What We'll Be Doing on Thursday Nights

It starts this Thursday night, but there's still time to get the rest of the books.  You can learn more about it at the Vision Forum website.

"Big Brother" - When the Government Oversteps Its Authority

I recently read an article about a court case in Canada which was like a story from a horror novel - a story which really just goes to show how eager the Government is to take over every aspect of our lives...

A Canadian father prohibited his 12-year-old daughter from internet use after finding out that she was doing some very inappropriate and dangerous things online. His daughter disobeyed and used a friend's computer instead to carry on her foolish activities, and as a result, her father grounded her, prohibiting her from participating in "the three-day overnight trip that her school was taking to celebrate their graduation from 6th grade."

So what did the disobedient child do? Did she submit to her father's just correction and repent of her sin? Not a bit of it. Instead, she takes her father - her father, mind you - to court, and "challenges his right to prohibit her from attending a school trip."

Read that paragraph over again. It should make you sick.

And guess what? The judge, a woman, decides in the daughter's favor, ruling "that the father had in fact overstepped his authority, and that the punishment was too severe."

This is what happens when a nation steps away from the Lord, forsaking Him and the things pertaining to Him, and pursuing their own, worldly wisdom (Prov. 3:7; 14:12). This is what happens when parents fail to pass down God's precepts to their children (Duet. 6:6-7). This is what happens when children no longer honor and respect authority (Exo. 20:12). This is what happens when "Big Brother" oversteps his God-given boundaries to meddle in things that are not his to meddle with.

We live in a "crooked and perverse generation (Phil. 2:15)." Slowly but steadily the nations of the world are turning their backs on God, His Word, and His Laws. It is a sad decline, and the Devil no doubt rejoices mightily as he watches his minions go on with their filthy work. Christians dwell in an age where it is requisite that they stand firm against the World, the Flesh, and Satan, and raise up Godly seed to carry on Christ's work and continue the fight. Sadly, that is just what many "Christians" are not doing. They gradually become more and more like the world, blending in, and going with the flow as if there were nothing different between Christ's followers and Worldlings. How is Christian Light going to make any difference in the Darkness if we hide it (Matt. 5:14-16)?

That court case occurred in Canada. But America is next. We now have a president who, despite his claims to Christianity, upholds perversion, child-slaughter, and a host of other unbiblical principals and ideas. Things can only get worse unless God intervenes on behalf of a country that is sinking deep into the Slough of Sin. We can only hope and pray that He does.

Already, the Children's Rights Convention describes corporal punishment as"physical violence." Under the articles of this Convention, parents would no longer be able to "deprive" their children of liberties, like the Canadian father did. If a parent did "deprive" his/her child of certain freedoms, the child could bring the matter to court, and get "legal or other appropriate assistance". In essence, parents would no longer have the right to discipline their children or restrict them in any way without concern of Big Brother interceding to do what's really best for the children. The UNCRC is a fire bomb which will only result in destruction if it goes through and the US signs on as 192 other countries already have.

It rejects the right of fathers and mothers to be fathers and mothers. It defies the mandated guidelines found in Scripture. If it is passed, it would have serious repercussions. We see bumper stickers saying "God Bless America". Rather, why don't we say, "God Forgive America".

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon." Isaiah 55:7

Persevero,

Scribe

P.S. ~ If you would like to read the entire article about the aforementioned court case in Canada, here it is at http://www.parentalrights.org/blog/courts-the-law/much-ado

Palin & McCain - Part 4

Alright, we now come to the third major argument that McPalin supporting Evangelicals will use to justify their decision vote for these candidates: We can look to exceptional examples (like Deborah, or Queen Esther) to justify female leadership in the civil realm, even though we dismiss Old Testament precepts.

As I said in the last post, you cannot throw out the rule and use the exception as your guide. It simply does not work. Rather, the exception should prove the rule, not destroy it.

In this case, the rule, as found in Scripture, is that men, and men only are to be leaders, both in the home, the church, and the civil sphere. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, like the example of the widow I gave in the last post. Nevertheless, the rule remains.

Now first, let's look at the example of Esther (now I could go off on a totally diferent subject about her, but I'm not, because if I did, I would never finish this post!). If you think about it, this example does not really make sense. As Dr. Einwechter (couldn't have done this thing without him!) states, "A queen is a king's wife, and normally the position of queen is not considered a political office. There is no indication that Esther excercised any ruling authority in Persia beyong the management of her own household and her personal influence over the king. The analogy of Esther actually applies to John McCain's wife, Cindy, and not Sarah Palin, his vice presidential choice."

Also, using examples of female rulers in history, is useless. Dr. Einwechter says, "... history is not a self-interpretive phenomenon, and the experience of history is not the final standard of faith and practice for Christians. Scripture is our only infallible standard of truth and the measure by which the facts of history must be interpreted. History presents us with examples of every kind of civil leader on can think of. There have been good female rulers and bad female rulers. What should we conclude from this in regard to the biblical doctrine of the civil magistrate and the role of women in the civil sphere? Nothing. 'To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them' (Isa. 8:20)."

Now onto Deborah. You know, these days it seems as if everyone supporting Palin introduces Deborah, as though this one example will win the debate. If two people are having a discussion about this whole issue, and one of them says, "Yeah, but what about Deborah?" the conversation is supposed to end. McPalin-supporting Evangelicals seem to think that exceptional, out-of-the-norm cases like Deborah, Queen Elizabeth, or Esther throw out the rule that Scripture has clearly mandated to us! That's not true! These abnormal (key word there) examples contradict a host of other passages in God's Word (see Palin & McCain - Part 2), and therefore cannot be our guides in selecting civil magistrates! In short, as Dr. Einwechter points out, "The example of Deborah no more proves that we ought to vote for a woman for civil office than the example of Abraham proves that a man shoud take his son to a mountain to sacrifice him to demonstrate his devotion to God, or the example of David proves that that a man may have more than one wife."

Now, I'm sure we could discuss the whole Deborah issue in much more depth, but for now we'll just keep it at that. For a more detailed commentary on this subject, I would recommend Dr. Einwechter's invaluable treatise, linked here.

So, to sum this whole thing up, we might ask, "Well then, who are we to vote for?" I think that if we look in Exodus 18:21, we can see a summery of what qualities should be found in a civil magistrate (or, in fact, any leader). In this pasage, Jethro is counseling Moses about who should be elected as judges for the people "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness..."

So, a leader or civil magistrate should exhibit:

(1) - Ability. He should be one is able to execute all the duties which the office of leadership (of any form) require of him.

(2) - A fear of God. He should be a man who fears the Lord and walks in his precepts, relizing that the very office he holds was established by Him. We also need to realize that whenever we vote for someone who does not fear God, we are voting for a fool (Prov. 1:7; Psa. 111:10).

(3) - Truthfulness. He needs to be honest and truthful in all that he does. A liar or one who is decietful is not qualified for leadership.

(4) - A hate for covetousness. This means, as Doug Phillips said, that this man should not only dislike the idea of using his power to obtain wealth or gain gotten by unrighteous means, but he should hate it. And hate is a very strong word.

These form the basic outline of the qualities a leader should have. If the candidate for a civil office does not qualify in all of these points, he does not deserve the vote of a Christian. If neither of the candidates qualify (which seems to be the case in this upcoming election), then it is better to not vote at all, rather than vote against God's Word. And voting for the lesser of two evils is not an option either, because evil is still evil, and to cast your vote for evil is in contradiction with the Bible!

Before I wrap up, I would like to thank Dr. Einwechter for his awesome commentaries on this subject. His great posts were like a nucleus around which I could gather my thoughts. I also would strongly recommend (again) Doug Phillip's CD, "Biblical Principals in the Ballot Box". This CD is a must have! I've only skimmed the surface of the argument, but for those of you who want to study it further, this CD, and the articles by Dr. Einwechter (which can be found at Vision Forum's website under blog posts and hot topics) are essential. On a side note about the "lesser of two evils," look at www.baldwin08.com for an article about wasting your vote.

Persevero,

Scribe

Palin & McCain - Part 3

In the last post we looked at the first argument some evangelicals will use to uphold their support of McPalin: namely, that there are no standards in the Bible which apply to civil magistrates. Such an argument is, as was pointed out, faulty and unbiblical in the light of scripture. Much thanks to Dr. Einwechter for his very helpful article on this subject. There is a link to this article on my previous post about Palin (see Palin & McCain - Part 2).

In this post, we will look at the second of the three major arguments some evangelicals may use. Here it is: Egalitarianism is fine outside of church and home. In other words, as Einwechter puts it, "...the doctrine of male headship and the existence of distinct and separate roles for men and women only apply in the home and church. In the sphere of politics and civil government, the complementarians argue...that the doctrine of male headship is not relevent here, and all public roles and positions are equally open to men and women. Mohler writes: 'The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the church and in the home, but not in roles of public responsibility.' Kotter states: 'The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from excercising leadership in secular political fields.' This means, to them, that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to be a judge, legislator, governor, vice president, or president of the United States."

Now lets look at this closely. First, we already said there are biblical standards for civil magistrates, and that in every one of these, men are the ones in view, not women. Second, Mohler says that "The New Testament speaks clearly..."etc. Whatever happened to the Old Testament? Jesus himself quoted from the Old Testament many times in the course of his ministry, and so did several of the Apostles in their epistles; Jesus also said, in Matt. 5:17-19, "Do not think that I came to destroy (or make void) the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whowever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Why should we dismiss the Old Testament when 2 Tim. 2 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Paul, in this letter, does not say "some Scripture" or "part of Scripture", he says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...". Paul also says "thoroughly equipped for every good work" which means that in all areas of life the Word of God provides direction.

Dr. Einwechter says, "The record of some of our finest and most influential Reformation Bible commentaters stand in opposition to Mohler, Kotter, and others who argue for a semi-complementarian, semi-egalitarian position on the jurisdictional roles of men and women. These men not only believed that all of the Bible informed our view of ethics, but that there was harmony between the Old and New Testaments on the issue of the role of women and the jurisdctional governments established by God." One of these, fine men was John Knox, the famous Scottish reformer. Dr. Einwechter says, "... John Knox put it this way: 'To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely [an insult] against God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.'

"Niether human reason or human experience can define the assigned roles of men and women, nor determine the relationship they sustain to each other in terms of authority and submission; only the Creator's Word can do that.

"The Bible is clear that man's headship over the woman is an essential and all-encompassing part of God's plan and part of His established order of government in the world. This fact is made explicit in 1 Cor. 11:13: 'But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man;; and the head of Christ is God.' By its very nature, this order must apply in all areas of life; it is an essential order that knows no exceptions. Complementarians would agree that in every area of divine government God is the head of Christ, and in ebvery area of life the head of man is Christ. But, incredibly, they argue that the order of male headship has only limited application, and that there are many areas of life where it does not apply, and one of them is the civil sphere. They justify this interpretation by stating that 1 Cor. 11:13 is in the context of church order. This is true, but the place in which this text appears and the sweeping statements in the text itself show that Paul is establishing the theology that the world is governed according to the divinely given order, an order that he will presently apply to church order. The fact that Paul is not giving a principle that only applies to church order is evident from what he says about Christ and God, and Christ and men."

Of course there are exceptions to this divinely assigned role order. Perhaps the husband has been injured and is laid up in bed. Obviously it would be wrong for the wife not to take charge of affairs while her spouse is unable to do so. You might even go into extremes: let's say the husband died, and the wife is now a widow with young children who must support her family. Again it would not be sin for the woman in this case to work to put food on the table and clothes on her children's backs, although Scripture is clear that the church should be taking care of its widows. However, such exceptions do not replace the God-given rule of male headship. Such exceptions do not nullify or make void the rule; the exception proves it. One cannot throw out the rule and put in its place the exception. It is one thing for a woman to work several hours a week at Wal-Mart if she is a widow or her husband is unable to work; but it is quite another thing for her to undertake the vice-presidency of a nation, which God has clearly told us is the duty of a man, and not that of the opposite sex.

Persevero,

Scribe

Palin & McCain - Part 2

Dr. William Einwechter wrote a very helpful article "Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise", linked here , dealing with common arguments that some evangelicals will use to uphold their support of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, and so I may often quote him this post and those to come on this subject. In this post, though, we will mainly take an overview of this whole situation with Palin and evangelicals, and look at the first of three common arguments used by some Christians to "uphold" their support of Palin. By the way, in case you aren't familer with it, the term complementarian refers to someone who believes that men and women have different but complentary roles according to God's revealed will. Here is a quote by Einwechter: "One would surmise that the nomination of Palin would create a dilemma for politically conservative Christians who say they believe that God has given a woman the distinct and important roles of wife, mother, and keeper at home. How so? On the one hand, Palin is a political conservative who seems to hold the right position on the issues most important to Christians; she purports to be pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-marriage, pro-family, and she herself is a professed evangelical Christian."

"More to the point is the fact that Sarah Palin is a professing Christian, a wife, and a mother of five children, one of her children being a baby with Down Syndrome. The inescapable dilemma for these politically conservative complentarians, it would seem, is how to reconcile their support of Palin's candidacy with their professed support of Palin's biblically mandated roles of wife and mother. In addition to these considerations, the complementarian must face the question of whether or not it is biblically proper for a woman to rule over men in the civil sphere; after all, in their veiw, women are not to serve as pastors, and women are to submit to their own husbands in the home."

"But, as it turns out, there is no real dilemma here for the complementarians. Sarah Palin the vice presidential candidate and Sarah Palin the mother of five presents no necessary contradiction in their system. A wife and a mother of five children who is called by God to be a keeper at home (Titus 2:5), and who, in their view, is not qualified to be the head of her home or to be the elder of a local church (simply because she is a woman), is qualified and free, they believe, to seek the vice presidency of the United States of America. How can this be? Two recent blog entries by David Kotter and Albert Mohler reveal how this all fits together in their worldview."

Alright folks, with that under our belts and laying the foundation here, we'll move onto the first argument that evangelicals use to support their endorsment of Palin. Ready... here it is: There Are No Biblical Standards That Apply To Civil Magistrates.

According to Kotter, Christians are free to support Palin because there are no standards in the Bible that can define for us the qualifications for civil magistrates. He argues that the state is strictly a secular institution and thus God does not require those civil magistrates to be Christian or ethical. Alright, let's just pause right here for a moment. First, I'd like to say that there are defined standards in the Bible concerning civil magistrates. Duet. 1:13 and Exodus 18:21 for example. Dr. Einwechter points out that both of these passages specify that the leaders must be men. There are lots of other scripture passages as well that give the biblical standards for civil magistrates, such as 2 Sam. 23:3; Rom. 13:1-6; Prov. 29:2; 2 Chron. 19:6-7; Neh. 7:2; Duet. 16:18-20; 17:14-20. ..."in every one of these texts," Einwechter says, "men, not women, are in view." I might add that Doug Phillips, of Vision Forum, makes the case that in the passages speaking about the qualifications for being a civil magistrate, the Hebrew word used means literally male, and is not the same Hebrew word which refers to mankind.

Second, if Kotter is right, and God does not require civil magistrates to be Christian or even ethical, then we Christians can go ahead and vote for whoever we want to, be it the basest, most immoral person who's on the presidential ticket, and, if we follow Kotter's thinking, say that it's not sin! Have Christians just tossed good logic and God's Word out the window?

(And let's think about Palin for a moment: how can she justify through God's word the fact that she has attached herself to a man like McCain who, by his voting record, clearly supports abortion? Scripture says that light has no fellowship with darkness, so how can someone who claims to be an advocate for unborn children biblically back up the fact that she is joining with one whose views on the subject of abortion differ so widely from her own?! She can't. That's just it!)

Kotter also says that a president does not have to go by the same moral standards as an elder in a church. The implications of this statement are huge. That means that Christians can just disregard God's word when November 4th rolls around; that they are "let off the hook" so to speak when it comes to voting according to biblical standards. Kotter is also compartmentalizing Christianity. He's basically saying that you should act one way outside the ballot box, and then act a totally different way when you're in the ballot box. God's guidelines for righteous living do not change at all, whether you're the elder of a church or the president of the United States. God says to be holy for He is holy. He doesn't say that you can be holy here, but not there, follow His Word here, but not there - no, he says simply to be holy. No ifs, ands, or buts - simply be holy. And throughout the Bible, I think we can see that one aspect of holiness is obeying God in all matters - civil or private - and not picking and choosing where we will follow the Bible and where we won't.

Persevero,

Scribe


Recommended listening: Biblical Principals in the Ballot Box by Doug Phillips, available at www. visionforum.com

Palin & McCain - Part 1

Before I begin, I would like to thank my good friend Curtis for his wonderful post concerning this very subject, as I will refer to it during the course of my commentary here. So thanks, Curtis, for such an insightful post. Few people could have put it more clearly or boldly as you did. :)

Alright, now if you folks have been keeping up with the presidential campaigns, you'll know that not too long ago, Senator McCain made a strategic move by selecting Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate. I'll not delve into why this was a smart move on his part because I'm not here to discuss that. I have a completely different matter to address: the fact that so many evangelicals are saying now that they'll vote for McPalin, "to keep Obama out of office or because they figure that the odds are against McCain and his bouts with melanoma, leaving the door wide open for Palin to step in and really turn this country around," as Curtis says.

Okay, now what's wrong with that reasoning? Here's how Curtis puts it: "...the problem with both of these reasons is that the first assumes that we are somehow in control of the election and that not voting forMcpalin is voting for Obama and the second assumes that the person holding the office of Commander in Chief can somehow single-handedly turn the country around. The former needs to learn about the sovereignty of God, and the latter needs to sit down with the U.S. Constitution and read up on the powers of the president."

Amen to that! Both of the reasons above make no sense and are faulty. Also, it is sad to see so many Christians sacrifice their ideals to vote for McPalin. They're showing that they are not truly grounded in what they believe, that they will compromise Christian values, and that they'll put political affairs above what Christ teaches. Curtis says it well right here: "For some reason, they (the evangelicals) are willing to sacrifice Biblical standards in order to do what they, in their impotent human "power", think is the best course of action to slow the Country's gradual progression towards liberalism. Somehow, they think that it is beneficial to vote for a ticket that includes a waffling, pandering, political moderate (is there a picture of a weaker leader?) and a woman who wants to abdicate her full time job as a wife and mother to someone else in the interest of "saving the country" (is there an example of greater hypocrisy?) simply because they think it is a better option than the alternative. Somehow they think their idea is better than God's."

Do you need it put any clearer? What those Christians are saying is hypocritical and just plain unbiblical. Palin is opting to reject the Scriptural role God has for her, to serve a man other than her husband and fulfill an office in her Country's government instead of raising her children. She obviously values filling a political office above nurturing her family. Titus 2:3-5 says, "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed."

I have here also a quote by Dr. Voddie Baucham: "My heart breaks for her (Palin). She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is 'something more'. I fear she will regret this someday. In fact, I believe she already does. I can't imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging feeling in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back. My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic mother with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate. My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-70, let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family." More posts to come regarding other issues concerning Palin.

Persevero,
Scribe