thee rejoice (5:11); O Lord my God, in Thee do I put my trust (7:1); And they that know Thy name will put their trust in Thee: for thou, Lord, has not forsaken them that seek Thee (9:10); O Thou that savest by Thy right hand them which put their trust in Thee from those that rise up against them (17:7); As for God... He is a buckler to all those that trust in Him (18:30); The Lord redeemeth the soul of His servants: and none of them that trust in Him shall be desolate (34:22); Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed (37:3); Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him; and He shall bring it to pass (37:5); It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes (118:8-9); Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help (146:3); The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe (Prov. 29:25). Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him (Prov. 30:5).
Since the references to trusting in God are so abundant, might it be that a good portion of our personal tribulation, trials, setbacks, confusion, lack of peace, and misdirection is stemming from a lack of trust in the Lord? The Scriptures tell us that it is far better to trust in the Lord than to rely upon anything else. We cannot trust in ourselves. We cannot put our trust in man; and we certainly cannot rely upon our own understanding. In all our ways we must acknowledge Him, and He shall bring things to pass as well as direct our paths.
For our study, we will focus on the relying upon our own understanding. In the modern era of American material comfort, this is our more likely stumbling block. Our tendency is to lean upon our own understanding, and this temptation is perfectly reasonable to "rational" man.
Everything we encounter in life appears to operate and function by some kind of law or system. We have absolute confidence that the lights will turn on when we flip the switch; that our clock radios will awaken us; that our cars will start; that other people will try to be as considerate as we are; that Winter will follow Fall; that our hearts will beat; our eyes blink; and that everything eventually goes on sale! In short, life appears routine and regulated in every aspect. We only get bent out of shape when those natural processes are interrupted.
It's very easy to lose sight of the absolute control of God in all things when the world appears to operate automatically. This was Israel's danger when they entered the Promised Land. God warned them that after they labored hard to build houses, plant vineyards, and harvest the land, they would say to themselves: "My power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth" (Deut. 8:17). Since their provision would no longer be falling out of the sky like the manna they would be tempted to think their provision came only by the sweat of their brow.
But God was clear to Israel in stating the true source of all that they would inherit: "[T]hou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth" (Deut. 8:18). The Hebrew word for power being used here is kowach and it means force, vigor, or capacity to produce. Our ability to produce anything; whether it be cars, food, highways, houses, families, wealth, art, etc., is all derivative of God Himself. It is in Him that we live, move, and have our being (Acts. 17:28).
If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that we are very much like the Israelites who forgot the source of their wealth. It's not that we cease to love God, or lost our desire to serve Him. It's that we still accept a very "natural" way of looking at the world. We still assume a very natural order that seems to operate outside of God. We therefore tend to pray more when the natural order stops operating according to our liking. When the system breaks down, we feel we need God to do something "super-natural", i.e. God has to step in to help out the natural order.
However, the world does not work that way. In fact, the Biblical writers provide us a much different picture of the way the world works:
He makes springs pour water into the ravines; it flows between the mountains. They give water to all the beasts of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst. The birds of the air nest by the waters; they sing among the branches. He waters the mountains from his upper chambers; the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate -- bringing forth food from the earth: These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth. Ps. 104:10-14, 27-30
What appears to be as natural as springs flowing or grass growing is really the power of God sustaining all of creation. This is the heart of why the Scriptures encourage us to trust the Lord. If there is no "natural order" per se, wouldn't it be wrong to trust in it? If the natural world is directly controlled and sustained by God, wouldn't it be proper to trust in Him?
This is also why you cannot lean upon man, princes, or your own understanding. Not yourself, not other people or leaders, nor anything else can possibly sustain us since they themselves are sustained by God. All things work together for His good purpose (Rom. 8:28), and He works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). Nothing under heaven can stand on its own. Even gravity and every other so-called "law of nature" is simply the consistent way that God operates the world. To think otherwise is to move toward deism, i.e. the belief in the existence of a supreme being who does not intervene in the universe.
Living a life of trust in God requires a simple practicality. First, it begins with viewing the world Biblically. We have to embrace the Scriptural testimony -- despite the way things appear -- that the world does not run on its own steam, but is sustained in all ways by God's active will. Second, we must train ourselves to "dis-trust" our own understanding. If you want to doubt something, doubt your own interpretation of your circumstances. This does not mean we turn our minds off. We need our "understanding" to do everything from a math problem to cooking dinner. The understanding we don't lean upon is our tendency to view the world unbiblically.
Lastly, we must learn to stay our minds upon God. This is the ultimate expression of trust:
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Thee: because he trusteth in Thee. Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength. (Isaiah 26:3-4)
By staying our minds upon the Lord we are taking them off ourselves, our circumstances, and the natural order. Isaiah said to trust the lord "forever." The obvious meaning here is that trusting God is an eternal practice, and one that we should get used to sooner rather than later.
Things You Can Do:
1. Ask God to teach you about trusting Him.
2. Start viewing the world as "un-natural" -- meaning "God-controlled." You can do this by reading and meditating on chapters like Psalm 104.
3. Start training your mind to stay upon God. The more you're thinking about God, the less you're thinking about your circumstances. Again, this is the greatest expression of our personal trust in God.
I just spent a few hours with a journalist from Belgium. He's touring the United States to produce a series on religion in America for the public radio network in his own country. He was a delightful fellow, and it was a joy to speak with him.
He mentioned that Europeans are very much intrigued by the importance placed upon religion within American society. In many ways Europe has moved into a secular era, and the religious bantering of the Red, White, and Blue is drawing the attention of astute onlookers.
We discussed much the materialism of American culture, and its corresponding impact on the American Christian. The American version of Christianity was clearly unique and distinct from the same religion being practiced in the Third World, for example. American Christianity reflects the middle class with its base pursuits and celebrity culture.
At one point I noted to my Belgium guest an interesting paradox: despite the present emphasis upon religion in America, we have never witnessed so much Biblical illiteracy. Too many Christians simply do not know their Bibles well. Herein lies the paradox.
If most American Christians are both materialistic and Biblically illiterate, how can we explain the importance being placed on religion in America? Materialism is not a Biblical idea, and understanding Christian doctrine is not important. So, how then can we have so much debate about religion? Did modern Christianity spring forth from the void?
Hardly. There is only one way to explain the present debate over religion in America: it's due to the fact that America's brief history is very religious. In specific, America's history is Christian. This is how you get millions of people identifying themselves as "Christian" yet not attending church regularly, or reading their Bible. It's America's tradition to elevate the Christian religion, and it's this national narrative that a good many American is seeking to abolish—that narrative is no longer accepted broadly.
The best evidence for a Christian history in America is the fact that the issue is being debated. If our national history is as secular as some allege, it would not explain the religious emphasis so important to millions of Americans.
"The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof..." (Ps. 24:1)
How can movie stars like Leonardo DiCaprio or Cameron Diaz scold us for "causing global warming" with our cars and refrigerators, while they themselves zoom all over the world on private jets?
How is it that Al Gore, the pope and prophet of Global Warming, lives in a palatial mansion that consumes 20 times as much electricity as the typical American home?
These are not hard questions to answer.
Zillionaire celebrities and politicians can enjoy their stretch limos, heated swimming pools, and private jets with a clear conscience... because they've bought "carbon credits."
How could Renaissance popes, cardinals, and princes poison their rivals, launch wars against their fellow Christians, auction off church offices, and commit other misdeeds too loathsome to mention, without fear of spending eternity in Hell?
As everyone familiar with Reformation history knows, they bought indulgences--church-sanctioned pardons for sins past, present, and yet to come.
So, if you're a fabulously rich celebrity and you fret about leaving a nasty "carbon footprint" on the breast of Mother Earth, you simply buy some carbon credits and then jet off to the next awards ceremony. And just to add piquancy to the jest, the man whose corporation sells you the carbon credits is... Al Gore!
Gore's Generation Investment Management (GIM) firm is poised to make big money on Global Warming (for a discussion of GIM and related matters, see http://www.riehlworldview.com/...). To save the earth from mankind will be a titanic (or satanic) undertaking, requiring enormous transfers of money, power, and authority to--they hope--some kind of global government. Those who direct the growth of this ultimate statism will become rich and powerful beyond anything yet seen in history.
None of this would be possible in the face of a universal understanding of, and commitment to, orthodox Biblical Christianity. Call it what you will--the Green movement, eco-paganism, or just plain humanism--it owes its entire inspiration to a loss of faith in God and a lack of humility before His throne. It is nothing less than the latest attempt to build a tower that will reach to heaven. And, like the first and archetypal such attempt, the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), it will inevitably fail.
The earth is the Lord's, and He, not we, will decide how warm or cool it ought to be.
"The press... just doesn't get religion." --William Schneider, CNN
Only a women's studies professor would find it "profoundly disturbing" when fathers and daughters try to promote chastity; and only the out-of-touch media would think of hiring a women's studies prof to analyze a religious issue.
Writing for USA Today, Mary Zeiss Stange, a professor of women's studies and religion at Skidmore College, New York, discussed the growing popularity of "purity balls" (see "A dance for chastity," http://www.blogs.usatoday.com/...).
The point of a "purity ball" is to celebrate the father-daughter bond and try to strengthen it so that the girl will be better able to resist the temptation of premarital sex. While acknowledging that "girls benefit in their mental and emotional development in direct proportion to quality time spent with their fathers," Prof. Stange nevertheless finds that these dances smack of "the most pernicious aspects of patriarchal religion." Far more valuable than chastity, she says, is a girls' "sexual self-agency," by which she means a girl's freedom to be promiscuous, if she so chooses.
Stange also protests that the girls' mothers are "irrelevant" to these chastity commitments, and sees in it all an insidious process that "puts women and girls in their place." But this is like complaining that celebrating the Fourth of July slights Christmas. Why should building up the bond between father and daughter be seen as a zero-sum game for the mother? Only a feminist would see it so.
Professor Stange is a member of USA Today's board of contributors, and often publishes her musings on a religion which neither she nor her editors understand. But then the media always go to unbelievers when they wish to discuss religion. William Schneider was right.
Can anyone in his right mind argue that de-emphasizing fatherhood and encouraging girls to be promiscuous have done good things for our society? But that's feminism for you.
I rule my home with an iron fist. I'm the father--the head of the household--and the Bible clearly instructs both women and children to submit to a father's divine authority. My family does not command me. That would be out of order. In fact, it was only ONCE that my wife ever attempted to "tell me what to do." Here's how the exchange developed:
Wife: Chris, come and do these dishes! Me: No! I will NOT come and do those dishes... not until I'm done with this ironing!
Although my story is fiction, my wife has long been a source of godly instruction within our home. In all honesty, I was not prepared properly for the role of a father and husband. Sure, I could size up a problem objectively and make a decision, but being a nurturing parent and spouse would come via "on-the-job training." However, my wife was a natural, and I'm still amazed at the love, goodness, kindness, and care that she shows for our children, myself, our pets, home, friends, etc. When it comes to being human, she's been one of my best teachers.
Yet, my wife also understands the blessing that comes with kicking decisions upline. In other words, "Ask Dad." But, the real challenge comes when I then say, "Ask Mom." Our poor kids.
Seriously, the Bible provides us with a divine order for the home--as it does for all of society--and that order is necessary to social stability. The problem, as in all systems, is that of sin. This is a Rushdoony axiom: "there are no metaphysical solutions because our problem is always ethical." Whether you're discussing the proper model for the family, or the proper system for economics, all systems fail because of sin. Socialism versus free market is a nonsensical discussion if man remains sinful. So is the discussion of a male-led home. Sinners will abuse any model.
The unbeliever makes marriage a discussion of equality when it is actually a discussion of order. When discussing order, the question is always, "what comes first?" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--equal in kind, but not in order when revealed in history. The Father is first, and the Son demonstrates submission without complaint (John 8:26, 28, 29, 38, 42). The Spirit is sent forth from the Father and the Son, and He also ministers under submission (John 16:13). The man was created first (1 Tim. 2:13), and therefore retains primacy in divine order in the home (Eph. 5:22-23). However, this only makes him the "first servant" (Matt. 20:26-27; 23:11).
This is godly order, and this must be defended. At present, my right to "command my household" (Gen. 18:19) to serve God is not under threat. My children do not attend public schools, so there is no danger of that sewage reaching their minds. They were taught the commandments of God and willingly embrace that worldview. I shield them. I protect them. I isolate them as best I can. I systematically disparage the lunacy of liberal man, and my older sons are quite adept at doing the same. (You bet your life I'm protecting them. The quackery of humanistic secularism remains the ideological virus of greatest concern.)
It's not, however, "gay marriage" that immediately threatens my right to serve God within my household. It's the paranoid propaganda of the Christophobics that are spewing venomous lies that Christian homeschooling families are raising a generation of children to take up arms in some sort of genocide of liberals. This has consistently been the central motif in the secularist's theocratic conspiracy theory: the threat of genocide.
I honestly don't know how to respond to that allegation. The very idea is beyond repulsive to every Christian I've ever met. Our critics attempt to tie the isolated incidents of attacks on abortion clinics and doctors as somehow representative of the whole of conservative Christianity. They use this wacko conspiracy theory to stop conservative Christians from practicing their religion. So much for the religious freedom these bleeding hearts claim to tout.
Sinful man has always resisted God's ordained order. In religious terms, this is the essence of man's struggle throughout history. The issue is summed up in the oft-quoted refrain from Van Til: "autonomy or theonomy." In the end, it comes down to man's law versus God's law. To the faithful Christian, God's law trumps man's law, and the commitment to theonomy is comprehensive, i.e. it's not isolated to matters of the heart. Sinful man assumes autonomy, and that autonomy is equally comprehensive.
The modern unbeliever denies validity to the Christian worldview. It is their right to do so. They cannot, however, disallow the Christian from practicing his or her worldview. That would imply a theocratically humanistic tyranny; and this is what they seek. Their pretext for such tyranny is that these menacing reconstructionists "might" one day take up arms and kill us! It's the doctrine of pre-emption, and it's all the rage.
My wife and children are not oppressed. (In fact, they have a life. I tend to be the one slaving away night and day trying to provide for them--although my wife would claim that I chained myself to my desk!) What I am is a representative. I am a covenantal representative to my family of God's divine Word. My goal, however, is to create independent, self-governing men and women dedicated to applying God's law to their lives. I am not attempting to create a posterity that looks to me as Jacob's sons looked to Abraham. I cannot support that type of patriarchy. It's too self-serving. The emphasis must be on Christ, not an earthly father.
This is where the spiritual division of labor must exercise caution. Having web sites dedicated to patriarchy, agrarianism, etc. are helpful in terms of information, but readers must be careful to not misread what these exponents say as the cure-all for Christianity's ills. At the same rate, advocates of patriarchy and agrarianism are too often unjustly criticized because so much of modern Christianity is patterned after "this world," rather than Christ. I have heard of instances of abuse in "patriarchal" homes, but not any more than any other home. I have also been puzzled about the technological savvy of blogging agrarians--you can apparently plow with an ox but make money with MP3s. More power to ya!
My point is one of emphasis. Movements are a dime a dozen, but God's Word stands forever (1 Peter 1:24-25). So long as we encourage faithfulness we are quite orthodox, though we may focus upon a particular area of obedience to God. We do suffer in the modern age in terms of the role of a man and father, and solid Christian teachers are working to rectify that. We also suffer in many ways from the technological urbanism of modern living, and a return to simplicity will only remove barriers that hinder genuine worship and faithful Christian living. Were you to farm and enjoy family I can't imagine you'd contend much with the average problems of suburbanites.
Balance is the key in all of our pursuits, but not the type of balance that's synonymous with compromise. Balance means understanding that the human element is the detriment to all idealistic models whether they be models for the family, politics, or economics. The human element means both the sin element and the emotional element. Sinful people blemish pristine systems, and idealistic systems can damage emotional human beings. In the name of patriarchy we can easily become "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" when love is forsaken in order to establish authority. This again is the responsibility of the first servant--the head of household. Only HIS prayers are hindered if he mistreats his family (1 Peter 3:7).
Life is fast, and my children are older, so much of my authority is exercised when mom says, "Ask Dad." After 20 years of marriage she hasn't deemed this tyranny as something to oppose, and I only hope I'm making the proper decisions for my family. I tend to focus on ethics, and leave other decisions to my sons only advising them with what I believe to be wisdom. They are learning to be governers, and we all are subservient to one Lord and His commanding Word.
I have a lot more to say about these matters, but I've got lots of ironing to do!
This kind of singing will make anyone start a war on Christmas! The last minute is priceless. You'll be laughing all weekend. We all need a little levity.
Most of the critics of Christian Reconstruction are relatively harmless paranoids. You take them with a grain of salt, and you try to giggle your way through their diatribes. The folks that provide me the most laughter are the sardonic Christophobics at MoreTalkThanAction, a.k.a Talk2Action. I've always enjoyed the heretical Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist. He's funny because he stumbles more than the Keystone Cops:
If Rushdoony and his disciples have their way, democracy will be abolished and a Christian theocracy will be established. A theocracy based on the Bible along the lines of John Cotton's Massachusetts Bay Colony. Rushdoony wrote, "The only true order is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion." (p. 113) He also made it clear that he expects that force will be necessary to impose such order, "Every law-order is in a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare." (p. 93)
Democracy abolished? You're sadly mistaken. If you're advocating pure democracy, Mr. Prescott, you're just a few steps away from outright Communism. Rushdoony disdains pure democracies, and that is quite in line with our founding fathers. Democracy is summarized as equality under law. It is a political process, and it used in the United States in a procedural sense to serve our Constitutional Republic and its rule of law. The debate, Mr. Prescott, is not between democracy and theocracy, but over which law shall undergird morality.
Prescott's pitting of theocracy over against democracy also miscontrues the meaning of theocracy, viz. the rule of God. We advocate theocracy right now, not down the road. I am a practicing theocrat now, and that has no bearing on whether America embraces Christian theocratic principles. I live under the rule of God and His law now.
He cites Rushdoony's position of the religious nature of law, and the fact that law is a form of warfare, as if it's some sort of grand exposure. In doing so, Prescott makes Rushdoony's point. Prescott, an anti-inerrancy "Christian", opposes with fear the notion that a Biblical order would rule in America. Prescott raises opposition to this. Why? Because law is a form of warfare! And Prescott feels threatened. It's also because law is religious in nature. If it wasn't, we wouldn't hear a peep from Prescott. We only hear from him because God's law directly opposes the divinity he places in man's law.
He finishes with the usual Christophobic smear that Reconstructionists are going to take up arms to impose their theocracy. This is inexcusable. Rushdoony never hinted that violence or force would ever be used in the progress of Christian civilization. First, Rushdoony advocated a significantly decentralized state and Prescott assumes Rushdoony wants the reins of the present bureaucracy. This doesn't comport. Second, Rushdoony was clear that the advancement of the Kingdom of God in history is based upon regeneration, not revolution. Third, Prescott's limited citation of Rushdoony's thought more than loses the context--Prescott's obvious intention as a fear technician. Here's what Rushdoony wrote:
In brief, every law-order is a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare. Every law declares that certain offenders are enemies of the law-order and must be arrested. For limited offenses, there are limited penalties; for capital offences, capital punishment. Law is a state of war; it is the organization of the powers of civil government to bring enemies of the law-order to justice. [1]
I think Rushdoony is quite clear, and his thesis axiomatic. He's speaking of law in general, and he means that the law-order of any state is opposed to those criminals or enemies that seek to destroy or disrupt it. Police, for example, are the soldiers of that army. This is by no means a suggestion that Reconstructionists will view any opposition in the American legal system as grounds for taking up arms to impose Biblical law. Lastly, the use of the term "warfare" is not to be taken literally in all instances. Intellectual engagement is also a form of warfare, in addition to a police officer arresting a thief. This should be readily understood by the likes of Prescott.
The Rev. John Hagee has long been playing the shill for the Zionists. There's a huge difference between honoring a particular religion and sponsoring a politico-geographical policy. Most of the Zionists within AIPAC are hardly orthodox Jews, and their agenda is squarely political. The ways and means utilized to establish the Zionist occupation of Palestine are suspect, and most conservative Christians are simply unaware of the history of Zionism between 1897-1948.
Yet, Hagee sounds as if he is a hired gun aimed at Christian support of Zionism. Just listen to how he fawns over the Zionist state in the following clip. His "love for Israel" has made obsolete his sense of justice and jurisprudence -- you can assume his lavishing of Zionism is only matched by his ridicule of the Palestinians:
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, has declared homosexuality to be an immoral act along with adultery, and that the U.S. military should not condone it by allowing openly gay persons to serve. He said this yesterday to a group of reporters and editors in Chicago.
Pace does support Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but believes an open condoning of homosexuality does not well serve the United States. The sodomites have fired back declaring General Pace's comments as "outrageous, insensitive an disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces." Is there really that many?
Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals make up 1.51% of the U.S. population. There are approximately 1,426,713 persons in the U.S. military. If the U.S average was transferred to the military (1.51%), there would be roughly 21,500 gays in the military. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) has the number of military gays at 65,000 (4.55%) -- proportionally three times that of the U.S. gay population. The SLDN is likely using inflated percentages -- this is done by most gay advocacy groups. Some suggesting numbers as high as 10% of the U.S. population being gay. Those numbers are fallacious.
This doesn't mean that there aren't 65,000 gays in the military. There very well may be. It seems like a high number though when you consider how many gays are effeminate, and averse to the military, as well as those who know they'd endure harsh treatment for being openly gay. In short, most heterosexuals avoid the military, let alone homosexuals. However, the issue to Gen. Pace is not numbers, but morality. Sodomy is sinful -- plain and simple. It wouldn't matter if half the military personnel were gay. It's still immoral.
After the successful invasion of Iraq in Gulf War I, then President, George H.W. Bush, made much ado about a "New World Order." By this he meant: "a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a 'world order' in which 'the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ...' A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations."
The emphasis in that scenario is the fulfillment of "the historic vision" of the United Nations -- a vision of international peace. This is an ironic embellishment in a speech coming after a massive war that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; it's Orwellian to the core, i.e. "WAR IS PEACE."
The UN emphasis remained throughout the Clinton years, and the NATO-run war in the Balkans empitomized the dream of an international force imposing an international will. Again, the irony is dripping off the walls. We've had incessant war since the founding of the peace-establishing United Nations.
After 9/11, this all changed. We began to see "bad press" released on the United Nations highlighting misappropriation of funds, executive corruption, and raping and pillaging by UN forces. The Neoconservatives expressed their great disdain for the UN by pushing one of their own into the position of U.S. representation in the UN: none other than the UN-hating John Bolton, who once suggested that most of the floors of the UN could be demolished without making a difference. In other words, the UN had become a bureaucratic jungle.
The old moniker of the "New World Order" used by the senior Bush and his predecessors gave way to the Neoconservative ambition for a "New American Century" where diverse nations would not come together for peaceful resolution, but rather be subdued politically, economically, and militarily by U.S. hegemony. A century is 100 years and this span parallels Bush Jr.'s prediction that the "War on Terror" will last 100 years.
Now, the rhetoric of Old Europe and it's utopian UN dream is being established upon the morass of global warming. Although the global warming fallacy is nothing new, it's made remarkable progress of late with even Sports Illustrateddedicating editorial space to the subject.
Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, of the Labor Party is set to deliver a speech today that calls for a "new world order" to combat global warming. Brown will suggest that the UN make the fight against global warming the pillar of its international mission. According to the AFP, Brown will also praise the EU for agreeing to reduce emissions of CO2 by 20 percent by 2020. By making global warming the "pillar" of the UN mission, it removes the obviously failed mission of making peace. This a PR tactic, and it best explains the mass media hysteria of late over global warming. We're being set up. Well, the more Left-leaning population is being set up -- the Right tends to decry the threat of global warming.
Gordon Brown is favored to replace Tony Blair as Britain's next prime minister, and he has a long history of serving the ruling class. After taking the office of Chancellor, Brown allowed the Bank of England total operational independence as a stepping stone towards the institution of the Euro. Brown sold over half of Britain's gold reserves, and this again, went to the international banking community -- the long-standing architects of any New World Order.
The public relations of the Bush-led Neocons is quickly becoming like that of the defunct UN. The psychological aftermath of 9/11 has all but worn off the American psyche. Only the most ardent Republicans still swallow the tainted hogwash streaming from the White House and Defense Department. Although it's too early to predict the next president, the likelihood of a Democrat is real and probable -- especially if the wars in the Middle East continue without resolution.
Most Americans embrace the fallacy of global warming, and the Democrats have claimed early ownership of the campaign for environmental policy change. Al Gore's documentary helped to seal the deal, and we should see a revival of New World Order rhetoric bubbling up in Washington.
Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad. According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it. We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
Brought in to resolve a dispute between a divorced couple, Family Court Judge Thomas Zampino overrode his state's laws and ordered the local school board to sue a homeschooling mother of seven, to get the right to review and supervise her teaching (for the full text of the judge's ruling).
Amazingly, the judge in his ruling cited the state laws which do not permit the actions he desires the board to take. According to the laws cited by the judge, 1) parents in New Jersey are not required to notify the school board of their decision to homeschool, 2) the law does not require the board to review and approve anyone's homeschooling curriculum, 3) a parent is not required to have a teaching certificate in order to homeschool, and 4) no standardized tests are required for New Jersey's homeschooled children.
You'd think that would settle it, wouldn't you? Undaunted by the law, however, the judge said the lack of school board supervision over homeschooling families was "shocking to the court," and soliloquized, "[H]ow can we not monitor the educational welfare of all our children?"
Because the law does not permit you to, sir! Judge Zampino said he wants 1) the registration of all homeschooled children, 2) a requirement for parents to file their homeschool curricula with the local school board, plus a "training seminar" for parents, and 3) a requirement for standardized tests to be administered to all homeschooled children.
The judge decried what he called a "void in legislation," and asked, "How can we have... no state statute that outlines a framework for school districts when parents choose this alternative for their children?"
Doesn't he have enough to do, enforcing the existing statutes, without trying to enforce imaginary ones?
Not being a duly constituted legislature, the judge's wish list would appear to be just another piece of idle, opinionated chit-chat. We are all entitled to our opinions. But of course the judge thinks his opinion is the same thing as a law, and he will try to force this family and their local school board to abide by it.
Isn't it about time legislatures started censuring, or even impeaching, judges who so brazenly overstep their bounds? Isn't it about time that we, the public, started demanding that our legislators do this?
We will be watching to see what happens in this case. Parental rights are at stake, and we must not allow rogue judges to abridge them.
"Dominionists are patient revolutionaries.They work through the system to gain control. Then they work from within the system to change the system. The changes they are making are incremental. They have little respect for democracy and none for pluralism. They mean business and they already hold many of the mechanisms of power around the country.
"It is long past time for Americans who love democracy to acknowledge what is at stake and start facing the challenge that these patient theocratic revolutionaries represent. Facing this challenge means organizing at the grass roots level - precinct by precinct - the same way they did. Rhetoric and writing alone, no matter how passionate, is not going to defeat them. In the end, what matters most is the number of ballots that are cast to oppose them and whether the votes are accurately recorded."
Who speaks more about politics than a dominionist? An anti-dominionist! They're consumed with politics. They live, eat, sleep, and drink it. Why? Well, they'd say it's to preserve democracy. Ah yes, precious democracy. That elusive, ill-defined ideal that always seems to be under attack. However, these espousers of democratic zeal are only hiding their true calling: revolution!
In the citation above, notice the contradiction of the author regarding the tactics utilized by the "patient theocratic revolutionaries." He writes, "They work through the system to gain control." A very revolutionary thing to do! "They work from within the system to change the system." My goodness, the evil theocrats are politically effective. How evil!
What is this writer's solution? "Facing this challenge means organizing at the grass roots level - precinct by precinct - the same way they did." So, would that make the anti-dominionists revolutionaries then? Is their use of political tactics somehow more noble because they're not conservative? Can somebody help me here?
This writer claims the dominionists have "little respect for democracy and none for pluralism." But it appears the dominionists have great respect for democracy. In fact, they are quite adept at obtaining their political goals through a more effective use of democracy. This writer is whining -- whining that he can do little more than blog about it.
For two years now I've given you a close look at the anti-theocratic opposition. I've taken you inside their conferences. I've shown you their blogs, and undone much of their arguments. They're losing both the war and the battles. They lose because they have no heart to win. They have no heart to win because their cause is not religious. They fight for man, not God. Worse yet, they fight for sinful man -- a lost cause.
This is why the tactics of the secularists are changing. Chris Hedges' latest book American Fascists is the most recent installment of the new propaganda. The sheer paranoia that fills its pages is so unbecoming of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist like Hedges. Later this week I'll post Lee Duigon's review of Hedges' book. I'll also post a podcast interview with Duigon. I like to double-up when I hit back!
I must say I'm quite happy to hear conservative Christians described as "patient theocratic revolutionaries." Obviously, the opposition is not so patient. Therefore, they may resort to more drastic measures to prevent the civil installment of the Religious Right. At that point, these anti-theocrats will become the true revolutionaries; for that is what they are. They will not be patient. They will not work "precinct by precinct." They don't have the numbers or the resources. This will make them desperate men. This will make them revolutionaries.
In case the average liberal thought Obama was the true alternative candidate to the war-mongering GOP, think again. He's as much on the war footing as anyone from a Red State. His recent speech for the Zionists makes that clear:
"It is important to remember this history--that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets.
Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.
That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security."
Obama then begins the anti-war spin -- pure feigning:
"As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning - in part because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.
Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone else's civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe."
Don't let this rhetoric fool you. Obama wants redeployment of U.S. troops to confront Iran:
"As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran."
Obama then stoops even lower. He starts boot-licking on the Holocaust:
"Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers."
This is a communications ploy. Holocaust-deniers are equal to those who exterminated the Jews. We marched against Hitler, we must march against Iran:
"The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
Obama hides his support for war with Iran behind his proposed pursuit of "tough-minded diplomacy." What does that mean? Threats? Or, appeasement? Iran has already made clear that sanctions would be taken as a declaration of war. What will Obama do? He wants to arm Israel to the teeth:
"At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."
He then offers his support for the two-state solution:
"We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality."
Any review of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians demonstrates the impossibility of such a solution. Israel will always be an occupying power in Palestine. The Palestinians will essentially sign a Suzerain Treaty with Israel being the vassal lord. The Palestinians have no resources. No oil. No real military. Nothing. They will only exist under the watchful eye of the Zionists.
Barack Obama is cowtowing to the political and economic interests of the wealthy AIPAC. His "tough-minded diplomacy" will be backed up by U.S. military force. Obama is a puppet for the same interests that brought us the invasion of Iraq.
Chip Berlet, the Left-wing hireling of the big tax-exempt foundations, included a rather odd diversion in his recent post at MoreTalkThanAction, I mean Talk2Action:
Hodge also cites his own work, which appeared as Making Sense of Your Dollars: A Biblical Approach to Wealth, published by Ross House Books, an arm of the Chalcedon Foundation, created by the progenitor of Christian Reconstructionism , Rev. R.J. Rushdoony. (I pause here to note the proponents of Rushdoony are so techno-attuned that Rushdoony has his own podcasts, even though he is dead.)
Chip, I agree. We are techno-attuned, but I pause to wonder why you included this in your post. Chip apparently believes the truism of the Old West: "Dead Men Don't Podcast." But, at least I know that Chip has found the podcast. That gives me hope, because the less advertising dollars I have to spend, the better.
I wonder if Chip is aware that a fair amount of podcasts are pre-recorded radio programs? This is certainly the case in Rushdoony's podcast Our Threatened Freedom. (I'm sure someone less scrupulous than Chip will cite the Rushdoony podcast as evidence that he's still alive and meeting daily with James Dobson for tea and tyranny!) These radio programs were recorded a number of years ago, and were graciously sent to us by a dear friend.
We are grateful for the MP3 technology that allows us to make these brief commentaries available to our listeners for downloading. I regularly receive emails of appreciation for posting these podcasts. I think Chip may be jealous though. More people care to listen to the dead man speak than peruse his blog postings.
Chip had more much to say in his blog post than the brief mention of Rush's podcast, but responding to his conspiracy theories can be tiresome. In this particular post, he tries to tie Christian Reconstruction to the John Birch Society (JBS). Why bother? Just ask us, Chip. We have no aversion to the JBS other than it's lack of a distinctly Christian worldview. Some of our readers are long time JBS members, and I always look forward to receiving my copy of The New American. I thank God the JBS is still contending with those same financial elitists that underwrite your Marxist employer: Political Research Associates.
Chip is bent out of shape over the Austrian school of economics (Mises) so pervasive within the libertarian circles of Christian Reconstruction, and/or the JBS. To an arm-chair Marxist like Chip Berlet, freedom should not be found in economics; for Berlet, freedom is best expressed socially in "liberty for sodomy." Economically, Chip prefers totalitarian controls. What Chip repeatedly fails to realize is how his efforts best serve the financial interests he is supposed to be opposing. That's why they finance him!
Who could possibly be more opposed to free market economics than oligarchies? Statist intervention is a fascistic front for the most elite financiers and global corporate interests. Socialism protects financial and corporate monolopies as the ruling class utilizes the apparatus of the state to stifle the upward mobility of competitors. Chip Berlet is just one of their many tools to promote socialist utopianism to his economically ignorant Left Wing constituency. That's why big money foundations support him. That's also why he dedicates so much editorial space to undoing "conspiracy theories" regarding the financial elite.
In the meantime, somebody should buy Berlet an iPod. He's not technologically-attuned, and I think he'd like to download some Rushdoony.
People who think the Religious Right is dead had better wake up. These people who see themselves on a mission from God are even smarter than they were in the past and now even more skilled in political strategy. They are not about to give up. To have progressive people celebrating the victory of the Religious Right's demise is to put our constituency right where the Religious Right wants us to be--confident without cause and vulnerable to a surprise that will cause us to say again with regret, "We just didn't see it coming. We weren't ready for them!"
So says another braying Leftist that recently added his dissent to the rumour floating through the media that the Religious Right is dead. Yea, I know, I'm puzzled too. Heck, it was just two years ago when they had a few hundred people scared too death at the Open Center in NYC as "expert" after "expert" predicted the absolute religious takeover of America. I guess these guys figure that if the Republicans lost the House and Senate, then it must be time for the Religious Right to call it quits. That won't happen.
Now, I'm no fan of an overemphasis upon politics as a means to an end, but if anyone thinks that conservative Christians are going to lay down for homosexuals, antichrists, and false Christians, they're in for a rude awakening. You cannot stop an advancing people driven by their faith. The resources of media, personnel, motivation, finances, and resolve is too much for the small faction of liberals to contend with. Conservative Christians have dedicated over 30 years to their enterprise, and you can bet your last dollar that won't vanish quietly into the fog. My goodness man, they number in the millions.
Conservative Christians are not progressive, i.e. they don't stand on a worldview that changes. They are established in their faith, and they will press those convictions with an energy unequaled by any group from the opposition. Recent history should bear witness to that. If you are afraid of the Christian religion being promoted in the public square, then you might want to take something for anxiety -- you'll need it! If you think quoting Thomas Jefferson in regards to the separation of church and state is your ticket to paradise, then your plane is about to crash.
These people answer to Jesus Christ, not the letters of a dead president. They want righteousness in their nation, not the ever-changing ethic of a culture gone awry. They won't allow anyone to deprive them of their voice in the marketplace of ideas. They are not intimidated by the Gestapo of the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Lie Center. They will not allow their Christian history to be simply erased from the textbooks and the courts. They will fight you. You can bet your life on it.
Call them nutcases, and they'll come at you that much harder. Call them zealots, and they'll show you a passion you'll never match. You see, you're fighting for temporal causes, but their fighting for the eternal; and history has shown that dedicated Christians always win.
The goal of apologetics is not to win someone to Christ. It's not to win a debate, or demonstrate the superiority of one's intellect. The goal of apologetics, in fact, has as much to do with the Christian as it does with the individual the Christian is debating or bearing witness.
One of the proof texts often cited by presuppositionalists is 1 Peter 3:15, "[B]e ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." The Greek term being used here for "answer" is apologia, and it carries the simple meaning of a "verbal defense." This is why apologetics is often referred to as "defending the faith." Cornelius Van Til's well-known volume on apologetics is simply titled The Defense of the Faith. Dr. Greg Bahnsen's easy-to-read book on apologetics is aptly named after Peter's text: Always Ready.
Yet, making a defense for the hope that is in you should not be confused with debating. When two parties debate, they are being offensive as well as defensive. It is a reasoned discussion designed to establish the veracity or falseness of a particular position. However, in First Peter the idea of defense relates to defending against persecution and false accusation, not winning people to Christ or debating a philosophical point:
And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 1 Peter 3:13-17
When Peter says "every man," he means them that "falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ" (v. 16). This in no way suggests that a Christian ministry host a debate between the local atheist biologist and their Christian biologist. That is not defending the faith; or should I say, "defending YOUR faith," i.e. giving an apologia for the hope that is in YOU (v. 15). This is what we're commanded to do. We are to offer a defense for the hope behind our way of living. There is no command here to promote debates.
We must offer a defense of the faith when our "good conversation in Christ is falsely accused" (v. 16). The end result of such false accusations of Christians is that we "suffer for well doing" (v. 17). The reason we suffer is because our good works are publicly misconstrued as "evil doing" (v. 17). This is nothing new. Christianity has always endured detractors, i.e. those who falsely accuse Christians of being evildoers (v. 16).
This is the reason why I dedicate a fair amount of publishing space to engaging our critics regarding theocracy and dominionism, i.e. Christian Reconstruction. I am making a defense (apologia) for our mission, since it is being misconstrued as evil doing. Granted, as Peter states, "it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing" (v. 16), yet, he also admonishes us to be ready to offer a defense in "meekness and fear." In other words, we must do so in godliness, but we should never be silent.
So we see early on that apologia is "the making of a defense"; and the New Testament utilizes the term likewise in other matters of defense. In 1 Corinthians 9, the apostle Paul makes a lengthy apologia toward those who criticized the validity of his apostolic ministry:
Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. Mine answer (apologia) to them that do examine me is this... 1 Cor. 9:1-3
In lieu of the infiltration of detractors amongst Paul's churches, it is quite reasonable that he engage in apologetics in order to both validate and defend his ministry. This was a proper use of apologia in that it sought to provide a reasoned answer for his hope -- the hope that inspired his mission. However, he only utilized an apologia when his work came under personal attack. He was not seeking to defend all apostles from the criticism of unbelievers, he was defending his apostleship from detractors within the churches he planted.
Upon one of his visits to Jerusalem in Acts 21 Paul faced a city-wide persecution after certain Jews from Asia falsely accused him of undermining the law, the people of Israel, and bringing in a Gentile thereby polluting the temple (Acts 21:28). The Jews caused an uprising, and Paul was beaten with the intent of killing him. When the chief captain heard of the uproar, he and a band of soldiers rushed to the melee to stop it. The chief captain had Paul bound in chains, and took him into custody. At Paul's request, the chief captain allowed Paul to address his persecutors:
Men, brethren and fathers, hear ye my defence (apologia) which I make unto you. Acts 22:1
At that point, Paul referenced his Jewish nationality and Pharasaical commitment to the law of his fathers (v. 3). He told of his own participation in persecuting the church of God by dragging Christian men and women off to prison for their faith (v. 4). He showed himself as one zealously committed to the Jewish traditions, but an encounter with the living Christ on the road to Damascus made manifest the sheer error of his persecutions.
This was a defense of the hope that was in him. Where his mission was being spoken of as evil doing, his purpose in offering an apologia was to demonstrate the righteousness of his cause.
When in bonds, Paul offered a defense of the gospel (Phil. 1:7), but his intent was not to debate his detractors over the existence of God. Paul was perpetually on trial both within and without his churches, and much of his time was spent defending his reason for preaching. This was Paul's primary purpose for apologetics.
Disputing the Faith: Paul and His Areopagus Address
When we do find Paul "arguing," it's not with the unbelievers. What many modern Christians define as apologetics amounts to disputing with unbelievers; it's not a defense of the faith or hope that is in them. True apologia takes place when the unbeliever falsely accuses the Christian. It is then that the believer must be ready to make a defense.
Too many Christians are looking for a "duel" with the unbeliever. They offer a challenge and then schedule a debate. This is not a defense. A defense lawyer is only called upon when an individual is accused of a crime. Defense lawyers do not schedule trials to simply argue ideas. They defend the accused. Modern Christian apologists can often act more like prosecutors than defense attorneys.
In Acts 17, the apostle Paul was provoked in his spirit upon his visit to Athens: "He saw the city wholly given to idolatry" (v. 16). Yet, in light of this mass idolatry, he does not confront the Grecian philosophers, but rather pays a visit to the local synagogue:
Therefore, disputed (Gk. Dialegomai) he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (v. 17)
How could a contingency of Jews in Athens allow an entire city to be given over to idolatry? The Jews were never effective at changing the course of a city. Throughout Paul's missionary journeys he found synagogues sprinkled among the Gentile nations, but these Hebrew outposts made little impact on the harboring community. Only the power of the Christian faith could transform a city, therefore, Paul's concern was to preach the gospel to the Jews, since hitting the local synagogues was always his first step in reaching a city -- Jews, as we say in marketing, were the low-hanging fruit of Paul's time:
Now when they had passed through Amphipopolis and Appolonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. Acts 17:1-2
He "reasoned" out of the Scriptures with the Jews in Thessalonica, and he "disputed" with the Jews in the idolatrous city of Athens. In both cases he preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 17:3, 18). It so happens that in both cases there were Greeks present (v. 4,17, 18). But in Athens, this preaching of the resurrection of Jesus Christ led to a wider discussion with the local philosophers:
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. Acts 17:18-20
Luke describes these Athenians as men who wasted their time telling or hearing something new (v. 21). These were not pursuers of the truth. Their interest in Paul was his suggestion that a man was raised from the dead:
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. (v. 32)
This "indifference" on the part of the Athenians followed the so-called "great debate" by Paul the apologist (c.f. v. 22-31). But, was Paul debating the Greeks here? There was nothing much to debate. Paul was a preacher to the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7, 2 Tim. 1:11) -- "for the which cause he also suffered" (2 Tim. 1:12) -- and debating the existence of God with hardened unbelievers was not akin to faithful preaching. So, after calling the Athenians "superstitious" (Acts 17:22) and "ignorant worshippers" (v. 23), Paul declares, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (v. 30).
Paul's mission was to call men to repentance -- specifically, the Gentiles. When he does take the time to reason or dispute, he does so with the Jews since they are already aware of Jehovah's existence, understood some measure of messianic prophecy, and bore a clear obligation to the Scriptures. In his disputing with the Jews, Paul placed emphasis upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead because the resurrection is the established Old Testament criterion for identifying the messiah (Acts 2:22-36). That's why the resurrection is a stumblingblock to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23). The Jews could not make the connection, and the Greeks could not comprehend the importance.
Paul has a simple reason for not engaging in philosophical debate with unbelievers regarding God's existence. First, God did not send him to do so; and second, the wisdom of words tend to dilute the power of the cross:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17
Paul goes on to say, "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (v. 18), yet Christians take classes in apologetics to avoid appearing foolish before unbelievers. Is this not giving ground to the unbeliever, and diluting the cross?
Please don't misconstrue my statements. I have great admiration for the presuppositional argument for the existence of God. However, even the "Great Debate" between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein did not lead to Stein's repentance. Here you had the greatest apologetical system applied by the greatest Christian debater and the opponent dies in his sin. Bahnsen's debates have done much to more empower the faith of Christians than lead unbelievers to repentance. I'm still thankful for every one of his debates. They are lessons in the superiority of the Christian worldview.
We can easily end up endorsing rationalism when we seize on an apologetical system as the means to repentance. Granted, one can use presuppositionalism in conjunction with faithful Gospel preaching. It all depends upon the individual discussion. But, to think that our apologetic is alone sufficient leads us to rationalism.
Greeks seek after wisdom (1 Cor. 1:22), i.e. they are looking for a reasoned debate for proof. Instead, God says, "offer them foolishness." Why? Because the world is filled with reason, and this abundance of wisdom does not lead men to Christ. Therefore, God is more pleased with the perceived foolishness of gospel preaching. And He's more pleased with it because it's what His wisdom dictates:
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God... (v. 21a)
This is an odd statement, and one that carries a similar idea to Paul's discussion in Romans where unbelievers "professing themselves to be wise, become fools" (Rom. 1:22). Despite the clear evidence of God's existence (Rom. 1:19-20), unbelievers foolishly corrupt themselves with idolatry and perversion. God then judges them for this sin, though it was He who in His wisdom determined it to be so.
The Greeks find the resurrection of Christ to be foolishness. In response the Christian must not rehearse "evidence that demands a verdict," but rather preach Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23), viz. "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (v. 24). Fallen man needs a confrontation with power, not philosophical arm-twisting. We must follow the manner that God has ordained:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in presence. 1 Cor. 1: 27-29
Christ is, therefore, our "wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (v. 30). We must boast in nothing more than Christ, His cross, and His glorious resurrection. To glory in the superiority of our apologetic method is akin to boasting in one's salvation. Calvinists should understand this, though the Van Tillians (which I am one) tend to glory in the superiority of their method. Man does not choose God (John 15:16), therefore man cannot boast that his faith was his own (Eph. 2:8-9). As presuppositionalists, we must carefully avoid the implicit denial of God's sovereignty in predestination and salvation by thinking we've obtained the best argument for God's existence. "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:31).
Dr. Cornelius Van Til defines apologetics as "the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life."[1] Sproul and Gerstner define apologetics as "the reasoned defense of the Christian religion."[2] B. B. Warfield refers to apologetics, or apologies, as "defenses of Christianity, in its entirety, in its essence… as against either all assailants, actual or conceivable, or some particular form or instance of attack."[3] This central idea here is the defense of the Christian faith against those views that stand in opposition to it. The question becomes, "Do we go out and pick fights?"
I encourage you to read Warfield's discussion of apologetics as he amplifies the meaning and necessity of apologies. In other words, there will be instances -- especially within academia -- when making defenses is proper for the refining of our philosophies. I'm not referring to that sort of apology. What is of concern to me is that we have a ready defense against those who speak evil of our good conversation in Christ. This in itself presupposes that we are living in a manner that would draw the criticism of the world. All too often our lifestyles are of no perceived threat, and therefore, there is not much need for a defense.
1. Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 1. 2. R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 13. 3. B. B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vo. IX (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1932), 3.
