Thursday, August 29, 2013

The Church: A Model of True Society to the World or Clergy-Dominated Principality?

The Hang the Bankers web site recently ran an article on the inevitability of economic collapse given our present banking system. You can read the article here. My experience in the UK has shown that not only do secular politicians and economists not want to listen to this message, but Christian pastors do not want to either. They are simply not bothered about the state of our society or the economy (with the exception of stopping sex shops from opening and banning homosexual marriage). One leader of a Church here said to me "I am not concerned about what is happening in the world, our job is to snatch brands from the fire." The real question for Christians however is this: when secular society collapses because of this economic debacle, will the Church be ready to step in with an alternative Christian model of society, including a biblical economic model? When society collapses the Church needs to be ready to lead the way in modelling to the world what society should be like. The Church is not ready for this, at least not in the UK, and the reason for this is entirely down to the pastors and clergymen who lead the Church and who do not believe that the Church has such a role to play. This is because they are ignorant of the history of the world and ignorant of the history of the Church.

There is only one way to deal with this: get rid of the pastors and clergymen who are misleading the Church. Their religion is mysticism and pietism and has no relevance to the real world or to a biblically informed understanding of the Christian faith. It was because the early Church was relevant, because she was a society that could show the world how to live as a true society, that she was able to conquer the Roman Empire. Things started to go wrong with the rise of clergymen—who did not exist in the apostolic and sub-apostolic age—and their control of the Church. As clergymen became more important the Church became a principality controlled by the professional clergy. The Church as a dynamic community was transformed into an institution with a professional bureaucracy and the life of faith was redefined as the performance of rituals by professional clergymen. This situation has continued. Today the whole culture of choosing and training pastors is defective and is vitiating the life and mission of the Church. 

The Church will not move on and the Great Commission will not progress until we deal with this problem, and this means getting rid of the whole clergy-dominated idea of the Christian Church. The New Testament Church gives us a completely different paradigm. In the New Testament Church there were ministries given by God. These were God’s gifts to the Church for the purpose of building up and equipping the Church for her work. These were the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11–16). These are not offices but ministries. There were also elders and deacons, who were chosen by the congregations from suitably qualified men. Office and ministry were not tied together. Officers (elders and deacons) do not need a calling from God, they need a calling from men. In other words they are, or at least should be according to the Bible, elected by the congregation (see below). Ministers cannot be chosen by men, whether by congregational elections or by ordination boards; ministers are called by God. They are a gift from Christ to the Church for her edification. Electing a man as an elder or a deacon does not confer on him any ability whatsoever; it certainly does not enable him to fulfil the ministries mentioned in Ephesians 4:11–16. That is why the Bible lays out so clearly the qualifications that a man must have to be an elder or a deacon (1 Tim. 3:1–13). These qualifications have nothing to do with gaining academic degrees and attending theological college. They are based on a man’s having proved his ability to be the head and leader of his family according to Christian criteria. Elders also have to be apt to teach (v. 4), but this does not mean that they have been or that they have to be called by God to the ministries mentioned in Ephesians 4: 11–16 (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17–18). 

This is not the way it is with the ministries given by Christ to the Church as set out in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians. Those whom God calls he equips. Ministers are not elected by the Church or by ordination boards or boards of elders. They are given by Christ. Christ calls, appoints and equips his ministers, not the Church and not the elders. The Church chooses and ordains officers only, not ministers, and it is the congregations that should chose the elders and deacons by means of elections (Acts 6: 3–6; 14:23, cf. 2 Cor. 8:19). The Church herself cannot choose or create ministers, she can only recognise or fail to recognise those whom God has called and appointed as his ministers. She can of course elect donkeys who think they are ministers and charlatans who pretend to be ministers, just as Caligula appointed his favourite horse as a consul, and with as little sense or edification for the poor souls who have to sit in the pews each week and listen to them braying. 

Of course it was possible in the apostolic age for someone with a ministry in the Church to be an office bearer in the Church as well, as was the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 5:1 cf. 1 Tim. 5: 17–18). But this was not so with all ministers. The apostle Paul was not an elder, and he goes out of his way to point out that he was not ordained by anyone, but that his calling as an apostle was neither from man nor through man (Gal. 1:1). Being an office bearer did not mean one had a ministry. And, more importantly, having a ministry did not mean being an office bearer, and the route to ministry was not through the gaining of office. An elder had to be apt to teach, i.e. able to teach when a Church had no one with a ministry of teaching. The concept of clergymen was an invention of men. It arose when office was tied to ministry and only those who were office bearers were allowed to minister. From then on the clergy took control of ministry in the Church, and the results have been disastrous. 

The vandalism inflicted on Christ’s Church by this development has been enormous. Clergymen are not interested in the Kingdom of God, they are interested in the Churches as their own dominions. They see the Church as their principality, their area of control. The implication of this—though they will never admit this of course, but it is the logical conclusion of their clerical theology—is that only they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The clergy have become guilds that control access to the work of ministry in the Church. This is what the training colleges and ordination processes are for. They control access to ministry in the Church and restrict it to those whom the guilds of clergymen can mould and control, thereby preserving their disastrous domination of the Church for the next generation. The fact that the Church today is in a massive nose-dive due to their ignorance, intellectual laziness and idiotic machinations means nothing to them. They are determined to hold on to their dominions even if it means the failure of the their Church’s mission to disciple the nation. In fact most of them are committed to the failure of the Church’s mission as a theological principle. They do not believe that the nations can become Christian and they will not be part of such a project, and they will do all they can to make sure their Churches do not engage in such a mission. Their eschatology is a belief in the triumph of failure. They redefine the Great Commission so that it becomes mere individual soul saving, the purpose of which is to bolster their failing Churches. 

The whole theory, structure, and culture of Church leadership and Church leadership training must change. We must get rid of the domination of the Church by clergymen. There were no clergymen in the New Testament. A biblical theology of the Church has no role for clergymen. It has a role for ministries and for officers, but the two are not coterminous.  Making the necessary distinctions is essential to a proper understanding of the Church and her work, and without reform on this issues there will be no progress in the Great Commission, just more of the currently highly successful Great De-commission.

Once we have got rid of this disastrous clergy-dominated vision of what the Church is meant to be we can embrace the biblical emphasis in which the Church models true society to the world and calls the world to repentance both by her words and by the way she lives as the true society, a prophetic community that is called to transform the world. But these two visions cannot co-exist in the same Church because they are fundamentally opposed to each other. It is time to get rid of the disastrous clergy-dominated vision of what the Church is meant to be and replace it with the biblical model. The Church cannot model to the world what true society should be and thereby fulfil her calling to transform the world while she is held captive to a false vision of her mission as result of being subjugated to a delinquent and unbiblical form of leadership that is committed to the failure of that mission. 

Monday, August 5, 2013

Christian Hypocrisy and the Homosexual Question

Following the recent passing of legalisation by the British government legalising homosexual marriage a homosexual man has said that he and his partner will challenge the Church in court over the Church’s exemption from having to solemnise homosexual marriages. A news story about this was published by the Christian Institute, a British Christian lobbying organisation, on its web site on 1 August 2013 here.

Various Christian bloggers have commented on this on the internet and have bewailed this development. Lawyers had already warned the British government before the legislation was passed that there would be legal problems with the exemption and that such legal challenges were likely. But the government pressed ahead regardless.

Christians and Christian organisations are now busy condemning this legislation and bewailing the legal challenge to the Church that will inevitably arise. But it seems to me there is a problem here. Why are Christians objecting?

Over the last forty years, the time that I have been a Christian, and during most of which I have sought to promote God’s law as the standard of justice by which both individuals and the nation as a whole should abide, and which has been the standard under which our systems of common law and equity were developed and previously governed, I have repeatedly been told by Christians—leaders of Churches, pastors, clergymen and their fellow travellers—that we are not under God’s law any more but under grace and therefore that seeking to promote the application of God’s law to modern society is “legalism.” Those who have promoted God’s law in this way have been characterised as “heretics” by many mainline Christians, including evangelical and Reformed Churches and pietistic ministers.

Well, if this is the case why is there now all this fuss about homosexual marriage from Christians? Why should Christians require homosexuals to live by a standard (God’s law) that they themselves do not believe is relevant any more and do not believe they have to adhere to themselves? The Bible has a word for this: hypocrisy. The Churches for the most part have abandoned the preaching of God’s law and teach that it is no longer relevant to modern society. The Church of England, which in Queen Elizabeth I’s reign put the Ten Commandments up on large boards in every Church in the land to remind the people of their duty, and which required them to be read out every Sunday in the liturgy of the Church, no longer requires this. Most of the large boards with the Ten Commandments on have now been taken down and the Ten Commandments are seldom read out in church on a Sunday any more. I myself heard an Anglican vicar tell his whole congregation that “There are no rules in Christianity.” I also heard another vicar tell his congregation that the Ten Commandments were not for them but just for the clergy. The problem is not just in the Church of England though. The mainline denominational Free Churches and independent evangelical and Reformed Churches have on the whole been just as antinomian. And many evangelical and Reformed ministers and leaders have frequently excoriated, ostracised, abused and misrepresented those who have sought to promote a theonomic view of Christian ethics, while promoting themselves as champions of evangelical piety and Reformed orthodoxy. Contrary to their own opinion of themselves, however, such behaviour reveals them to be sanctimonious haters of God’s law—false prophets. Opposition to rather than acceptance of theonomy has been the norm in the British evangelical and Reformed Churches for decades.

But now all of a sudden Christians are up in arms and crying blue murder over the homosexual issue. They need to sit down and shut up and start thinking about this more biblically. And they need to ask themselves this question: why is this happening?

Romans chapter one tells us that a homosexualised culture, along with a lot of other things that we are currently experiencing in the West, is God's judgement on a nation’s spiritual apostasy. This problem will not go away until we deal with the apostasy of the Church. Much as I agree that homosexual marriage is wrong, the answer to this problem does not lie in challenging the homosexual lobby, nor in lobbying government to force one particular community (homosexuals) to abide by a law that Christians themselves do not believe is applicable to modern society. We have arrived here as a nation because the Church has abandoned God’s law, and when the Church abandons God’s law the nation abandons God’s law. This is not rocket science. We are dealing here with basic principles of biblical ethics and political theology. Yet the Church leaders are for the most part utterly ignorant of these principles.

For most of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century the Church in the West has been seeking to replace the God of the Bible with a feminine deity of her own devising. The Church was in the vanguard of promoting feminism. This is why the Church is full of effeminate men posing as leaders and pastors. I am not saying they are all effeminate, but the majority are, and the effeminate pietism of evangelicalism is as good an example of this as effeminate liberalism is.

The way to deal with this is to deal with the cause: the apostasy of the Church. When we do this, and when we start living in terms of God’s word, and conforming our lives and Churches to God’s law, we can trust God to bless our attempts to transform society. But if we are not prepared to live by God’s law in our own lives and in our Churches, why should we expect God to make non-believers live by his law? The homosexual clergy and the increasingly homosexual culture in our nation are God’s answer to the effeminacy of the Church and the effeminacy of the nation.

It seems to me increasingly, as Christians make their objections to the homosexual issue known, that so many in the Church, including the majority of evangelicals, seem to think that they do not have to live by God’s law but that non-believers should. Why can Christians be antinomians but not non-believers? This is hypocrisy on steroids. How come so many Christians object to homosexual marriage because it is immoral (i.e. against God’s law, since the Bible tells us that sin is the transgression of God’s law), yet they reject theonomy and say that we are no longer under God’s law. Either we are or we are not. If we are not then homosexual marriage is not immoral.

Christians who do not live by God’s law should not criticise homosexuals for not living by God’s law. Christians should not complain about homosexuals not living by God’s law until they have criticised the Church for not living by God’s law and until the Church has repented.

It is time to be consistent. God is beating us with the rod of chastisement for our apostasy. It is time that the Church woke up to this. The homosexualisation of our culture is a judgement on the Church and on the nation (though not the only one). It will not go away, because God will not hear our prayers for it to go away, until we as Christians start obeying God’s law in our lives and Churches and thereby provide a true witness to our societies, which is to say until we start living as a prophetic society that calls to world to repentance not only by our words but also by modelling to the world what society should be like—obedient to God’s law. If you are not prepared to subject your own life to God’s law, and if you do not think God’s law is applicable to your Church and to the political order, quit complaining about homosexuals. Take the log-jam out of your own eyes before you start complaining about the dust in other people’s eyes. The homosexualisation of our culture is God’s answer to the Church’s apostasy and disobedience. It is meant to bring the Church to repentance for her antinomianism and spiritual apostasy. It will not go away until the Church repents of her idolatry and disobedience because it is God’s doing, his chastisement of a disobedient Church and a disobedient nation.

If you are a member of a Church that does not believe in the abiding validity of God’s law as the standard of righteousness (justice) for personal and social—including political—behaviour, you need to challenge the leaders of your Church to repent of their sin (i.e. their rejection of God’s law) and insist that they start teaching God’s law to the Church. If they will not do this you need to do all you can to get together with other members of the Church and have the leaders thrown out and excommunicated. If they are not capable of teaching God’s law to the Church you still need to get them thrown out of their office and get someone in who can teach Christian ethics to them and to the Church. Get rid of these false prophets. They are the problem, not the homosexual sub-culture. They are the ones who have brought us to this sorry state, not the homosexual sub-culture. The homosexual sub-culture is part of God’s judgement on their sin.

If you are not able to do any of this in your Church you need to leave the Church and find a Church that does. If there are none where you live you need to get together with as many others as you can who will support you and get someone in as a missionary who will start a Church that teaches Christian ethics according to God’s law.

It is time to stop pretending that these antinomian ministers and clergy are what they are not. They are false prophets and if you do not get rid of them you will go down with them. “For the time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1 Pet. 4:17).

Friday, August 2, 2013

Socialism and State-Sponsored Art

An inevitable consequence of socialist logic is the belief that Mammon is the answer to man’s problems. This fact can be seen in the way socialist governments seek to solve virtually every kind of social problem. If only more money were available, if only there were more economic equality, we could solve all our problems. But money does not solve man’s problems. There are more funds available to the State now than at any other period of our history (due to the success, ironically, of capitalist enterprise), and we have more economic equality than at any other time in our history (due again to the success of capitalistic enterprise), but this has not solved our problems. Socialism has palpably failed to deliver the goods it has promised; indeed it has failed even to deliver the narrow economic benefits it promised to the masses. On the material level the extent to which modern Western society has these economic advantages is due entirely to the success of capitalism, not socialism.

Furthermore, the cultural progress experienced by the Western nations since the Reformation has not been the fruit of socialism, but rather the fruit of a Christian society in which individuals have been free to use their wealth in accordance with their own consciences. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy said that “Were it not for the right of man to do what he liked with his property little would exist in religion, art, science, social and medical work today.” It was the work of the Church, Christian charities, private donations and endowments, and voluntary giving motivated by a Christian conscience that created the educational and medical services that so revolutionised the life of ordinary people in modern Western society. The State did not create these institutions; it merely hijacked them once they had been created by the Christian society of previous centuries. And once it had taken over the secular State systematically set about stripping these institutions of the Christian values and ideals that brought them into being in the first place. For example, under the control of the British secular State’s National Health Service, hospitals originally created for the saving of life have been turned into death factories by the practice of abortion, and the grim reality of modern medical practice under the guidance of secular ideals seems likely to get only worse as a result of the constant attempts of politicians to legalise euthanasia.

Requiring the State to fulfil our responsibilities for us has not solved society’s problems. Far from solving our problems the socialist State has exacerbated them. For example, the modern State, which seeks to control so much of our lives, is one of the worst vandals history has known. It squanders vast millions of taxpayers’ money on useless and destructive projects that contribute nothing to the betterment of human society and culture, quite apart from the millions spent on unnecessary wars. Nor is this the case only with the tin-pot socialist dictatorships that seem to be endemic in the Third World and that seem only to reduce their societies to ever greater poverty in what appears to be their mission the spread human misery as widely as possible.

Western States are equally guilty of waste and vandalism at all levels, whether it is funding the above mentioned dictatorships, spending millions of taxpayers’ money on computer systems that do not work or giving grants to students to enable them to engage in idiotic performance art. I am thinking here, for example, of an arts grant given to some students in the UK a number a years ago for a performance art project in which two hard hats were yoked together on the top by a short plank of wood. The performance of the art, for which the arts grant was awarded, consisted of two students walking around the streets of the city wearing these hard hats yoked together by the plank of wood. A local TV news programme carried the story. Similar examples of idiotic activities and installations masquerading as “art” and regularly sponsored by the State with taxpayers’ money could be multiplied.

Well of course, art is a necessary element of human life. In the most desperate of conditions men have shown themselves to be artists. Art is vital to culture. Of this there is no doubt. Of course mankind is created in God’s image and therefore creativity is at the heart of what it means to be human. But does the taxpayer really have to foot the bill for this kind of thing? Where art is not funded by the State this is unlikely to happen. Stupidity is not an art form. Where people are allowed to retain responsibility for the stewardship of the resources that God has given them they can choose not to subsidise stupidity and they can subsidise excellence instead. The socialist State, ever ready to regulate society in accordance with the wishes of those lobbying groups that can gain the ear of politicians and promise votes at elections, has been a poor and wasteful sponsor of the arts, and consequently has engaged in cultural as well as economic and military vandalism. The modern State is anything but responsible in its attitude to taxpayers’ money. Its record as a steward of society’s resources is one of the worst.

The Bible gives stewardship of the economic resources of society to the family and to the individual, not to the State. To insist that the State should usurp the role of the family and abridge the liberty of the individual by calling for the socialist organisation of society is rebellion against God.

Friday, July 5, 2013

Sodom and Gomorrah

It is commonly assumed that Sodom was judged by God and destroyed because of the homosexual sin that was prevalent in the city. The very term “sodomy” refers to the sexual perversion perpetrated by the men of Sodom. Yet, although this terrible sin was indeed practised by the people of Sodom and is condemned in the Scriptures as an abomination (Lev. 18:22), an act of sexual chaos, the truth is that the Bible nowhere gives the prevalence of this sin as the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Gen. 18:20–21 we are told merely that “The Lord said: Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me.” And in Gen. 21:13 we are told that God would destroy the place because “the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord.” The fact that the angels whom God sent to assess the condition of Sodom immediately came up against the insatiable homosexual lust of the men of the city is then assumed to be the reason for the destruction of Sodom. This is perhaps an understandable reading of the text taken on its own. But like all texts of Scripture, it should not be taken on its own. We must interpret Scripture with Scripture, and it is when we do this that the whole sorry story of Sodom takes on a new meaning.

In Romans chapter one Paul clearly sets out the course of human apostasy and its inevitable conclusion. He tells us there that the whole of created reality bears witness to the glory of God. But men refuse to accept this. They deny the God of creation and seek to find the meaning and purpose of life somewhere else. But the only place that men can turn for such meaning beside God is the created order itself. Therefore they elevate some aspect of this created order to the level of an ultimate principle of explanation. In other words they place some aspect of the created order in the place of God and seek to explain the meaning and purpose of life in terms of that which takes the place of God. This is what idolatry is. It matters little whether such idolatry is of the gross superstitious kind, or the more pseudo-intellectual kind such as evolution, the basic principle is the same, namely the belief that the cause, meaning and purpose of the whole cosmos is to be found in the created order itself. This is so for all forms of paganism as well as modern apostate philosophy and science, since the gods of the ancient and pagans worlds were themselves aspects of the cosmos itself, which was considered eternal. The gods that the pagans believed had shaped the world were further up the chain of being, to be sure, but they were essentially still part of the same substance, the same reality as mankind and all other things. This world is all there is. There is no totally transcendent being who created the cosmos out of nothing. Therefore the meaning of the cosmos is to be found in itself.

As a result of this idolatry, this search for meaning in the created order itself rather than in the one who created it out of nothing, men became fools and exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25). Therefore God gave men up to their own sin, to their own degraded passions, i.e. the lust for homosexual relations, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, deceitfulness etc. (Rom. 1:26ff.).

The prevalence of homosexual sin in society, therefore, is not the cause of God’s judgement upon men for their sin. Rather, it is the judgement of God upon men for their sin. The very fact that society is afflicted with this sin of sexual chaos points to the judgement of God upon society for its idolatry and apostasy. Homosexual practices were common in the world of ancient paganism, and it seems that this pattern is repeated wherever society is in the grip of idolatry and apostasy. The blight of homosexuality upon society is God’s judgement against men for their idolatry, an expression of his wrath, not what initially provokes that wrath. The homosexualised culture is the end product of a society that has abandoned the God of Scripture and turned to idolatry in order to find the meaning and purpose of existence, and therefore the consequence of men being given up to their sin, to their own desire to be free of God and his will for their lives.

If as Christians we wish to see our society free of the blight of homosexuality, therefore, we must seek to understand the causes of God’s judgement upon the nation. Merely remonstrating about the evils of homosexuality will achieve nothing (though this does not mean we should not disapprove, and declare our disapproval, of such sin.) We must seek to understand what led to such a judgement being visited upon our society. The cause will be found in the nation’s spiritual apostasy from God, not in the gay bars of the homosexual underworld. And the remedy will be found in the repentance of the nation for that spiritual apostasy, not in the passing of laws proscribing homosexual activity. Of course this does not mean that we should not have laws proscribing homosexual activity. Homosexual acts are crimes in the Bible and our own legislation should reflect this fact. But merely re-criminalising homosexuals acts without seeking to remedy the national apostasy that led to God’s visiting this terrible judgement upon our society will not on its own solve the problem. We must take seriously the argument of Paul in the first chapter of Romans. Shutting our eyes to the truth he there expounds will not help us.

What light can the story of Sodom and Gomorrah shed on our situation. A great deal in fact. The Scriptures are given us that we might learn and understand God’s will for our lives and for our societies and nations, because as Jesus commanded, we are to disciple all nations to Christ, i.e. teach them to live in conformity with the will of Christ as revealed in his word, the Bible. That is our Great Commission from Christ himself (Mt. 28:18:–20. cf. 5:17–20).

What then was the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction? What was their sin? We are told quite explicitly by Ezekiel that the sin of Sodom was fourfold, namely pride, excess, idleness and neglect of the poor and needy (Ez. 16:49). And to this is then added that the people of Sodom were “haughty” and “committed abominations” before the Lord (v. 50). Furthermore, we are told that the sins of Jerusalem were greater than those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Isaiah likens Jerusalem to Sodom, saying to the rulers of Jerusalem, “Here the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; and give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah . . . Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgement [i.e. justice], relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Is. 1:10–17)—i.e. make sure justice prevails and that the orphan and the widow are not oppressed in their affliction. In these Scriptures the sins of Jerusalem and those of Sodom, against which the comparison is made, are not exclusively sexual sins, e.g. the perversion of homosexuality, but the sins of pride, excess, idleness, injustice perpetrated against and a lack of regard for those in society who are least able to defend themselves against oppression, e.g. the poor and needy, orphans and widows.

Now it is clear that modern Western society, including Britain, is afflicted with the plague of homosexuality. The comparison with Sodom is therefore pertinent. But the comparison is not limited to this sexual sin, as is clear from Paul’s listing of many other sins that plague an idolatrous culture. The pride and arrogance of modern Western society in its rejection of God and his word, the satisfaction with which it trusts in its own wisdom, and the ridiculing contempt in which it holds the law of God,—and such ridicule and contempt for God’s law is even to be found in the Church—is as heinous in the sight of God as the pride of Sodom, for which it was destroyed. The excess of bread, the satiety, to which reference is made by Ezekiel is explained in the book of Proverbs: “Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain” (Pr. 3:8–9). There is nothing sinful in riches per se, and prosperity is not a sin. Indeed God promised prosperity to his people if they would obey his law (Dt. 28). We are told that the Lord takes pleasure in the prosperity of his people (Ps. 35:27). But the problem with the sinful human heart is that it tends to forget who the author of that prosperity is. Men congratulate themselves and refuse to give the glory to God. They come to trust themselves and believe they have no need to turn to God. What has God done for them? Their own industry has brought them the wealth they enjoy. It is their hard work that has led to their prosperity, not the grace and gift of God. And so God is forgotten. Men trust in their own power. Both of these sins, pride and excess, condemned by Ezekiel as sins that brought the judgement of God upon Sodom, are characteristic sins of modern Western society. We should do well, therefore, to heed the lesson that the story of Sodom provides.

Next is mentioned by Ezekiel the sin of idleness. At this point it would be difficult and erroneous to say that this sin is characteristic of Western society generally, though doubtless it is characteristic of some elements within Western society (see below). The Protestant work ethic has had a significant influence in the Protestant nations in this regard. But it has not been retained in its original form. Instead this ideal has been secularised, emptied of its Christian meaning, so that it exists now more as an idol, a symbol of materialistic gain for its own ends. In this sense it is part and parcel of the culture of excess that characterises modern Protestant nations. British people, for example, on the whole work a good deal longer than most other Europeans. Indeed, the long working hours demanded by many professions has led to these professions being called “totalitarian”—and there is some truth to this because this has been achieved at the expense of other important and God-ordained social institutions, e.g. family life. But the goal and purpose of work is not the glory of God for most people. It is the excess of material benefits, the pursuit of leisure, stripped of all constraint by the moral law of God. The meaning of life is reduced to the mere satisfaction of human appetites: excess! The net product of human industry thus does not contribute to the glory of God and the building of his kingdom on earth. Instead it contributes to the culture of excess in which individual self-satisfaction is exalted as the highest human ideal, the chief aim of man. In this self-centred culture those virtues and social institutions that are necessary for the preservation and amelioration of human society in terms of God’s will for mankind are forgotten and lost.

Take for example the Christian ideal of the family. In Britain now the traditional ideal of the family is in the minority. There are now more childless and one parent families than there are heterosexual two parent families. A marriage is judged to be successful or unsuccessful on the basis of what each partner can get out of it. If one party decides that the marriage is no longer offering him the best satisfaction of his wants and desires, and someone else is found who can offer more or make him happier, the marriage can be dissolved easily. Indeed marriage is being abandoned altogether by many as an unnecessary bind. The plight of children traumatised by the loss of one of the parents when a marriage breaks up is seen as a secondary issue and divorce is justified by all kinds of specious rationalisation. But the consequences are usually devastating and long-lasting. It is much harder for the children of broken homes to make successful and lasting marital relationships when they become adults than those who have had a happy and stable family background. This is in part at least what Scripture means when it says that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the third and fourth generation (Ex. 34:7). It will take generations for our society to escape the socially destructive effects of the divorce culture that is now developing in our nation. As a result of the abandonment of stable family life society has become dysfunctional. The Christian ideal of the family is the foundation of a well-ordered society. If the family becomes dysfunctional society as a whole will become dysfunctional. And this is just what we are seeing increasingly.

But what about the sin of disregard for the poor and needy? Of all the sins listed by Ezekiel this is the one that most provoked God to anger in the Old Testament. The people of Israel are condemned for this time and again. Relief of the oppressed, the rendering of justice due to the poor and care for the needy were more important to God, and therefore constituted a more pure expression of true religion, than all the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Temple cultus (Is. 1:11–17 cf. James 1:27). Surely this sin cannot be imputed to modern Britain with its high cost welfare State. The poor are provided for more than adequately in this system, are they not?

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not so simple. There is of course a sense in which the answer to this question is yes. But there is also an important sense in which such an answer would miss the point and fail almost totally to take account of the issues that the Bible sets before us.

It is so often thought that the welfare State is the best method of providing justice for the poor and needy because it ensures that there is an ongoing wealth redistribution programme run by the State. In Britain on the whole it is believed that this is how a caring society should behave, how it should provide for the poor. And it is believed by many Christians that State redistribution of wealth, i.e. the welfare State, in some form at least, is the closest approximation to, indeed the very incarnation of the Christian ideal of caring for the poor and needy that is set forth in Scripture as essential to the practice of true religion.

But it is precisely this notion that I want to challenge. The welfare society is not a caring society. It is a society that has abdicated its responsibility to care for the needy to the anonymous State. And the welfare State simply does not work, not only on the level of delivering real help for the poor, but in the way that it attempts to deliver that help. Indeed, in the very pursuit of this anonymous welfare State the function of the State, namely the administration of public justice, what the Bible calls doing judgement, is compromised, and the failure of the rulers to do justice is as severely condemned in Scripture as disregard for the poor. In fact it is the very failure to deliver justice that is condemned in the Bible as oppression of the poor. Such injustice may affect all classes in society of course, but those who are least able to defend themselves against it are the poor and needy, the orphan and the widow, i.e. those without economic power. For such people injustice is also oppression because they have no means of defending themselves against it. The redress for such oppression, the Bible tells us repeatedly, is the pursuit of justice: “seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Is. 1:17). But in Scripture the magistrate is never given the responsibility of establishing a welfare State or of pursuing enforced wealth redistribution programmes within society. Why? Because such practices are unjust, and it is justice that the Bible commands. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right. We may not overturn the justice due to one person in an attempt to secure the justice due to another. It is the job of the State to do judgement, justice, and it is the job of society at large, individuals, families and communities, to care for those who are genuinely in need. The responsibility of the State to provide justice may not be abdicated in order to usurp the responsibilities of individuals and families, nor may the responsibilities of individuals and families be abdicated to the State.

Yet this is precisely what has happened in our socialist welfare State. In this process justice has been turned on its head. The guilty are set free to pursue their reign of terror and violence in society, which is held accountable for the evil that criminals do, while the innocent are continually oppressed economically to provide for the lazy. Society is constantly fed the lie that “poverty causes crime,” and this mantra is deemed to justify the continuous wealth redistribution programmes that constitute the fraudulent virtue known as “social justice.” But such a system does not merely fail to do justice—i.e. righteousness (in the Bible justice and righteousness mean the same thing). Neither does it help the genuinely poor, i.e. the deserving poor. It merely creates an indolent underclass who are able to live off the sweat of others and enjoy their lifestyle of idleness and irresponsibility as a “human right” because it is supported by a perverse and politically correct human rights industry funded by its victims, the tax-payer. The result is a kind of perverse slave society, but one in which all the usual norms of slavery are stood on their heads. It is not the rulers and the middles classes who live off the slave labour of the underclass but rather the underclass that lives off the benefits provided by taxation of those who create the wealth in society. Those who work labour at least two days each week (possibly a little more) in order to pay the taxes that fund the government agencies that provide this iniquitous system of handouts to the new leisured class in our society. The suggestion that the idle beneficiaries of this system should be made to do some work in return for their keep will bring down the wrath of our politically correct and tax-funded human rights industry. In this sense, therefore, there is in our society a significant measure of the sin of idleness condemned by Ezekiel as one of the causes of Sodom’s destruction. The welfare State has overturned the basic principle of biblical work ethics, namely that if a man will not work, neither should he eat (2 Thess. 3:10).

The welfare State is at the heart of our national decline. It is not merely that the State-run welfare system is experiencing the adverse effects of the de-Christianisation of our culture along with other institutions. The welfare State is itself a substantial cause of this deterioration of our culture, which is at heart a process of de-Christianisation of society. It is not the only cause. But it is a major contributing factor in our decline. For example, the welfare State is responsible in large measure for the decline of the Christian ideal of family life, for the loss of the responsibility of parents for their children, and particularly for the loss of the father’s headship of his family, which has been transferred to the anonymous welfare State. Here again we see the loss of those virtues that create and sustain family life because responsibility is abdicated to the State. Such abdication of responsibility is not the characteristic of a caring society at all. The welfare State is an expression of a people’s desire to rid themselves of the virtues that characterise a caring society.

For example, the welfare State has to be funded by taxation. Taxation on the scale necessary to maintain the welfare State confiscates the resources that the family needs in order to care for its own members properly, let alone care for others who need help. Such a system plunders the family’s financial resources to such an extent that the majority of families become dependent on the State in some measure. This in itself weakens the family, which is foundational to the whole structure of society. Indeed it makes the Christian family obsolete. The family is replaced by the ever bountiful State—bountiful to those who are its dependants that is, not to those who have to fund the tax bill for the irresponsible lifestyle of those who are dependants of the State. Increasingly the State takes the place of the family. Families that are taxed to pay for all the services that the State provides from a supposedly amoral, religiously neutral perspective are not able to provide for those in need in terms of Christian principles. (Of course such neutrality is impossible and the supposed amorality is immorality from the Christian perspective—witness the abandonment of Christian ethics in the spheres of education and health care, e.g. the crusade to abolish Clause 28 in schools and the growth of the abortion industry in the NHS).

The practice of the Christian faith is intimately bound up with care for the poor and healing of the sick: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). We are commanded not only to preach the gospel of the Kingdom but to heal the sick also (Mt. 1:7–8; Lk. 9:2, 10:9). But care for the poor and healing of the sick that disregards God’s will for the individual, the family and society at large is not really care at all, nor is it healing. It is idolatry, and idolatry enslaves men rather than freeing them. Welfare and health care that is stripped of all reference to God’s will for man is ultimately cruel.

What then is the answer to this situation? Christian work ethics must be brought back into our care for the poor. Christian charity should not be divorced from Christian work ethics. The separation of charity from Christian work ethics is the legacy of our godless State welfare system, which is, as a result, subject to massive abuse. The provision of welfare, education, health care etc. in our society must be restored to those God-ordained institutions responsible for these things—the family, the individual, and the Church, which can apply the biblical principles necessary for these spheres of life to function in a godly way. The amelioration of our society requires the practice of the Christian virtues. Such is not facilitated by State funding and organisation of welfare. Rather the reverse is true. State welfare has a deleterious effect on the practice of the Christian virtues and therefore on the practice and influence of the faith in society. We must begin replacing the welfare State mentality with a Christian understanding of what it means to be a caring society, i.e. with a perspective that links care for the needy with Christian work ethics, because both are essential to man’s well-being. Christian ethics must also be restored to the practice of medicine. This means not only that abortion, euthanasia etc. must be opposed and made illegal, but that the model of human nature that is used in the diagnosis and treatment of illness should be a Christian one, that we should start with an understanding of man as God’s image bearer and vicegerent and work from these principles in seeking to heal men. These developments will not take place in the godless welfare and health care programmes run by the modern secular State. Christians and Churches must, therefore, begin their own welfare and health care programmes that function in terms of Christians ethics, a Christian model of man as created in God’s image and a Christian model of the social order that God requires of our society.

The welfare State is not a system of justice, and therefore it is not consistent with righteousness. It is a denial of the righteousness that God demands of individuals and of society because it negates the responsibilities required of the individual, the family and the community, thereby rendering virtue obsolete. Thus in the Church, for example, virtue has been replaced by “piety.” The good Christian is the one who behaves piously, not the one who practises the Christian virtues, since these are largely now obsolete in our society. The State has usurped our duty to act virtuously. It cares for the poor and needy on our behalf, provides education for our children and health care for the sick, takes in the orphans and provides hand outs for widows—all of which were at one time functions of the individual and the family, and where these were unable to provide, the Church. But that was when this nation was a Christian nation. We no longer look to God for these things any more. The all-powerful State has taken the place of God. It is our new religion. Our idolatry is virtually complete. The State has claimed for itself a position and an importance in our lives and society that belongs to God. But unlike the Christian God, it cannot deliver what it promises. The growth of the State has gone hand in hand with the decline of the Christian faith, increasing breakdown of order in society and the growth of the culture of irresponsibility and crime described above.

The godless, indulgent, proud and immoral culture in which we live is a modern Sodom and Gomorrah. And the judgement of God is already upon us. Our society has been given up to its own sin. The plague of homosexuality and the pervasive immorality and crime in society is testimony to that fact. It is time that the Church woke up to the reality of the situation and faced up to the spiritual apostasy that has provoked God to pour out his wrath on our society. Instead a kind of deadening slumber has fallen upon the Church. What will it take to waken the Church out of this deep sleep, to impress upon her once again the high calling of the Great Commission and the social and political responsibilities that this commission entails? I do not know the answer to this question. But whatever it is, it will most likely be, given the current state of our nation, a rude awakening.


[This essay is an excerpt from my book Common-Law Wives and Concubines: Essays on Covenantal Christianity and Contemporary Western Culture (Taunton: Kuyper Foundation, 2003), available from www.kuyper.org/books.]

Friday, June 21, 2013

Atheism and Atonality

If it is true that God did not create the universe and that life is the product of evolution, we could not, if we were to be totally consistent with this idea, say anything intelligible about anything in the universe. Nothing in such a universe would make sense because there is nothing there to give it any sense. Everything would be the product of a blind evolutionary process. In other words everything would be a mere chance occurrence and there is no meaningful connection between events or things that are the product of chance. Meaning and purpose do not play any role in such a universe.

The problem, however, is that people are not totally consistent with their principles.1 If we were to take the idea of evolution to its ultimate conclusions nothing would have any meaning or purpose and therefore the evolutionist would be unable to make any sense of the world. Indeed there would be no such thing as sense, just random evolutionary occurrences that have no real meaning. The ideas of purpose and meaning are foreign to the evolutionary cosmos. But the atheist cannot think and live in a way that is ultimately consistent with the principles of atheism and evolution. To do so would be to deny all meaning and purpose to his own life, and man always seeks for meaning and purpose in life. Just because a man denies that life finds its meaning and purpose in terms of the creative act of the God of Scripture does not mean that he no longer seeks to understand the meaning of life and no longer seeks purpose to his existence. He still seeks these things but he seeks them instead in some aspect of the created order itself; that is to say, he puts something else in the place of God as an ultimate explanation of life. The Bible calls this idolatry. Belief in evolution, therefore, is a form of idolatry. But in order to commit this idolatry the evolutionist has to posit the ideas of intelligibility, meaning and purpose. Such ideas are inconsistent with the idea of evolution, but man cannot live without seeking for purpose and meaning, without trying to make sense of his life and the world around him. The atheistic evolutionist therefore is inconsistent with his own beliefs about evolution. Evolutionists who use words and concepts like “meaning,” “purpose” and “reason” are being inconsistent with their evolutionary principles. And it is interesting to note just how often evolutionists do use words like “purpose,” “meaning” and “reason”; indeed the words “belief” and “believe” are also very common in the vocabulary of evolutionary science. The use of such words and concepts, however, reveals not only the schizophrenic nature of the evolutionary position; it reveals also the religious nature of the evolutionary world-view. But the evolutionist never thinks and acts consistently in terms of his belief in the process of evolution. Why?

The evolutionist is made in God’s image just as the Christian is. He is made to function in the world that God made, a world that is rational and meaningful, a world that makes sense to man because he has been put here with the purpose of understanding and developing it. Man has a purpose, and that purpose is explained in the Bible in what Christians call the cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28). Man’s denial of God does not render that purpose null and void; rather, it corrupts the way in which man goes about fulfilling it. But in order to fulfil it man must assume a world of rationality, meaning and purpose in some form, no matter how corrupt these ideas become due to man’s sin and rejection of God. Therefore men find it impossible to be totally consistent with their denial of God. This is why we say that there is in principle a complete and absolute antithesis between belief and non-belief. The operative words are “in principle.” Men find it well-nigh impossible to be totally consistent with their atheism. They deny the God who made the world but they want to keep hold of the world he made. They want a world of logic, order, rationality, meaning and purpose, but not the God whose creative act gave the world all these things and in terms of which alone such concepts have validity.

But if there is no God and everything exists as a result of blind evolutionary processes—chance—then nothing has any meaning and we cannot say anything intelligible about anything in the universe. As we have already seen, atheists cannot live consistently in terms of such a philosophy, so they smuggle the world God made back into their world-view dressed up as something else. They presuppose the concepts of order, meaning and rationality but insist that these things come from some aspect of the cosmos itself, not from the creative will of God, who is not part of the cosmos. In other words they make some aspect of the created order, some idea, person or thing, the ultimate principle of explanation for life. This principle of explanation takes the place of God in their system of belief and they attribute to it all that belongs by right to God, i.e. the attributes of God, whether in a highly cultic form as with ancient idolatry, or in a secularised form as with modern intellectual idols such as evolution and socialism.

The non-believer therefore lives intellectually and spiritually on borrowed capital that he puts to bad use. This is the wisdom of the world. It is idolatry and it comes in the end to nothing, as the apostle Paul says (1 Cor. 1:2). Even the good things of this world, including the very ideas of rationality, meaning, order and purpose, are perverted by the non-believer and put to the service of idols. Why? Because in principle, at the very foundation of the non-believer’s world-view, his understanding is corrupted by sin, by the rejection of God’s word as the definitive and authoritative interpretation of reality. In principle there is an absolute dichotomy, an absolute antithesis, between the whole world of faith in Christ and the whole world of non-belief. Men are inconsistent with their principles, as we have seen, but even those things that they accept as valid and meaningful are put to use in the service of idols. So the evolutionist uses his reason, a God-given ability, to deny God. He uses the concepts of order and purpose to deny that the universe has order or purpose because a universe of order and purpose points to God and by denying that the universe has order and purpose he denies the God who created it. He perverts even the good things that he inconsistently borrows from the world God created to deny that God created it and to deny God’s rights.

You will find therefore, as you argue with the non-believer about his views and about the Christian faith, that it is difficult to get him to be consistent with his atheistic and evolutionary principles. The non-believer will advance one argument against the Christian faith and then when challenged about the validity of this argument he will jump off onto some other argument that is completely contradictory and inconsistent with the first argument. This is because the whole understanding of the non-believer is radically split between what he says are the principles in which he believes and the fact that he cannot consistently think, argue and ultimately live in terms of these principles. The non-believer wants a world of order, rationality, purpose and meaning, but he does not want the God whose creative will is necessary for the existence of such a world. He uses the good things of God’s Creation to deny that God created it. Cornelius Van Til said that this is like a child who has to sit on his father’s lap in order to slap him in the face.2

Interestingly, this principle of non-belief does sometimes work itself out more consistently in art. In the world of art we often see more clearly where atheism leads, the kind of ultimate conclusions that are involved in the denial of God. The denial of God ultimately implies the denial of all meaning. And whereas in their everyday lives men find it difficult to live in terms of this principle, in art sometimes this principle is worked out more consistently, though usually unselfconsciously. If one looks at much of modern art there is bewildering meaninglessness to it. This can be seen in the visual arts where paintings seem to have no logic. One part of the painting might have absolutely no relation to another part; indeed the whole painting might seem utterly meaningless, a conglomeration of colours and shapes that appear to have no purpose. The world represented by such art is radically shattered, broken, disjointed, dysfunctional, meaningless. The various parts of the pictures may seem to have no meaningful relationship to each other in the way that items on a rubbish tip have no meaningful relationship to each other. And indeed the casual lay observer may well describe such pictures as rubbish, a description that is often not unreasonable given this lack of meaningful integration in the overall scheme of the work because it is precisely the lack of meaningful relationships between individual things that defines a rubbish tip. It is often said that such art is not meant to be representational and therefore that such criticism is not valid, but I doubt this is a valid argument. Such art is not representational in the sense that we normally use the term “representational” in reference to the visual arts. But in another sense such art is representational, only what it represents is the utter meaninglessness and randomness of a world without God, a world without order, reason, meaning or purpose.

The same is true of much modern atonal music. The sounds produced by the musical instruments do not have any meaningful relationship to each other. They represent a random, unordered and meaningless universe, a universe without God, who alone gives order and meaning to the universe by his creative will.

The serialism of Arnold Schoenberg, although similarly atonal in effect, does not exactly fit this description in terms of theoretical intention. Nevertheless, Schoenberg stated that

“Once we are cured of the delusion that the artist’s aim is to create beauty, and once we have recognised that only the necessity to produce compels him to bring forth what will perhaps afterwards be designated as beauty, then we will also understand that comprehensibility and clarity are not the conditions that the artist is obliged to impose on his work, but conditions that the observer wishes to find fulfilled . . . [Order, clarity] are there by chance, not by law, not by necessity; and what we claim to perceive as laws [defining order and clarity] may perhaps only be laws governing our perception, without therefore being the laws a work of art must obey.” 3
 
Although he rejected the term atonal as a description of his own serial music 4 Schoenberg abandoned the tonalism of the Western musical tradition and invented a completely new set of rules to govern the composition of a completely new type of music. 5 His intention seems to have been to do away with the musical world that he had inherited and to re-create the musical world in his own image by means of this new music.6 In his serial music Schoenberg effectively proclaimed himself the God and creator of his own musical world. Serialism is the new musical world that is Schoenberg’s idea—cf. Schopenhauer’s statement that “the world is my idea.” 7 As with all other forms of idolatry, the result is not merely spiritual corruption, but also cultural ugliness.

Although this adoption of meaninglessness—or, as with Schoenberg, the rejection of order and comprehensibility, which to all intents and purposes amounts to the same thing—as a means of artistic expression may often be, perhaps usually is, unselfconscious, it is nevertheless a significant component of many modern artists’ world-view. But sometimes it is self-conscious and deliberate, and expressed openly as an ideological principle, as is clear from the words of Schoenberg cited above. Likewise, the atonal composer Pierre Boulez stated in a talk in the 1960s that “A composer should never move by step melodically for more than two notes because if you do the ear will connect them and make meaning out of them.” 8 Compare this with Schoenberg’s statement that “To double is to emphasize, and an emphasized tone could be interpreted as a root, or even a tonic; the consequences of such an interpretation must be avoided. Even a slight reminiscence of the former tonal harmony would be disturbing, because it would create false expectations of consequences and continuations.” 9 By contrast Leonard Bernstein addressed this issue more perceptively:

“One cannot ‘abstract’ musical tones; on the contrary they have to be given their reality through form: up-and-down, long-and-short, loud-and-soft. And so to the inescapable conclusion. All forms that we have ever known . . . have always been conceived in tonality, that is, in the sense of a tonal magnetic center, with subsidiary tonal relationships. This sense, I believe, is built into the human organism; we cannot hear two isolated tones, even devoid of any context, without immediately imputing a tonal meaning to them. We may differ from one another in the tonal meaning we infer, but we infer it nonetheless. We are stuck with this, and always will be. And the moment a composer tries to ‘abstract’ musical tones by denying them their tonal implications, he has left the world of communication. In fact, it is all but impossible to do (although Heaven know how hard composers have been trying for fifty years)—as witness the increasingly desperate means being resorted to—chance-music, electronic sounds, noteless ‘instructions,’ the manipulation of noise, whatnot.” 10

But there is something more to this pursuit of atonality than an ideological commitment to meaninglessness as an artistic principle, something of greater significance for our understanding of man’s spiritual condition.

In his television series Leaving Home: Orchestral Music in the Twentieth Century the conductor Simon Rattle spoke about the development of this modern music in the twentieth century. He said that Richard Strauss, one of the most progressive composers of his time when he was young, walked up to and looked over the precipice of this new development in music when he wrote his opera Elektra (1909), an opera that seemed to foreshadow these developments in atonality, but shrank back from the precipice and returned to traditional tonal music in his opera Der Rosenkavalier (1911). “Strauss, in his brilliant, instinctive way,” said Rattle, “had blazed a path for a whole new school of music. Almost without thinking, he’d shown how far music could go if it went away from its home of tonality. Electra must have seemed very radical at the time. And maybe it was obvious to Strauss what a frightening and lonely place this outer space of free tonality was. He was never again to return to it, and it was left to Arnold Schoenberg, the reluctant revolutionary, to go even further, to be even more radical, but also to give some sense of order and foundation to this strange new world.” 11 The book based on the television series makes the same claim: “Strauss was one of the first to make use of bitonality, but he was too committed to Romanticism to make any further contribution to the development of the ideas unfolding during the radical years before the First World War. The next opera he and Hofmannsthal produced, Der Rosenkavalier, turned away from the problems raised in Electra and found refuge again in the past.” 12 But this is to miss the point of Elektra altogether. Strauss’s musical language was always tonal. One of his greatest talents as a composer was his ability to depict the world around him musically. He was able to conjure up a musical impression of just about anything, from a teaspoon to a thunderstorm. What he depicted in Elektra was a woman who is deranged, insane. The atonal music in Elektra, therefore, is the music of insanity.13 This was entirely consistent with Strauss’s musical genius. What Rattle missed, and it seems to me that this can only be explained by his being steeped in the atheistic world-view of the age, is that the modern music of atonality is the music of insanity, just as the paintings and sculptures of modern art so often exhibit the same spirit of insanity, the insanity of a world where nothing has any meaningful relationship to anything else and everything happens randomly. This point was understood intuitively by artists and composers of previous generations. Charles Villiers Stanford said that “The palette of a painter is a beautiful study of colour, both simple and complex; but he would not exhibit it as a picture unless he was qualifying for Bedlam.” 14 Later on in the programme, Rattle seems to glimpse this vaguely when he says “The logic of complete freedom leads to the madhouse”; but he then argues that Schoenberg’s serialism saved music from this fate. He goes on to describe serialism as a kind of musical democracy of tones.15 In his book, based on the television series, Michael Hall also seems almost to recognise this point when he describes Elektra as “afflicted with the classic symptoms of hysteria” and goes on to say that Elektra “is undoubtedly Strauss’s most radical and dissonant work, and, as in Schoenberg’s quartet, there are passages that are virtually atonal. The most extreme occur in the scene between Elektra and Clytemnestra, notably when Clytemnestra tells her daughter about the monsters that haunt her dreams. The episode concludes with a tonal cadence . . . but before this the discords are as harsh and the harmony as rootless as the images Clytemnestra conjures up.” 16

This is the godless and insane world of meaninglessness on which the theory of evolution is based. It is no accident that the modern age of godless secularism has been supremely the age of “mental illness” compared with other periods of Western history. Such art and music demonstrate more consistently the principle of the antithesis—the gulf that exists between the godless and meaningless world-view of atheism and the ordered, rational and meaningful world-view of the Christian faith—than do philosophy and science because in these latter disciplines men find it so much more difficult to abandon the concepts of reason, meaning and purpose. Of course it is certainly not the case that all non-believers listen to the music of Pierre Boulez, Harrison Birtwistle et al. while Christians listen to Bach and Strauss. The non-believer finds it virtually impossible to live consistently in terms of his principle of non-belief.

The wisdom of the world is the polar opposite of the wisdom of God. Therefore the two belief systems produce completely different world-views, different cultures, different art, different political philosophies, different educational goals, different social aspirations, different societies, different social orders. We should not let the fact that in the West we are currently living in a period of transition from one culture to another deceive us. In a period of transition it is easy to think that these two world-views are not totally incompatible because the long established practice of the Christian faith leaves an intellectual and cultural legacy that takes time to disappear and the non-believer makes use of the residue of Christian intellectual and cultural capital while it is available. But this capital will not be available indefinitely and the Christian heritage will disappear eventually unless there is a resurgence of Christian faith in society and unless the Church under the influence of such a resurgent faith engages culturally and politically with the nation, i.e. unless there is a commitment to converting the nation to the Christian faith, not merely soul winning, which is sadly what characterised the Church’s understanding of the Great Commission during the second half of the twentieth century. The philosophy of the non-believing world is a never-ending quest for truth because it has denied at the outset the foundation upon which the truth rests (Pr. 1:7; 9:10). The wisdom of this world dooms its practitioners and followers to an endless frustration with false “truth”—i.e. idolatry. In the end the “wisdom” of the world produces death. False gods always fail their devotees.


NOTES
   1. This is true not only of atheists but also of Christians. For example, if Christians were to be totally consistent with their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and with the Bible as God’s word they would not send their children to secular schools to be educated in terms of a secular humanist world-view. Yet Christians do this, with the result that their children grow up with a secular humanist view of the faith that reduces the Christian faith to little more than a syncretistic mystery cult.
   2. E. R. Geehan, ed., Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), p. 98 (response by Van Til to Herman Dooyeweerd).
   3. Arnold Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony (London: Faber and Faber, [1911] 1978, trans. Roy E. Carter), p. 30. The words in square brackets are in the original text. In a lecture delivered at the University of California in Los Angeles in 1941 Schoenberg went on to contradict this assertion from his earlier Theory of Harmony by stating that “artistic value demands comprehensibility, not only for intellectual, but also for emotional satisfaction . . . Composition with twelve tones has no other aim than comprehensibility” (“Composition with Twelve Tones” in Arnold Schoenberg, Style and Idea [London: Williams and Norgate Ltd, 1951], p. 103). In this we see again the inability of men to be consistent with their own principles when those principles depart from the meaning inherent in the divine order of Creation, particularly when it comes to thinking and reasoning, i.e. rational discourse. Schoenberg himself was not able even to maintain artistic consistency with his artistic philosophy since he continued to write tonal music along side his serial works.
   4. Theory of Harmony, p. 432.
   5. See “Composition with Twelve Tones” in Style and Idea, pp. 102–143.
   6. See the quotation at note 9.
   7. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co. Ltd, trans. R. B. Haldane and J. Kempt), Vol. I, p. 3.
   8. As quoted by Stephen Johnson in Discovering Music on BBC Radio Three, broadcast on 10 June 2007.
   9. Style and Idea, p. 108.
  10. Leonard Bernstein, The Infinite Variety of Music (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, [1962] 1968), p. 12.
  11. Simon Rattle, Leaving Home: Orchestral Music in the Twentieth Century, Vol. 1, “Dancing on a Volcano” (Arthaus Music).
  12. Michael Hall, Leaving Home: a conducted tour of twentieth-century music with Simon Rattle (London: Faber and Faber, 1996), p. 39.
  13. For the same reason atonal music works well as a sound track in horror movies, in movie scenes depicting characters with psychological derangements and in scenes with an inhuman context or a context that is inhospitable to human beings, e.g. science fiction movies depicting an alien environment.
  14. Musical Composition: A Short Treatise for Students (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd and Stainer and Bell Ltd, 1911), p. 110f.
  15. Cf. the quotation from Leonard Bernstein at note 10.
  16. Michael Hall, op. cit., p. 38.


[This article is an extract from “The Antithesis,” Chapter Seven of my forthcoming book, The Politics of God and the Politics of Man, due out, D.V., in 2014.]

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Reformed Arminianism and Social Order

Arminianism is the dominant theology among Protestants today, and Arminianism, like the Roman Catholic view of the Fall, denies man’s total depravity since the Fall.1 But why have Reformed Churches embraced pietism with such enthusiasm? I suggest it is because they have, unwittingly, embraced a basic premiss of Arminianism, namely, that man is not completely fallen away from God, that outside of the saving grace of God in Christ man is not totally depraved. The Christian faith, therefore, relates only to a narrowly defined “spiritual” realm; it ceases to be a religion to live by and becomes instead little more than a syncretistic mystery cult comprised of elements of a Christian soteriology, a view of spirituality that is basically a modern version of Gnostic dualism, and a secular humanist world-view.

Of course Reformed Churches, especially those that subscribe to the TULIP formula, will deny this. They hold to the doctrines of grace. Perish the thought that they should have adopted a basic premiss of Arminianism! But as Jesus said, “Wisdom is justified of [i.e. vindicated by] her children” (Mt. 11:19, Lk. 7:35). Why do so many Reformed Churches deny the connection between faith and culture? And why are we to flee from the world that Christ redeemed and commissioned us to claim in his name into an irrelevant ghetto that denies any duty of the Christian to reform or transform the culture in which he lives? Why was the Great Commission separated from the Cultural Mandate by Reformed believers in the twentieth century when historically they have gone together and been seen as inseparably linked, two sides of the same coin? By denying the necessary link between religion and culture Reformed believers have opened to door to the Arminian world-view. They still adhere to the terminology of total depravity, but the doctrine is a dead letter in practice; they do not believe that man’s fallen nature, his defection from God, manifests itself in the totality of his life, i.e. in every aspect and sphere of his life and culture. If they did they would not send their children to be educated by non-believers, to be taught according to the basic premiss of secular humanism, namely that the world and everything in it exists and can be understood independently of the God who created it and whose creative will gives it its meaning and purpose. Man’s depravity does not in their eyes manifest itself in the spheres of education, medicine, science, art, politics. In these spheres the natural life of man is sufficient. It does not need redeeming. Grace not does transform man and his culture completely, it merely perfects nature. In this sense most Reformed believers are practical Arminians; their life and witness to the faith of the Reformers, which they claim to espouse, is in practice the antithesis of that proclaimed by the Reformers.

Yet when culture is abandoned by Christians and man’s natural life outside of God is allowed to develop consistently according to its own principle, i.e. the principle of original sin in which man determines for himself what constitutes good and evil without reference to God’s word, Christians throw up their hands in horror and bewail the terrible state of the world. But why? Culture is largely the external form or, the use T. S. Eliot’s words, the incarnation of religion. If we accept that people can be educated properly without reference to God by those who deny God and seek to live consistently in term of such a denial of God, the result will be that God is eliminated from our culture. The denial of God by the scientist and the triumph of evolution as the explanation of our existence is merely a symptom of man’s desire to live consistently in term of his own fallen nature. The deplorable state of immorality in our culture is merely a symptom of the same desire. Likewise, if we eliminate God from our understanding of welfare and medicine the result will be massive welfare abuse and abortion on demand.

Is it really so difficult to see the connection between religion and culture? By their denial of the necessity of a Christian culture Christians have opened the door to the repaganisation of society. And their answer to this problem has too often been to retreat from the world rather than to preach the whole gospel to the whole Creation and thereby bring the redeeming grace of God to bear upon the cultural life of the nation. But in adopting the same pietistic perspective those who claim to be Reformed but deny the link between faith and culture have become implicit Arminians, promoting an Arminian social theory that has helped to open the door to a world without God for the next generation, i.e. a culture in which God is relegated to a narrow sphere of life revolving round church meetings and personal piety and in which the gospel is seen as having no bearing on the greater part of man’s life. Education, art, economics, welfare, medicine, law and order, vocational life are all seen as religiously neutral spheres of life. The result of this world-view has been the decline of our society from a culture that acknowledged and honoured God, however imperfectly, to a society that blasphemes and dishonours God with virtually every breath that it takes. This decline has now entered the exponential phase of the curve and as a result our nation stands on the brink of Gehenna.

Our understanding of the Fall will affect our understanding of redemption. If man is totally depraved by the Fall, his sin, his denial of God and his insistence that he will determine what good and evil are for himself, will manifest itself in the totality of his life and works, in every sphere of his life and culture. In this case man’s redemption must be equally total; it must embrace not only his individual spiritual life but his culture as well. If man is not totally depraved by sin, if the Fall is only partial, his sin will not manifest itself in the totality of his life and works. In this case the natural life of man will not need to be transformed totally by the grace of God, but only perfected. The gospel will be considered a “spiritual” addition to the natural life of man, a donum superadditum, and, to use the words of one preacher, “primarily concerned with the world to come.”

But the Bible does not teach this. Rather, it teaches that man’s fall into sin is total, that without the grace of God every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually (Gen. 6:5; 8:21 cf. Rom. 1:18–32; 3:10–18; 8:6–8; Eph. 4:17–19; Titus 1:15–16). Man’s natural life in the state of sin, therefore, does not need to be merely perfected. Redemption is not a spiritual addition to the natural life of man. The natural life of man needs to be transformed totally by the grace of God. Redemption is a complete recreation of man in the image of Christ: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). And if the believer in Christ is a new creature, this new creation must manifest itself in the totality of his life, and in his culture, which is the external outworking of his religion.

We forget this important doctrine at our peril, and when we do our society must suffer the awful consequences of our neglect of the gospel and our cultural mandate to bring all things into subjection to Jesus Christ (Gen. 1:28 cf. 2 Cor. 10:5). Of course, it is often not until the next generation and those that follow it that the full implications of this neglect become apparent, and this to some extent helps to explain the terrible consequences of the transgression of the Second Commandment, in which the iniquities of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations (Ex. 20:5).

Man’s fall into sin is total. No area of his life is unaffected by his sin. Because man in the totality of his life is a sinner he seeks to deny God and suppress the knowledge of God in all spheres of life (Rom. 1:18–19). His sin, therefore, works itself out in the totality of his culture. Likewise, the salvation that Christ accomplished for his people by his life, death and resurrection is a completely new creation. It must, therefore, work itself out in the totality of man’s life and culture. This fact has profound implications for our view of social order. Our society will produce either a culture that is moving towards the new creation in Christ, or a culture that is moving away from this, a culture of death (Pr. 8:36). A society that is moving towards the new creation in Christ will seek to order its life according to the standards of righteousness revealed in God’s law. It will produce a culture that honours Christ and a social order that conforms to God’s law because it recognises the comprehensively fallen nature of man’s natural life (i.e. man’s total depravity outside of Christ), God’s grace in Christ as the only remedy for this condition, and God’s law as the only foundation for social order and peace in a fallen world. Where this is rejected society will deteriorate into a culture of depravity and death, which is what Western society today is becoming.

This declension of our society into a culture of depravity will not be halted until the Church once again recognises the full extent of man’s fall into sin and therefore the full and complete nature of the redemption that Christ has accomplished for the world, and until the Church once again starts living in the light of this by seeking to transform the culture in which she lives by applying the light of God’s word to every sphere of human thought and activity. We must preach a total salvation to a totally fallen world.

NOTE
   1. This denial is sometimes implicit rather than explicit. Some committed Arminians will pay lip service to the doctrine of total depravity, but the nature of the Arminian system of doctrine, particularly the Arminian doctrines of prevenient grace and free will, effectively nullifies the doctrine of total depravity: “We retain still after the fall a power of believing and of repentance, because Adam lost not this ability” (Rem. Declar. Sen. In Synod, cited in John Owen, A Display of Arminianism in William H. Goold, ed., The Works of John Owen [Edinburgh: The Banner of Turth Trust, 1967], Vol. X, p. 129; see further ibid., chapters VII, XII, XIII [pp. 68–82, 114–129]. See also the Canons of the Synod of Dordrecht, 1618–1819, Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors.


[This article is an excerpt from a book on political theology that I am currently working on and hope to publish in 2014.]

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The State as God

"The state, whenever it expresses itself, makes law. There are no longer any norms to regulate the activity of the state; it has eliminated the moral rules that judged it and absorbed the legal rules that guided it. The state is a law unto itself and recognizes no rules but its own will. When, in this way, technique breaks off the indispensable dialogue between the law and the state, it makes the state a god in the most theologically accurate sense of the term: a power which obeys nothing but its own will and submits to no judgment from without."

                                          —Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
                                                  (London: Jonathan Cape, [1954] 1965,
                                                              trans. John Wilkinson), p. 299.

Monday, April 8, 2013

The Wrong Priority

“Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgements, neither defile yourselves with their idols: I am the Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgements, and do them” (Ezek. 20:18–19).

The chief and greatest error of the Christian Church throughout the two thousand years of her history has been to have had the wrong priority and to have made this erroneous priority the touchstone of orthodoxy. This error has existed in all branches and denominations; it continues to this day and the Church world-wide shows little if any sign that she understands the problem let alone that she is prepared to repent of the idolatry that is at the heart of it. Yet the results of this error have been catastrophic for the mission of the Church.

The Church has told us almost universally and almost continually that the rituals, worship services and prayer meetings of the institutional Church are the essence of the Christian faith, the most important aspect of the Christian life, the highest and most spiritual activity that the Christian can take part in, and that therefore these activities constitute the highest and purest form of worship that the Christian can engage in. It is this nucleus of activities that constitutes the Church’s highest priority and therefore the Christian’s highest priority, and it is this nucleus of activities that defines worship (where worship is understood as taking place in other contexts it is only because such worship takes a similar form, a sort of satellite church service that mimics the form of regular services held in the church building). This has been the priority that the Church has put first historically; and so great has been this emphasis, this idolatry, that we have been told repeatedly, and not only by the Roman Catholic Church, but by Protestants as well, that there can be no salvation outside of this formal organisation of the Church as an institutional cult with its rituals, government and discipline. But the truth is that this emphasis and priority has reduced the Christian religion to little more than a mystery cult, i.e. a personal salvation cult. To be saved one must join the cult and engage in the re-enactment of the mysteries through performance of the correct rituals. This may appear more obvious in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and other episcopal Churches, but it is not essentially any different in the Protestant Churches. The rituals vary but not the perspective, i.e. that what the congregation does on a Sunday morning in the Church service constitutes the essence of the Christian faith and therefore the highest priority of the Christian life.

But is this biblical? Is this what Jesus taught? Is it what the New Testament teaches? Emphatically not. There is nothing in the Bible that supports this perversion of the gospel. What then is the biblical priority? Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God (Mk 1:14), and he told us clearly what our priority should be: “seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Mt. 6:33). The Lord Jesus Christ does not often refer to the Church and never to its rituals and forms of worship.[1] Neither does the New Testament stress this idolatrous priority. It is the invention of clergymen, whose chief priority has always been put themselves and their own ecclesiastical work first, not the Kingdom of God.

Let’s take a test case. The disciples asked Jesus how to pray. His answer was what we call the Lord’s prayer (Mt. 6:9–13). We may confidently take it that this prayer teaches us clearly what the Lord’s priorities are in prayer, and here they are,—this is what Jesus commands us to pray for: (1) that God’s name should be honoured; (2) that we should seek the coming of the Kingdom of God; (3) that we should ask for our needs to be met; (4) that we should seek forgiveness for our sins and forgive others their sins in like manner; (5) that we might not face temptation and be delivered from evil; (6) an affirmation that the Kingdom, power and glory belong to God. We are not even commanded to pray for the Church here, but for the coming of the Kingdom. Always, Jesus and the New Testament prioritise the Kingdom of God, not the Church. “Let us make sure” says V. H. Stanton “that we realise the extraordinarily prominent position which the subject of the Kingdom of God occupies in the Gospels, more especially in the Synoptics. This is essential if we would form a true conception of the nature of Christianity . . . descriptions of the characteristics of the Kingdom, expositions of its laws, accounts of the way men were actually receiving it, forecasts of its future, make up the whole central portion of the synoptic narrative.” [2] In short, “In our Lord’s teaching the Kingdom of God is the representative and all-embracing summary of his distinctive mission.” [3]

It is men who have made the Christian faith Church-centred, not the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the Bible. The consequence of this has been a truncated, cut-down, version of the gospel, which should be the good news of the Kingdom of God (Mk 1:14), not the good news of the Church, and the result has inevitably been a truncated, cut-down blessing.

Well, what is the Kingdom of God? Of course most clergymen and their followers will define the Kingdom of God very narrowly in terms of their own ideas of the Church, practically at any rate if not theoretically. In other words even when clergymen do not assert that the Kingdom of God and the Church are coterminous, they usually behave practically as if they were and teach a version of the gospel in which this identification is implicit. And of course many clergymen and theologians have explicitly made this identification. But this is not the Christian gospel taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles, nor by the New Testament. It is not the message of the Bible. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not saying that there is no place for Church assemblies and worship services, not even that there is no place for rituals in the work of the institutional Church. Nor am I saying that these things are not important. What I am saying is that they are not to be put first, as the overriding priority, because if they are they will pervert the biblical priority, as the Church has done for so long and continues to do, and this has resulted and will continue to result in the failure of the Church’s true mission, the discipling of the nations. Why? Because this can only be accomplished as the Kingdom of God is manifested on earth, i.e. among the nations, and God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven. And this is precisely what the New Testament says will be the result of the fulfilling of the Great Commission: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ” (Rev. 11:15). Not “The kingdoms of this world are become the Church.” The mission is to create Christian nations, not merely individual believers. The mission is the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, not bigger and better Churches.

But if the Kingdom of God is not the institutional Church, then what is it? The Kingdom of God is a divine political order that stands over and against all the political orders of men. Its origin and the source of its power and authority are not in this world, but it is God’s purpose that the Kingdom should be manifested in this world, that the lives of men and nations should be transformed into the Kingdom of God on earth, which is what we pray for in the Lord’s prayer, what the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned us to pursue in the Great Commission, and what we are told in Rev. 11:15 will be the final result of the Great Commission.

The word kingdom is a political word. A kingdom has a king, it has a population that is subject to the king, it has its own laws, and social forms that embody and incarnate the law of the king in the various social relationships. A kingdom is a political arrangement of all parts of society as a distinctive social order at all levels, both individually and corporately.  It is the same with the Kingdom of God. And the Bible makes it clear how the Kingdom of God is to be governed and ordered, namely by means of the covenant that God has established with his people as their Lord and Saviour. God always relates to man by means of a covenant, and it is in the covenant that we find the details of how this kingdom is to be manifested as a distinctive social order, how God’s people are to live as the Kingdom of God.

As believers, redeemed by Christ through his sacrificial death on our behalf, we are called out of the old world of sin and unbelief, i.e. the political orders of men, into a new political order, the Kingdom of God. Christians are not people who have been merely called out of the world of sin and unbelief. They have been called out of the world into something else, namely a new political order, the Kingdom of God. As citizens of the Kingdom of God their calling is to live out the prophetic message of the gospel both as individuals and as the new society, and thereby call the world to repentance. This prophetic message to the world is both verbal and practical. The new society in Christ should not only preach the word of God, but incarnate it in the new social order of the Kingdom, and when this happens the new society becomes a prophetic social order that calls the world to repentance. This is our calling as believers. If we are to obey this calling faithfully we must put the Kingdom first in everything. Nothing takes priority over the Kingdom. Anything that usurps the priority of the Kingdom of God and his righteousness in our lives is an idol and dishonouring to God’s name, even if, indeed especially if that idol is the Church, which, as John Owen declared, is the greatest idol that ever was in the world.[4]

So what should we do about this? Bear witness to this truth to all your family and friends and in the Church you attend; and to this end go to your pastor or minister and ask him to explain how the Church is to incarnate the Kingdom of God in her life as a social order, how she is to put the Kingdom of God first. Ask him to teach the covenant. Ask him to explain how we are to live according to the covenant and ask him to demonstrate this in his own life and the life of his family. Ask him to teach his Church members how they are to live as members of the Kingdom of God. And if he cannot or will not do this, get rid of him because he is a false prophet, a hireling, who will lead your Church, and probably has already led your Church, to compromise with the world and the inevitable defeat that this leads to.

Here are some practical issues that you can ask him to start explaining. 1. How are the members of the Kingdom of God to organise the education of the young so that it conforms to God’s will rather than conforming to the dictates of the religion of secular humanism? 2. How is the Kingdom’s justice system to be organised so that it conforms to God’s will rather than conforming to the dictates of the religion of secular humanism? 3. How should the Kingdom’s welfare system be organised so that it conforms to God’s will rather than conforming to the dictates of the religion of secular humanism? 4. How is the Kingdom’s medical system to be organised so that it conforms to God’s will rather than conforming to the dictates of the religion of secular humanism? The Bible gives directions for all these things, and it does not call us to be compromised with the world but rather to transform the world, to disciple the nations to Christ.

This is not the whole of it of course, but it is a start, and these are the things that Jesus prioritised and that the Bible prioritises. We are commanded to teach the good news of the Kingdom of God to all nations. We are commanded to pursue justice (God’s righteousness). We are told to care for our neighbours. And we are told to heal the sick. All these things receive a higher priority in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible than getting the Sunday morning Church services and rituals correct, and therefore constitute the true worship that God requires of us. In fact the Bible does not prioritise the Sunday Church worship services at all, nor does it define worship as engaging in such services, and our prioritising of these things will achieve nothing in terms of the Great Commission. It is because the Church has put herself before the Kingdom of God that she is defeated before the world and compromised with it. Such compromise is caused by the idolatry involved in not prioritising what Jesus prioritised, which is the Kingdom of God and his righteousness. And the problem will not be resolved until the Church repents of this idolatry and does the works God has called her to do instead of the works she wishes to do,—unless she prioritises what the Lord has told her to prioritise and abandons her idolatry.

“Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgements, neither defile yourselves with their idols: I am the Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgements, and do them” (Ezek. 20:18–19).


NOTES
    1. He did of course institute the Lord’s Supper, but the Church abandoned Christ’s ordinance in the early centuries of the Church’s history for one of her own devising. See my book The Christian Passover: Agape Feast or Ritual Abuse (Taunton: Kuyper Foundation, 2012). For a free PDF of the text click here.
  2. V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah: A Study in the Earliest History of Christianity (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1886), pp. 203f, 206; my emphasis.
  3. Archibald Robertson, Regnum Dei: Eight Lectures on the Kingdom of God in the History of Christian Thought (London: Methuen and Co., 1901), p. 8.
  4. John Owen, An Enquiry into the Original, Nature, Institution, Powers, Order, and Communion of Evangelical Churches in Works (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust [Goold Edition, 1850–53], 1965), Vol. XV, p. 224f. See further here.