Having Two Legs

Saturday, June 11, 2005

School's Out for the Summer

Last day of school was yesterday. God has been very kind: four years now teaching at Atlas. It, as they say, has certainly flown by.

In honor of the occasion, I offer this poem which is by one of my students (one of the younger ones, mind you).

A Cave Man

A cave man sat in a cave of stone
picking his teeth with an old steak bone.
He felt he was brave,
while in his cave,
though he didn't have a light or a telephone.

But all at once, he heard a roar.
A Sabertooth Tiger was at his door.
The poor old mole
was in a hole,
and the tiger would have his hide, he swore.

But just as the tiger wrinkled his snout,
the cave man jumped to his feet with a shout.
He grabbed the back wall
and gave it a haul,
and turned his cave right inside out.

Then he was out wih the tiger in,
so he rolled up a rock with a cheerful grin.
He blocked the way
for a week and a day,
and now he's wearing a tiger skin.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Passing the Peace

Is the practice of "Passing the Peace" biblical? Is it necessary? Isn't it just something Roman Catholics and "high-Church" types do? And doesn't it just make people feel awkward? Doesn't it distract from the rest of the service?

The principle behind the practice is that being united to God means that we are united to one another. The point of the Passing of the Peace is not supposed to be an awkward point where everyone tries to think of something they might have done to offend someone else. That’s not the point at all. The ‘Peace’ is not a time of confession. Rather, it’s a time of showing our unity and communion with one another. Shaking hands and greeting one another in the Lord is a visible, tangible opportunity to show forth the unity that we have in Christ (Ps. 133, Eph. 4:1-16). The way we speak, sing, listen, pray, eat, drink etc. in worship is the pattern for how we are to live in the world. Obviously we are not required to do EVERYTHING in worship that we do in the world, but we do have specific exhortations to greet one another. Romans 16 in particular is an entire chapter where Paul gives a host of greetings to be given to particular saints in the Church of God. See verse 16 in particular where he commands us to greet another with a holy kiss! I don’t think that’s just cultural thing, and we know that this is not just a first century version of shaking hands because of the fact that it is designated as ‘holy’. This implies a kind of liturgical connection. It is a particular greeting that saints greet one another with, differently than the rest of the world because we are family in Christ. The end of 1 Corinthians 16 is another passage of greetings from Paul and another command to greet one another with a holy kiss. 1 Thess. 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14, and 2 Corinthians 13:12 also exhort us to greet one another with a holy kiss. Philippians 4:21 exhorts us to greet all the saints in Jesus Christ. The writer of Hebrews encourages us to greet all those who rule over us and all the saints (13:24, See also 3 John 1:14). We ought to see the importance of the concept simply on the grounds of how often it is repeated. I should clarify that I am not here arguing that the "Passing of the Peace" must include the 'holy kiss'. I'm rather arguing that the "holy kiss" is at minimum a principle that ought to be applied: a liturgical greeting among the saints.

Obviously ‘greetings’ are something that people often send in the mail, and we are reading first century mail (!). But greeting one another in peace and love is exhorted over and over in the New Testament because we have been brought together for fellowship and communion. The command we have to greet one another ‘in the Lord’ or with a ‘holy kiss’ implies that this is not just a “hey, how’s it going?” sort of greeting. That kind of greeting can be done before or after the service. The Passing of the Peace is a time for real, personal greeting ‘in the Lord’, extending peace and blessings to one another because that is what we have received from God through Jesus Christ.

As far as awkwardness goes, we’ve been doing it here at Trinity for the last 6 months or so, and I have not heard one single comment to that effect. Everyone I know has said that it is one of their favorite parts of the new liturgy. And again this is not a casual, “hey, how was your week?” kind of greeting. This is specifically a time to greet one another ‘in the Lord’. At Trinity we greet one another saying things like: “The Lord be with you/And with your spirit”, “The Peace of the Lord be with you/And with you”, and others just say, “God bless you!” And thus, it should not be a distraction or a sidetrack to the rest of the worship service. This, leading right into Communion is very fitting because Communion is not just a ‘me and God moment’. We are seated together at the table of the Lord, and this is a very tangible way to ‘discern the body of the Lord’ and prove the fact that there are not divisions among us as Paul warns against (1 Cor. 11:18-34).

Saturday, June 04, 2005

The Love that Overwhelms Us

In The Bondage of the Will, Luther notes that 'necessity' is an unfortunate term in describing the alternative to contingency. "Its meaning is too harsh and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against one's will, which is no part of the view under debate." He goes on to use it, having no alternative on hand, but I appreciate the recognition of its deficiency. I'm not sure I have any better suggestions, but I agree with Luther completely here. When discussing foreordination and foreknowledge, no freedom is displaced or intruded upon; rather the sovereign will of God works in a mysterious and wonderful way upholding, enlivening and directing every last detail of the universe. We are not oppressed or coerced into the path that God would have us take. If any oppression or coercion is taking place it is solely as a result of our own freedom and will. We are only inhibited by our own nature. God does sometimes directly interfere in what we might call the 'miraculous', but the usual miraculous (if we dare call it usual) is a result of the constant joy overflowing the Trinitarian fellowship. The world is won over to God by His love. It's the sovereign grace of God that compels all things, the dance and song of the Triune fellowship that invites the world to follow the path laid out for it before the foundation of the world. It is no faceless necessity that binds us to the God of heaven. Like the perfect lover that He is, it's the rich and (seemingly) careless love of the Trinity that wins every detail of the universe. And thus the vast galaxies and every last stray atom sing his unending praises because we are all deeply smitten.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Devotional 1: Infant Baptism

We believe in Paedobaptism. This means that we believe that God has claimed our son and all children that are born into a family with at least one believing parent. They are set apart to God; they are “holy” to God in fact (1 Cor. 7:14). Leviticus 27 is one place where we learn what it means for something to be “holy to the Lord.” There, houses, fields, servants, fruit, tithes or anything else that is “holy to the Lord” becomes His property. It may not be sold for profit, but it belongs to the priests, God’s personal attendants. But we also baptize infants because salvation is of grace. Peter says that the promise of forgiveness of sins is for us and our children (Acts 2:39), and this is consistent with the Old Covenant which was a promise that flowed through generations (Gen. 9:12, 17:7, Deut. 7:9, 1 Chr. 16:15, Ps. 105:8, etc.). Also, while no children are explicitly mentioned, we do have record of early household baptisms (Acts. 16:15, 1 Cor. 1:16). The faith of one head of the household is enough for God to claim servants, children and any others in the household. The sign of the Old Covenant was circumcision, but the sign of the New Covenant is baptism. As the sign was placed upon both young and old, slave and free in the household of Abraham and his descendents, so it is with baptism in the Christian era (Gen. 17:9-14). Likewise as it was covenant breaking not to obey God in this, so it is disobedience not to baptize our children. Baptism is “circumcision without hands” according to Paul, and through the working of faith it unites us and our children to the death and resurrection of Jesus (Col. 2:11-12).
In addition to believing that we should baptize our children and all household members who are willing, we also learn an important lesson about obeying God. His Word is sufficient and clear, but He sometimes requires things of us that we must infer. Sometimes the tidy-minded want everything spelled out explicitly. But this is called legalism; God expects us to grow up into maturity and connect the right dots as we do.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

American Civil Religion

Interestingly the late 1940s and 50s saw an upsurge in ‘religion’. At this point over 90 percent of American citizens readily claimed affiliation with some religion or sect. But this was another sign not of God’s blessing but of his curse on our nation. To have a proliferation of churches and not a semblance of repentance or sorrow over sin is a sure sign of a deep blindness.

“Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply religious faith, “ President Eisenhower proclaimed, “—and I don’t care what it is.”

This generic religiosity and faith-talk substituted for real heart felt faith and sincere repentance and obedience. “The Howdy Doody Show” likewise encouraged its young watchers to worship “at the church or synagogue of your choice.” This civil religion really was fairly innocuous simply because they got along so well. Protestants, Catholics, and Jews (the big three in America) all had leading figures who spent most of their time condemning the Great Red Menace, Communism, when immorality and decadence of all stripes and flavors was spilling out of the American family.

And just to make sure, in 1954, Congress added the phrase “under god” to the Pledge of Allegiance because Atheism was the official religion or faith of the Communist party. Of course it is fairly ironic that the aurthor of the pledge was himself an athiestic socialist, but hey, that's how it goes.

It should be fairly clear from what we’ve already seen that this was never meant to be an exclusive reference to the Christian Trinitarian God; no, it has always meant the generic ‘god’ that the masses of Americans believe in with no distinctive claims or demands for anyone. As others have pointed out very clearly, this is the same god that is invoked in the National Cathedral, the god of American Muslims, Jews and far too many Evangelicals.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

SHOD

In Genesis 35:8-11 shortly after Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, dies, God appears to Jacob, changes his name to Israel, and gives himself the name God Almighty. What I noticed recently was the fact that God's name God Almighty is El Shadai. In the context of the previous couple of verses it seems likely that a pun may be intended. Deborah was Rebekah's nurse, literaly "Rebekah's one who gave suck". "Shod" is the word in Hebrew for breast, and maybe this is a stretch, but God is also our 'nurse' in some sense. Israel literally means 'God preserves or perseveres', and there is a very real sense in which a nurse does the same thing. Just after Rebekah's nurse has died, God reveals himself as El Shadai, and shadai has the same root letters with an extra suffix. I'm not necessarily arguing against the translation 'almighty', I just think there's more going on than the English can reveal. Neat indeed.

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Jacob and the Angels

In Genesis 32, just after Laban and Jacob have made their peace, the angels of God meet Jacob as he is going on his way. Jacob recognizes that he is surrounded by the presence of God and names the place 'The Camp of God' (32:1-2). However in the next verse, most tranlsations read, "Then Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother..." But the word for messengers is the exact same word as angels. It seems incredibly odd to assume a change of characters here. It seems rather that Jacob sent the angels of God ahead of him to Esau, and these same angels returned to him in verse 6 to advise him of Esau's approach with four hundred men.

Jacob's stature is furthmore impressed at the end of chapter 32 when he wrestles with God. The man that wrestles with God is surely suited to command angels. Jacob is an ancient picture of the status of Christians, placed over all things, even judging the angels in Christ (1 Cor. 6:3).

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Cleared

Thanks to all who have prayed for Atlas over the last week or so. We received word today that we have been cleared on the zoning charges. Atlas is free to meet in the downtown district. There are always opportunities for appeals, if our enemies are so inclined, but pray that they might see the futility of further attacks.

Other than a few shuffles of class locations, we have continued classes as usual. And one hopes that the last six weeks of classes will be fairly uneventful. Thanks for your continued prayers.

Honest to God

Everyone tries to give a shot at the question, ‘what’s with the Moscow crowd?’ Or those already in town, ‘What’s with Christ Church and Doug Wilson?” So I fling this answer out just in case you care what I think. It is my blog after all. It’s what you’re here for right?

So what’s with Moscow? What’s with Christ Church? We believe that the Triune God made heaven and earth in six days. Our first parents sinned, disobeying God’s command and the world was plunged into sin and death. But God in his great mercy and kindness sent his Son to become a man and redeem us from the bondage of sin. Jesus came to set us free from sin. He did and so we are. Yeah sure, says the skeptic, lot’s of people believe that, but why Christian schools and colleges? Why poetry and stories? Why dancing and feasting? Why dark beer and drama and art? Why all the flack? The true and honest answer is that we love life. We love the God of heaven. We love the freedom we have been given. We are grateful, overflowing people astounded at the goodness of God and the goodness of creation. And we are thankful down in our bones.

But no one can love without hating. If something or someone is truly loved, that which might destroy it, is detested. Love assumes protection. Love demands a guard. The man who refuses to guard what he says he loves is a liar. We defend what we love.

We love God. We love his law. We love the freedom we have been given, and we believe it is the only true freedom. And this God and the life he has given us is more precious to us than anything else in the world. We would gladly die for it, and we will fight for freedom from sin and evil with all the gusto we can muster. That’s what we are. We are men and women and children committed to living honestly before God. We hate guilt. We hate sin. We hate every cultural attack on the freedom we hold so dear. We are freemen before God. And we are free down in our bones. We stand before God honestly, openly, and grateful. And that’s the truth, honest to God.

Monday, April 25, 2005

Joining the Fray

The last several years have seen a proliferation of attacks on anything remotely related to Christ Church. In fact for a while the intoleristas boycotted every restaurant in Moscow because they realized we ate there too. But realizing that meant they'd go hungry, they've eased up a bit and settled down in the area of zoning and building codes.

But that's pretty much the skinny. Atlas is under fire from two individuals who have far too much time on their hands.

It was only a matter of time really. You see we're scary. Boo. Gotcha didn't I? 15 boys in sweater vests. Yikes, I know. But it's true.

Pray for us that the final weeks of school would not be to disturbed. Pray that we would find favor in the eyes of city officials. And pray that God would bless our enemies with more fruitful work.

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Atlas School: Missions Update

Atlas School continues to flourish under God’s blessing. Jamin White, Mark Reagan, Mark Beauchamp, and Toby Sumpter continue to teach and lead the young men in their studies. We are also grateful for the oversight of our board: Bruce Evans, Joe Kline, Bill Amos, and Jeff Handel. As spring is nearing, many of the students have begun training for Lacrosse. The Atlas “Giborim” (“Mighty Ones”) are particularly enjoying the new equipment we have this year through a US Lacrosse grant. Coach Kline already has the guys running and sweating happily.

One of the central goals of Atlas is to instill in young men a love for life. This means among other things that our aim is to fill our days together with sacrifice. If any man would find his life, he must first lose it for the sake of Christ (Mt. 10:39). Worshipping, feasting, reading, laughing, drawing: these are all opportunities not only for joy but for service. Head knowledge is nothing without love. Please continue to pray that we would pursue this task faithfully. Pray that we would not only speak and read intelligently, but that we would do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. Pray also that God would send the right students, families, and provide teachers, as we plan for next fall. We are grateful for your continued prayers and encouraging words.

The Justice of God

The book of Romans is about the justice of God. Paul's concern from the beginning is how God can be just and still reject Israel. Isn't God being unjust or unrighteous in cutting Israel off and grafting the Gentiles in? Paul's answer is no, of course. God is just because his faithfulness and promises are still in effect to those with faith. Abraham was not yet circumcised when God vindicated him. What did God vindicate him from? God vindicated him from the taunts of his neighbors and family in Ur, who may have believed he was crazy to take up the nomadic habit. God viewed him and showed him to be in the right when he had interaction with pagan kings and other inhabitants of the land of promise. Why did God say that Abraham was right? Why did God deliver him from his enemies? Because Abraham believed God and obeyed him.

One of Abraham's great vindications was when God gave him a son from the barren womb of Sarah. Isaac was a flesh and blood declaration from God saying, 'Abraham is right for doing what he does. He's with me.' Circumcision was a seal, a physical mark that said God had made a covenant with Abraham, but it was Abraham's faith that proved he was right. Abraham believed God, and therefore Abraham was right. And if Abraham was right then all that befell him necessarily required God's justice. Abraham was in the right. Therefore God the judge, in order to judge justly, bound himself to rule in Abraham's favor. But how can this be when all that Abraham ever did was not just or right. Abraham sometimes was unjust and not right. How can God rule in his favor every time, when sometimes Abraham was bound to be wrong? God basically said to Abraham, 'I will take care of this later. For now, you're right, even when your wrong. Trust me.'

But what about God's promises? God's promises remained unfulfilled to Abraham. The story that God had told Abraham was not at an end when Abraham died. Abraham's death before seeing the rest of the story cries out for justice. Abraham's sojourning, his altar building, his household building is worthless to Abraham if he does not see God's promises fulfilled. But Abraham dies believing God, believing that God will vindicate him. That even from death, God is able to vindicate. For death is necessarily wrong. It is wicked, it is backward, and it is opposed to the very nature of God. God's justice requires that Abraham's wrongs be acquitted and his death be revearsed.

But this is of course the rest of Paul's point. When Adam and Eve sinned, they died, and sin came into the world. But this same sin and death was placed upon Jesus Christ on the cross. This would have made the cross no different than any other cross in Palestine at this time, except for the fact that Jesus was innocent. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, having God for his Father, and therefore He was not under the reign of sin and death. But he submitted to death, humbling himself, taking upon himself the sin and death of the world. Christ's death was the answer to Abraham's (and our) wrongs. Christ's blood was the just due of all our injustice, every time we were, are, or will be wrong. But that was not the end. Christ was right and yet he died as though he was wrong. He was accused by the Jewish and Roman officials. They condemned him as a blasphemer. He was convicted of their charges, and he died before the multitude a guilty man, when he was in fact not guilty. This is the great injustice of history. This is the greatest injustice of history. Murder, rape, abuse, torture, famine, and calamity all pale in comparison. The problem of evil is here if nowhere else. How could a good and just God allow that?

And had the story ended there, God would be unjust. But it did not. The way that God has made the world is such that death cannot stick to the innocent. We often speak of life as being hard to preserve, death being difficult to beat. But for those who are right it is quite the opposite, death is hard to preserve, and life cannot be beat. Christ was right and the scribes and pharisees were wrong. Jesus was right, Pilot and the masses were wrong. How do we know this? Because Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection proves Jesus right. It is his vindication for the world to see. Jesus paid the penalty for our wrongs, so that God might justly say that we are right, even when we have been wrong, that we are just, even when we have been unjust. And He rose from the dead both so that the world would know that Jesus was right, but so that we might know what happens to people who die being right: They rise from the dead. In this sense, the death of every believer is unjust and cries out to God for vindication. The graves of the just are memorials before God demanding his justice.

But with Abraham, we are sure that we have been and will be vindicated because we believe God. We believe God, obey Him, and He says we're right and all of our enemies are wrong. He judges on our behalf because we believe Him. Faith is what makes us right. Unbelief makes others wrong. And whatever our accusers may say, whatever accusations they may bring, whatever they may convict us of, we may live confidently knowing that the Judge of the whole earth will do right. Every wrong against us will be declared wrong, and those who plot against us will be destroyed. Justice will be served, and though we may die, life will win out over death, and we will wake up like Jesus in indestructable bodies. And we will smile at our enemies, because we knew we were right all along.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Nietzsche

Not withstanding an admittedly rudimentary knowledge of this jolly old pagan, I must give my judgment that he is perhaps one of history's greatest conspiracy theorists. To have grasped the breadth and depth of the radical and subversive work of Christ and to conclude that its fundamental traits are a sham and a farce is an accomplishment that no ordinary conspiracy theorist is capable. I raise my glass to you Friedrich on this Good Friday, the day in which we celebrate the death of all natural nobility and greatness because our hunger for joy is not so easily assuaged.

Clowney

Edmund Clowney (1917-2005): one of the Church's great generals.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

That Jolly Old Pagan

In C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves he, on several occasions, refers to Ovid as that "jolly old pagan". It's not just once mind you, but at least two or three times. Lewis' remark is striking in a couple of ways not the least of which is the fact that in all my reading of Ovid which admittedly is on the lesser side of a tad, I don't recall Ovid being all that jolly. Old? Yes. Pagan? Obviously. Jolly? I'm not so sure, but that's Lewis' point. Secondly, although jolly may be meant in a rather ironic or facetious way in regards to Ovid's actual personality, Lewis surely means that he is jolly for our purposes.

Along those lies, I would commend to you The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce. That jolly old pagan fought in the civil war, took up journalism, and when he had had enough of that, took for the deserts of Mexico and was never heard from again. But his dictionary is a handy dandy reference guide for anything remotely useful or not. In addition to the aforementioned desk tool, I might also recommend the H.L. Mencken. Another jolly old pagan who has written prolificly on nearly everything. I might also add that these last two authors are not only amusing and witty, but if you've ever wondered where Douglas Wilson gets his sense of humor, you might start here.

Go. Run along now. You've got more useful things to do. ttfn.

Learning Life

I'm no expert, I assure you. But life is for living. Here I am, Holy Week is coming to its climax, and I'm doing lesson plans.

I believe in the resurrection, ergo I believe in living.

I've decided to give my students assignments in living. I would feel embarassed and ashamed if I allowed any student to finish their studies at Atlas having not been taught to live: sort of like a traveling circus without any elephants. I would gladly take suggestions you might have but the following is the beginning of my so-called 'assignments in living' list: Climb a tree, examine the underside of a rather large rock, fly a kite, play with a small animal, tiptoe through tulips, watch a sunset & a sunrise, smell the flowers, learn a dance, meet a stranger, whistle.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Nominalism and Logic

In The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison quotes John F. Johnson in his description of the late medieval philosophy scene: "The realist school of thought, with its belief in universals, did not challenge the authority of the Church. Realists treated logic and dialectic as useful but clearly subordinate tools. The nominalists, on the other hand, were inclined to give a very important place to human reason."

This emphasis initially seemed almost backwards to me. But it makes sense. In pursuing order and meaning, realists found it outside the material and created world, whereas nominalists located it within human thought and language. Thus, nominalists might be more apt to place trust in a system of thought (e.g. dialectic) because that is the very organization of the world. While, realists might be more cautious, recognizing that the order and meaning of the world transcend what we may rationally conceive.

And if this be so, both seem inadequate. A blog post I read (dated two years ago), suggested that the best realists and nominalists realized that a marriage or fusion was necessary of the two extremes. The scholastic dichotomy was in the end false. It was suggested that Wittgenstein is a modern example of the merger between the two views. However that may be, the creation account seems to suggest some sort of merger of its own. Whereas form and meaning are assigned and given in the initial creation of the cosmos by God himself, man's initial task is that of naming the animals. And whatever the man called the animal, that was its name. Mankind shares in the creation process. We share in the gift of meaning, this is something of what it means to be created in the image of God.

Thus we might heartily agree with the realists that meaning does transcend us in that God is Creator and Lord, and at the same time we might recognize that the nominalists are right, in that we are co-creators and lords.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

The Trinitarian Gospel

And this is the gospel: that God is three in one. It is only with this God that humans may have any direct dealings. It is only with a God who can reveal Himself to and in us that we have any hope. We can only come to know a God who is simultaneously the Revealer, the Revelation, and the Assurance of receiving the Revelation. This is true monotheism; all other attempts are polytheistic and idolatrous.

This must be so because any attempt at knowing a Unitarian god must have some mediator. And this mediator must either a) be another divine being or b) a human being who is by nature incapable of revealing God truly and in enough fullness to be of any help. In which case we are left with worshipping a god unknown, as in the latter case, which is blind idolatry. Or, we are faced with another god altogether, in which case we are not really Unitarian but polytheistic, and we are no closer to knowing the original God we sought. Thus God is Trinity: three in one.

And this is the gospel: that we know God, or rather, we are known by God. And this Revelation of God is Jesus.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Genesis 7

A. And Yahveh said to Noach you go and all your house into the ark because you I saw righteous before my face in this generation.
B. From all the clean beasts you will take to you seven seven man and his wife and from the beasts that are not clean, it two: man and his wife. Also from flying creatures of heaven seven seven male and female for life’s seed upon the face of the all the earth.
C. Because for days yet seven I am sending rain on the earth: forty days and forty nights and I will wipe all standing things which I made from on the face of the ground. And Noach did as all that Yahveh commanded him.

A. And Noach was a son of six hundred years and the flood was water on the earth. And Noach went and his sons and his wife and the wives of his sons with him into the ark from the face of the waters of the flood.
B. From clean beasts and from the beasts which have no cleanness and from the flying creatures and from and all which creep on the ground. Two two came to Noach into the ark male and female as God commanded Noach.
C. And it happened to the seven of days and waters of the flood were on the earth. In the six hundred years to the life of Noach in the second month in the seventeenth day to the month in that day all the springs were broken open, the many deeps and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

A. In that day itself, Noach went and Shem and Ham and Japheth, sons of Noach and wife of Noach and three of the wives of his sons with them into the ark.
B. They and all the life according to its kind and all the beasts according to its kind and all the creeping things creeping on the earth according to its kind and all the flying creatures according to its kind and all the birds all the wings. And they went to Noach into the ark two two from all the flesh that in it is the spirit of life.
C. And they came male and female from all the flesh they came as God commanded it and Yahveh closed it from behind. And the flood was forty days on the earth

A. and the waters multiplied and they lifted up the ark and she rose from on the earth. And the waters were mighty and they multiplied exceedingly exceedingly on the earth and all the exalted mountains were covered which are under all the heavens. Fifteen forearms from above: the waters were mighty and the mountains were covered.
B. And all flesh perished: the creeping thing on the earth, the flying creatures and the beasts and the living things and all the swarming things that swarm on the earth and all mankind. And He wiped out all the standing things which were on the face of the ground from man to beast to creeping thing to flying creatures of the heavens and they were wiped out from the earth
C. and remained only Noach and who were with him in the ark. And the waters were mighty on the earth one hundred fifty days.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Socialism & Friends

Introduction
As we have seen, the breakdown of the old feudal system of the middle ages brought all kinds of conflict with it. The French Revolution was the first all out break with Christendom, and with it came a host of difficulties. Where society had once been viewed in terms of how each part of society fit together to form the whole, under revolutionary ideals, men began being viewed as production hours and in terms of monetary value. This (de)valuation of men was of course done in the name of liberty and freedom, but in reality it created a view of the world that encouraged covetousness, greed, and envy.

From Estate to Class
The French Revolution, you will remember, was largely carried out by (what we would now term) an upper-middle class group of men known as the bourgeoisie. It was a movement by some who were usually wealthy businessmen, motivated by greed, hunger for power, and a disgust for the Christian faith, to have greater impact and say in a kingdom of corrupt royalty. This was the beginning of what moderns would term ‘classes’ of people. These classes are ways of categorizing people based upon their income and wealth. What had once been ‘estates’ (Clergy, Royalty, and everybody else ie. Families) meaning sectors of society that performed specific functions or aids to equip and encourage the health and growth of the whole people, came to be viewed as classes, defining men by their money rather than their gifts.

The word “socialism” came into the English language from the French somewhere around 1820. Finding its roots in Latin, the word refers to companions or neighbors and came to mean a belief in a certain way society should function or the role a civil government should play in society. In some of its earliest formulations, socialism envisioned a ‘utopian’ society, that is, a society that assumes the best about human nature. Socialism dreamed of a world where government was unnecessary, where men and women gave to one another freely as needed, traded, and served one another with complete justice and equality. More importantly, it dreamed of an egalitarian society, a society with no classes, with no inequalities.

These sorts of movements of course have origins. Socialism is no different. With the simultaneous outbreak of revolutionary thought, disrupting societies, questioning all of the glue that had held previous generations together, and the emergence of the industrial revolution, the increase of mass production and the growth of cities, another “class” appeared on the scene: the working class. This working class or “proletariat” was made of those who labored in the mills and factories, whose only assets were their bodies’ ability to work. As the world changed in dramatic ways it faced challenges that essentially boiled down to learning how to get along in new settings. While we must not idealize the medieval feudalism (for it certainly was not perfect), it is at least praiseworthy for its personality. Men made covenants with one another, vowing to provide, defend, protect, and be loyal to one another. This ‘faith’ among men, was a kind of bond that gave some stability to society (crusades and feuding knights notwithstanding). With that bond broken between men, a new kind of faith needed to be forged without which human societies cannot function.

The bourgeoisie, which continued its success, soon had a large working class which filled its needs for production. However, a number of things contributed to growing discontent among the working class. In many places the working environment was difficult, wages were extremely low because of the demand for work, hours were incredibly long, and a host of others. As the bourgeoisie had once banded together in order to redress wrong that they perceived in society, so too some began to see the need for the working class to band together for protection as well. Initially, socialist ideals were suggested and promulgated by members of the bourgeoisie and upper classes. Men and women who saw the sufferings of the workers in factories sought protections and justice for men and women, believing that they ought to be treated with more dignity and respect. But it was not long before these concerns and the hoped for solutions were shared by many within the ranks of the workers. Worker Unions began emerging at this time, and strikes became a symbol of the little man giving the corporate business owners ‘what for’.

Socialism and Scripture
As men began looking for solutions to the dilemmas they found themselves in, few thought to give heed to Scripture. But God’s Word gives instructions for the care of the poor and the working class. “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 23:22, 19:9-10, Dt. 24:19) “At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.” (Dt. 14:28-29) The Old Testament law also has provisions that require the forgiving of debts in certain years, as well as general laws that required the Israelites to treat their workers with dignity and justice, to pay their wages promptly, and not to oppress them in any way. The Proverbs declare that he who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and will be repaid generously. While the New Testament does not give many direct instructions regarding the poor or working class, the general thrust remains the same as the Old Covenant, treat all men as you have been treated. Since you were once slaves (literally and spiritually) and you have been given freedom and salvation, so treat all those around you generously, seeking the blessing of all. In Galatians, Paul recounts that the elders of the Jerusalem council gave their blessing to Paul’s ministry to the gentiles only insisting that his ministry not neglect the care of the poor (2:10).

But these Biblical requirements to care for and provide for the poor do not in any way set aside other clear requirements. The eighth commandment prohibiting stealing, assumes that an owner possesses property. Further, while the early church clearly experienced an abundance of community, which we ought to imitate, it was nevertheless voluntary as indicated by the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:4). Lastly, the New Testament lays the normal responsibility for provision of families upon the man of the house (1 Tim. 5:8). Taking all of this evidence as one, the Scriptures require that every man provide for his own household honestly and diligently. But, whether through hardship, irresponsibility, or some other providence, the poor will always be with us, and the Bible requires that all men be generous to the poor. Churches are also instructed by the authority of the apostles not to neglect the poor. Lastly, it is just and right for civil magistrates to require that land owners (and others that are well off) to give of their incomes to charitable causes (churches, ministries, or poor directly). However when civil governments assume that the actual care of and provision for the poor is their responsibility they go too far.

Marxism and Communism
But many flatly rejected the Bible’s teaching opting for their own ideas, and in the mid-1800s, Karl Marx and his friend Friedrich Engels developed a theory of history, economics, and politics that they called ‘scientific socialism’ which came to be known as Marxism. This theory believed that revolution was the key to bringing about the eradication of class. Competition or capitalism would be replaced by a dictatorship of the working class. It was believed that when the proletariat grasped the reigns of power, private property would be abolished, and civil government would whither away and disintegrate for lack of need, moving from the stage of ‘socialism’ (revolution to proletariat rule) to ‘communism’ (abolition of private property to disintegration of government). These visions for a new order and reorganized society were very attractive to many during this period.

While none of these dreams were ever to be realized, some aspects of them were grasped and developed. Socialist political parties and workers unions formed, societies and clubs working for socialist agendas. But more importantly for the 20th century, some of the bloodiest regimes in history rose to power in the name of Marxism, socialism, and communism, promising equality and justice but delivering oppression and slavery.

Conclusion
When men go their own ways, refusing to be guided by the wisdom of God, they become fools. Change is inevitable. New technologies, industrial advances, and cultural shifts must and will occur. This is because the God of history does new things. He raises up kings and emperors and puts them down. He raises up civilizations and empires and crushes them down to the ground. The Kingdom of God will never be destroyed, but it is growing throughout history in way that is different from all other kingdoms. It is a Kingdom made of men, lands, and blood, but all of the remnants of the old cities of men must be shaken down and torn away. As this occurs, men must always seek the wisdom of God found in the Scriptures.

As we seek to live faithfully before God today, we must seek to repent of the errors of our fathers. Men are not mere producers. Their value is not in their incomes. Viewing our neighbors according to income brackets is foolish and unhelpful. We must seek to return to a way of life that values different stations, gifts, and callings, and we must be generous with whatever we have been given and wherever we have been placed. Secondly, we must likewise repudiate all attempts to eradicate private property. Whether by legislation or theory, these are attempts to rob men of their gifts from God and responsibility before God to use them well. Lastly, we must recognize that God has ordained three basic kinds of government: familial, ecclesiastical, and civil. Each must do its part, seeking the good of all others and not grasping or envying.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)