Government: Mandate of Justice, Not Religion

Justice scales

The supreme mandate of the state government is justice. This must be stated with conviction in the light of the megashift that has happened in political philosophy where the state has been turned primarily into a welfare state from what it is supposed to be – a law state. In a welfare state, the major task of government is seen as provision for the deprived and poor. And there is nothing wrong with this as a noble goal. Individual morality and philanthropy, together with charitable institutions, do good works pertaining to this goal. But the government’s role to secure such provision for the poor is to carry out the mandate of enforcing the law. In brief, the task of the government is to make sure that justice is done for every man.

The signatories to the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 affixed their signatures under this solemn oath:

And for the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Penned by Thomas Jefferson, and assisted by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, they produced one of the most important documents that established a philosophy of government. Unlike European nations which founded their states upon state religions, here is a nation that is not built on religion, without being irreligious. As Carolyn Kennedy puts it:

Building upon the ideas of the enlightenment philosopher John Locke, and English and colonial declarations of rights, Jefferson wrote for the world and for the ages. For the first time in history, principles of freedom and equality became the political foundations for a nation.[i]

The supreme mandate of the state government is justice. This must be stated with conviction in the light of the megashift that has happened in political philosophy where the state has been turned primarily into a welfare state from what it is supposed to be – a law state. In a welfare state, the major task of government is seen as provision for the deprived and poor. And there is nothing wrong with this as a noble goal. Individual morality and philanthropy, together with charitable institutions, do good works pertaining to this goal. But the government’s role to secure such provision for the poor is to carry out the mandate of enforcing the law. In brief, the task of the government is to make sure that justice is done for every man. One of the great modern theoreticians of justice, John Rawls, said, “Justice is the first virtue of of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”[ii]

That it is clear in the Old Testament may be expected as the covenant community happened to be the nation of Israel. Their covenant laws and rules strictly safeguards the application of justice to all. But there is a special warning against actuations of magistrates who simply follow the popular sentiment that militate against justice.

You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice. Exodus 23:2

Interestingly, even the easy sentiment of favoring the poor just because they are poor is also cautioned against magistrates.

Nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit. Exodus 23:3

You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit. Exodus 23:6

By the same interest of justice, there is also a strong concern that justice be rendered to the poor. In this regard, the prohibition against taking bribe, since it is presumably the rich who is able to give such a bribe, is deemed as prejudicial against the poor.

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Deuteronomy 10:17-18

That much of detailed instructions were integrated in the laws of Israel as a nation which is coevally the kingdom of Yahweh. Much more relevant to our situation are New Testament references that pertain to the divinely appointed functions of the government, pagan or secular. And two passages in the New Testament are pertinent to this.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴ for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Romans 13:1-6

¹³ Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, ¹⁴ or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 1 Peter 2:13, 14

Both passages teach that the institution of government is a divine appointment: “instituted by God,” says Paul; and “sent by him,” says Peter. And this is so even if most of these governments may not acknowledge it to be so. But the christian believes this divine mandate. And both passages also teach that the purpose of God in appointing government is for justice to be done. For this assertion to be underscored, it is necessary to negate alternatives.

The mandate of government is not religion.

This was the defect of the philosophy of government since the Edict of Milan in 313 when Constantine the Great elevated the Christian church into a recognized religion in the Roman Empire. So much persecution was conducted and wars waged in the interest of the Christian religion, let alone Islam and other religions. Countless number of lives were wasted because government pursued the interest of religion only to compromise the mandate of justice.

The mandate of government is not primarily that of charity or welfare.

The change in the concept of government in the direction of providing welfare shifted after the Second World War. Bob Goudzwaard notes this when he said,

Until the Second World War politicians viewed the state as a law state. The state was seen as the institution necessary for protecting the rights of its citizens… Around World War 2, however, that view enlarged. Material welfare in society as a whole had increased. This gave government the possibility of expanding its legal concern for society toward the financially weak. Government created a system of social guarantees…

Economic growth kept rising, and as it rose so rose the persuasiveness of arguments by people who thought they deserved a bigger piece of the pie. It is important to see that they formulated their demands as rights… Economic rights are naturally different from the rights guaranteed by the law state. Rights of acquisition were added to the earlier rights of protection, and soon they demanded most of the government’s attention.[iii]

This is certainly not saying that the government may not intervene where the interest of justice has an economic and material component. This certainly falls within the ambit of justice which government is mandated to watch. But this must not be deemed as the government’s primary vocation. Charity is a matter within the responsibility of individuals, of families, and of communities.

When a matter of charity is elevated to a government obligation, it transforms a voluntary act (charity) to an issue of legal right which government is required to provide. When this happens, it proves disruptive. It distorts the distinction between social privileges and human rights. It distorts the primary responsibility of the family and transfers the same to the government. A case in point for this is the care of the widows which was clearly put as a matter of family responsibility, and not of the church (1 Timothy 5:3ff). The same may be said of the aged and the widows in society. They are not primarily the government’s responsibility, but the family’s.

This distinction is not merely of theoretical interest. It affects the moral mood of society. Acts of charity are received with gratitude for the kindness of the benefactors. But when such acts are seen as a legal right to be provided by the government, gratitude becomes demands, and demands easily erode into complaints against and denunciation of government. And this is exactly what is happening in the moral fiber of the social order.

The government is in place to safeguard justice in society. Justice in society can be understood as two kinds:

Justice of Law

This includes what is called rectoral justice, which pertains to rules and laws for the interest of public order; and penal justice, which pertains to the system of just penalty against offenders of the law. The basic principle upheld to maintain the justice of law is stated in Deuteronomy 16:19,

“You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.”

Not to show partiality is lo’ takiyr phâniym which literally means, “do not look on the face of men.” This is consistent with our concept of “blind justice.” The image of Lady Justice who is blindfolded holding forth a balance scale is meant to depict the application of justice equally to everyone without fear or favor with only the evidences to guide decisions.

Justice, and only justice, you shall follow. Deuteronomy 16:20

In criminal justice, the central issue is the infliction of punishment on criminal offenders. It is in this regard that the State is told to not bear the sword in vain (Rom 13:4). Those who have oversight of this are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. But the purpose of this punishment is stated positively in 1 Timothy 2:2, that “we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

One can appreciate the essential place of justice of law in society. Where the institutions of justice are deemed defective, victims of crime and wrongdoing lose hope of being vindicated. Such victims may turn to criminal elements to seek such vindication, which is vigilantism, a perversion of justice. The biblical doctrine of human depravity supplies the christian a solid underpinning for his high view of the justice system in society. It is God’s common grace for the restraint of sin, for the punishment of the offender, and the vindication of the victim. John Calvin puts it in the simplest way possible, “Without the sword, laws are dead.”[iv]

Justice of Sharing

Also called social justice, this rests on the premise that there are certain commodities that are meant to be shared, and would be injustice if monopolized privately. As the OT Wisdom of Qoheleth puts it, “The profit of the land is for all” (Ecclesiastes 5:9, NKJ). Perhaps, the New Jerusalem Bible captures the sense well, “But what the land yields is for the benefit of all.”

This is certainly not to say that government may forcibly take away private property in the name of common use ~ the flaw of communism. But precisely because, in a sinful community, there will be anomalies in the system, that government intervention is warranted to maintain fairness for honest traders and workers. Wayne Grudem explains this very well:

There is some need for government-supported welfare programs to help cases of urgent need (for example, to provide a ‘safety net’ to keep people from going hungry or without clothing or shelter).

I also think it appropriate for government to provide enough funding so that everyone is able to gain enough skills and education to earn a living. So with regard to some basic necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter, and some education) I think it is right for government to ‘take from everybody else and give to the poor,’ Such assistance can be provided from the general tax revenues.

Those convictions are based on the purpose of government to promote the general well-being of society… That includes enabling every citizen to live adequately in the society. It is not based on any vague instinct that it would be ‘more just’ to reduce the differences between rich and poor.

But apart from those basic requirements for government, I cannot find any justification in Scripture for thinking that government, as a matter of policy, should attempt to take from the rich and give to the poor. I do not think that government has the responsibility or the right to attempt to equalize the differences between rich and poor in society. When it attempts to do so, significant harm is done to the economy and to the society.[v]

What government must do is to perform its main mandate of enforcing the laws so that those who have more wealth will not use the same to oppress those who have less. God has expressed Himself strongly against this form of injustice.

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the ruin that will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth? Isa 10:1-3

They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth. Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions and how great are your sins– you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time, for it is an evil time. Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said. Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate. Amos 5:10-15

It has been asserted by some that God is biased for the poor, and society should follow that model. But I have a different take on this. What is wrong is that human society is so biased against the poor that the very impartiality of God appears to it as a bias for the poor. God is so impartial that He takes into account those who, by virtue of their weakness, are most prone to injustice. What appears as God’s bias is simply justice!

Conclusion

It is good to remember one of the woe’s of Jesus directed at the religious leaders of His day.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Matthew 23:23

This should ring loud to those in our churches who have become complacent in the comfort zone of their worship liturgy, but are callous on issues of justice in society. Certainly, being salt and light of the world must include showing forth justice in our treatment of our fellowmen, and being an influence to let justice roll down like waters (Amos 5:24). The truly righteous man listens to God’s requirement:

What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:8

An ancient saying in the justice system of the Roman Empire goes, “Let justice be done though the heavens fall!” The Christian can put it quite differently, “Heaven has come down upon earth in our Lord Jesus Christ; therefore, let us seek justice for all!”

[i] Caroline Kennedy, A Patriot’s Handbook (Hyperion, New York 2003): 192

[ii] Quoted from A.C. Grayling, Ideas that Matter: A Personal Guide for the 21^st Century (Phoenix, 2009): 283

[iii] Bob Goudzwaard, Idols of our Time: 52f

[iv] Calvin’s Commentaries: Synoptic Gospels, Vol. I: 195

[v] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Zondervan; 2010): 281-82

God’s Love? What about Wrath?

Rom 5 8

How poor is that appeal to God’s love that erodes into a health-and-wealth gospel. Or even that which is reduced to a formula decision that ends up with a man-based pronouncement of assurance of going to heaven.

God’s love is at its most resplendent in the darkest hour of the Cross in the Son’s cry of dereliction: My God! My God! why have you forsaken me? It is a cry whose mystery is only illuminated by the concept of propitiation. The sinner’s Substitute was drinking to the last dregs the cup of God’s judgment on behalf of His people.

This piece was conceived near Valentine’s Day, February 14. As to the origin of this popular lovers’ day, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes,

The popular customs associated with Saint Valentine’s Day undoubtedly had their origin in a conventional belief generally received in England and France during the Middle Ages, that on 14 February, i.e. half way through the second month of the year, the birds began to pair.[i]

One need not be a practitioner of this love feast, serious or superstitious, to observe the power of love’s grip of the human heart. Monarchs have been known to give up their kingdoms for the sake of love. In 1936, King Edward VIII startled his British subjects and the world when he abdicated his throne to be free to marry a divorcee, the American Wallis Simpson. In his radio speech to a worldwide audience, the king declared:

You all know the reasons which have impelled me to renounce the throne. But I want you to understand that in making up my mind I did not forget the country or the empire, which, as Prince of Wales and lately as King, I have for twenty-five years tried to serve.

But you must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love.

Demoted as Duke of Windsor, he and his wife were shunned by the British royals. Only when he died in 1972 was the Duke honoured again by his own country. A framed message in the Duke’s own handwriting was left for his beloved:

My friend, with thee to live alone,

Methinks were better than to own

A crown, a sceptre and a throne.

Powerful love, a love to the death! But this is the most of the extent of human love, made sacred in the vow “until death shall part us.” Indeed, death will part all human lovers.

God’s Love in the Death of Christ

There is another death that seals an eternal bond of love. The atoning death of Christ secures those in union with Him will never be separated from the love of God.

There is no attribute of God more favored by the religious than that of His love. Yet few divine attributes are as misunderstood. Don Carson writes of this in his The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God:

If people believe in God at all today, the overwhelming majority hold that this God is a loving being. But that is what makes the task of the Christian witness so daunting. For this widely disseminated belief in the love of God is set with increasing frequency in some matrix other than biblical theology. The result is that when informed Christians talk about the love of God, they mean something very different from what is meant in the surrounding culture. Worse, neither side may perceive that this is the case.[ii]

The confusion on this attribute is most pronounced in its connection to God’s wrath. To the average mind, there is a total disconnect between love and wrath. Wrath conjures up the picture of a man ventilating his temper out of control. But this has no semblance with divine wrath. God’s wrath is a function of His justice and holiness – in His perfect moral purity, He is essentially and necessarily opposed to all that is impure and sinful. You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong (Habakkuk 1:13). As such, His wrath is universal and fixed wherever there is sin. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom 1:18). Because God’s wrath is out of His justice, its only way of satisfaction is by a just penalty on sinners. Had it been all wrath and justice, God could have punished all sinners without any violation of His holiness.

This is where God’s love occupies its most indispensable place. God’s love taking on the demands of His wrath through the death of Christ is called in the Scriptures, propitiation.

In but a few versions, this word is missing in many English translations of the Bible. In its place, the word expiation is preferred. Expiation denotes the removal of sin. The problem is that it is only half of the significance of propitiation. Left out is the more significant half – the removal of God’s wrath. But reflecting the rejection of the concept of God’s wrath, whether popular or scholarly, modern construction will only go so far as the removing of sin. But in the process, they have missed out on the astonishing beauty of God’s love.

The connection of propitiation to God’s love is explicit in 1 John 4:10,

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

With a statement like this, it should be impossible to speak of God’s love in its biblical context without its connection to what Christ did in dying as an act to remove God’s wrath – a propitiation.

Christ’s Death as turning point

I shall argue that the most magnificent statement of the Scripture on this subject is Romans 3:25, 26 which describes the redemption of sinners through the death of Christ,

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The death of Christ as propitiation is presented here as a turning point in the exercise of God’s wrath. Like any turning point in history, we speak of the period before that, and since that, turning point event; as we may refer to before 9-11, and since 9-11. Of all the turning points in history, there is none more massive in its effect than the Cross of Christ, understood as a propitiation.

Before the death of Christ, God’s wrath was hanging upon all sinners, and in justice, God could have poured it out in judgment. But He did not, and the explanation is His forbearance – He passed over former sins. But with the propitiatory death of Christ, and since, God could demonstrate His righteousness at the present time. But instead of that righteousness demanding punishment against sinners, and here is the marvellous conclusion, God can be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus!

God can now fully exercise His justice. But instead of sinners being punished, those in faith-union with Christ are acquitted, without any injustice, because Christ has taken the wrath of God fully satisfied in the cross. This is propitiation – the most wonderful provision of God’s love for sinners!

In Christ’s atoning death, the Last Day judgment of wrath has already been decided for his people. The wrath to have been poured out on sinners on the Judgment Day was poured upon Christ on the Cross. This leaves for God’s people no more wrath to mete out (Romans 5:9, 10; Eph. 2:3ff; 1Thes. 1:10; 5:9, 10 ).

This passage, had it been really appreciated, should deserve equal footing with the most popular John 3:16. As New Testament scholar Herman Ridderbos explains,

Christ is the means of propitiation appointed by God to the manifestation of his deferred righteousness. In Christ’s death, the righteousness of God thus reveals itself in the demanding and vindicatory sense of the word. His blood as atoning blood covers the sin which God until now had passed over, when as yet he kept back the judgment. All that men wish to detract from the real character of Christ’s propitiatory death signifies a devaluation of the language of Romans 3:25, 26, which is unmistakable in its clarity.[iii]

God’s Love magnified by Propitiation

Only a man convicted of his wrath-deserving sinfulness will appreciate the depth of God’s love in sending His Son as propitiation. Yes, let us continue to sense God’s love in His benevolent provisions of daily bread. Let us be thankful for His merciful sustenance of our lives. But a sinner’s greatest need is how to face the just wrath of God. For this, God, out of His gracious love, sent His Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for sinners.

The continuing pre-occupation today with God’s love that excludes His wrath only impoverishes. The enriching contemplation on God’s love has the backdrop of justice and wrath. Reformed theologian John Murray puts it excellently:

Because of the compatibility of love and wrath as co-existing, the wrath-bearing of the Son of God, the vicarious infliction of the wrath of God against those whom the Father invincibly loved, is not only comprehensible, but belongs to the essence of the doctrine that Christ bore our sins as the supreme manifestation of the Father’s love… The propitiation which God made his own Son is the provision of the Father’s love, to the end that holiness may be vindicated and its demand satisfied. Thus, and only thus, could the purpose of his love be realized in a way compatible with, and to the glory of the manifold perfections of his character.[iv]

God’s love is at its most resplendent in the darkest hour of the Cross in the Son’s cry of dereliction: My God! My God! why have you forsaken me? It is a cry whose mystery is only illuminated by the concept of propitiation. The sinner’s Substitute was drinking to the last dregs the cup of God’s judgment on behalf of His people.

That is why when a believer wants an assurance of God’s love to him today, there is no better time and place to point to than that event. To say that one is assured of God’s love because of material provision reflects the shallowness of our generation. Is God’s love shortened when our pocket is not full? Or some see it in physical sustenance, or perhaps in having a nice family. But is God’s love failing with our failure in health? Or a misery in the family? There is still no better way to see the present love of God than in the past provision of propitiation. I am sure it goes back to the apostle Paul:

God demonstrates His own love towards us [ present tense ] in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. [ past tense ] Romans 5:8

[i] New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (CD-ROM v. 2.1): entry on “Saint Valentine’s Day”

[ii] Don Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway Books): 9-10

[iii] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology: 189

[iv] John Murray, Collected Writings II. 145, 146

Why Christians should strive for Academic Excellence

Kepler

The godly life is not the monopoly of those who are in the pulpit and mission field. There is godliness in the shuffle of pages in a book as one does his research; or in working with test tubes in the lab; or analyzing data with his computer program. There is God’s calling of proclaiming the good news of special revelation. But it is also God’s calling to scrutinize and systematize general revelation. Godliness for the Christian student should mean seeking to excel in the latter quest.

Nelson Mandela (1918-2013) is one of the greatest statesmen in history. He became president of South Africa after spending almost three decades in solitary confinement in prison. One might expect that a man forged in years of bitter struggle would be full of vindictiveness and use his power to exact vengeance. Not Mandela. He used his power to do good to his divided people – both white and black. And when he had power extension for the asking, he chose to step down when his term was up. What did he believe to be the most important agent for change in society? One of the most famous quotes from him is, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

The Christian should heartily agree to the extent that education is not used to violate God’s will, but to serve it. This is to say that Christians should be foremost in promoting education; and therefore, Christians should be marked for academic excellence.

Why the Hesitation?

Not all Christians are of this conviction. Sometimes consciously, in most cases, more of an attitude absorbed from untruthful teaching in Christian discourses. The mind should be disabused of any of these.

There is the false application of the nearness of Christ’s coming. Regardless of one’s eschatology (teaching about the last things), to use the Second Coming as pretext for lack of academic striving is wrong in a number of serious ways. But just to point one: It is wrong in its idea of what it means to be ready for Christ’s Coming. Many think that it means a special kind of preparation that renounces the day-to-day affairs of life. That is precisely the error that Paul needed to correct of the Thessalonians, some of whom were deserting their work because of a wrong expectation of Christ’s return. As a result, they were becoming dependent on the benevolence of brethren. Paul exhorted them, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one (1 Thess. 4:11-12 ESV). Our faithfulness when Christ comes will be judged on how we used our opportunities on earth; for it will be a judgment “so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10). Even on the impossible supposition that one knew that Christ is coming again on a Monday, a Christian student should still be attending his scheduled classes! That is to be ready for Christ – to find the disciple where he ought to be by vocation.

Another thing is a wrong association of knowledge with worldliness. The world, when used in connection with its sinfulness, is indeed in rebellion against the rule of Christ. But the world is also used as the theatre of God’s mercy and provision. The old divines call it Common Grace – the favours of God short of salvation. As such, one precious favour of God is the advance of knowledge – much of which happens in an academic atmosphere. Paul cites the wisdom of pagans: the Cretan philosopher Epimenides (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12) and the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus (Acts 17:28). Even when the source is not patently Christian, good wisdom is still from God. “Every good and perfect gift is from above” (James 1:17).

It is true that “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” (1Cor 1:27). The context clearly is the contrast between proud wisdom that refuses to acknowledge God, and humility that appears to proud wisdom as folly. This is not an endorsement of folly as such!

Whose Revelation?

A case may be made for pursuing knowledge in the world from the classic doctrine of God’s revelation. The only way man can know God is for God to reveal Himself. Man cannot discover God by sheer experiment or deduction. God chose to give man a piece of His own mind. But how? According to classic theology, there are two ways. There is special revelation by way of special modes in the past (e.g. visions; predominantly through prophets). At this present time, that special revelation is now deposited in the inspired writings – the Holy Scripture.

But for man’s productive and peaceful life on earth, God also speaks through His creation – the world and humanity. This is general revelation. The Old Testament memorable text is Psalm 19:1, 2: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.” This reveals the glory of the universe considered as God’s creation. God is speaking through nature and creature! The New Testament text connects this to the inexcusable sinfulness of man. Paul asserts in Romans 1:20: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Reformed theologian, GC Berkouwer, summarizes it very well:

Man is and remains man confronted with the reality of God’s revelation, confronted with the sovereign working of God in nature, in history, and in human existence. He is confronted with the reality of God who is never far from any one of us and who never allows himself to be without witness in creaturely reality.[1]

Both the beauty and dignity of the creation, as well as, the sinfulness and inexcusableness of humanity are objects of knowledge. Therefore the Christian has a basis for pursuing knowledge that is God-oriented. It was well-stated by that great German scientist and a Christian, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), “Science is the process of thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” This was a motivation for his formulating the complex Laws of Planetary Motion. Academic sciences and arts contribute to our understanding of what God is revealing about the earth and about man. One sees the formulas of God whether they are in the astronomic sizes of galaxies or the sub-atomic realm of quantum physics. There is truth to Galileo’s assertion: “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.” Even if one has no predilection for numbers, he should have high regard for the work of calculating and measuring. Another may choose to dip into the beauty of creation through arts – proportions and colours; representation and symbolism – and they too are noble.

The godly life is not the monopoly of those who are in the pulpit and mission field. There is godliness in the shuffle of pages in a book as one does his research; or in working with test tubes in the lab; or analyzing data with his computer program. There is God’s calling of proclaiming the good news of special revelation. But it is also God’s calling to scrutinize and systematize general revelation. Godliness for the Christian student should mean seeking to excel in the latter quest.

Delight and Discipline

I plead to my Christian readers who are students: seek delight and cultivate discipline in your academic studies.

Mould your delight from the thought that you are receiving the speech of God, even if that is not from the inspired writings of Scripture. What is not inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the original Scriptures are, will not be inerrant and infallible. But to the extent that it is an expression of God’s general revelation, it is intended for the glory of God and the profit of mankind. Make your course – your subject, homework and projects – matters for prayer. Do not let God’s speech in general revelation become an occasion for proud wisdom. As you give thanks for your daily food, so give thanks for the feeding of the mind.

Because of the reality of sin, and the anomalies of the world we live in, it is not sensible to expect delight in one’s study at all times. This is where discipline is necessary. Discipline is the sense of duty to do what must be done even when delight is not felt. It is a principle in all Christian works that one must be able to do them with discipline to expect those times to do them with delight. He who will only perform where there is delight will never be mature. This is true of prayer – one must pray with discipline, and in the process pray more with delight. This is true of worship – worship with discipline, and worship with delight will develop. Make it so in study – study as a discipline, and then delight will grow.

More than three decades ago, I pioneered a church whose first membership was almost all students. The church was situated in an academic community. I have seen first hand how it is, not only possible, but a reality and an imperative – that a Christian student serious about his faith will be serious in his academic pursuits. He seeks to excel. Those students at the beginning of the church are now accomplished people in various fields. And they are still robust in their Christian faith. They took seriously the words of Wisdom, and they are happily reaping the harvest of academic excellence:

Do you see a man who excels in his work?

He will stand before kings;

He will not stand before unknown men. (Prov. 22:29 NKJ)

[1] GC Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: General Revelation: (Eerdmans Publishing; 1973): 162

‘I know who holds the future’ of 2018

Ecc 7 14

The Economist issue on “The World in 2018” is summarized succinctly by its editor thus: “It promises to be a nerve-jangling year.” So it may prove to be.

Futurology is the study of future possibilities based on current trends. That it uses scientific tools differentiates it from divining out of crystal balls or tarot cards. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is responsible to use current patterns – economic, political, demographic; etc. – to extrapolate expectations. Proper preparations can then be set up.

That conceded, a Christian must be alert to the pride that often attends such prognostications. The future that experts predict as sure has so often bombed. We are periodically inconvenienced by a failed weather forecast. Investments deemed to earn sure profit fall flat. Stock markets jitter between bear and bull. And need we be reminded of who, the polls were sure, to win the last American presidential elections? Overheard of a crew member trying to assure an anxious passenger of the Titanic were the words, “Madam, even God cannot sink the Titanic!” Whether or not the story really happened, it is an everyday fact that human pride excludes God from consideration of the future.

While we do our responsible preparations for what the future may bring, it must be in humble spirit. It is balance that is struck by biblical Wisdom: The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the LORD. (Prov. 21:31 ESV). Whatever the battle confronting us, there is to be due readiness with all tools and implements at disposal. This applies to our academic studies, our jobs and commerce, and national plans. But behind even the most meticulous planning should be the humble recognition that only God’s favour can give success. So James advises for every human plan, you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that’ (Jas. 4:14-15).

James touches the most basic of human limitations: you do not know what tomorrow will bring. This is true of the tomorrow of the next 24 hours; and that of the next 365 days of 2018. It calls for humility that casts oneself upon the God who alone knows and holds the future. The Lord is jealous for His sovereignty over the future. Against the false gods of Babylon, He claims for Himself: I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’ (Isa. 46:9-10).

But in our generation, to be told that one is unable to shape his future by himself goes against present wisdom. Bookstores are littered with bestsellers that assure their readers, Your best life now! It is pride that will laugh at the words of the song, I do not know what lies ahead / The way I cannot see / Yet One stands near to be my Guide / He’ll show the way to me!

Without the assurance of the God who holds the future, anticipating that future will alternate between a fearsome darkness, or a prideful path. One may face the future like Dylan Thomas, Rage, rage against the dying of the light! Or else, own the resolve of William Ernest Henley, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul!

Neither is acceptable to the believer who has learned to submit to God in His sovereign control. That submission will not yield to a fearsome darkness of superstition, nor will it own a prideful path of self-direction. Instead it confesses in the wise words of biblical Wisdom: In the day of prosperity be joyful; but in the day of adversity consider: Surely God has appointed the one as well as the other, so that man can find out nothing that will come after him (Ecclesiastes 7:14). The Christian will own every line of that song, adding its plea:

I know who holds the future,

And He’ll guide me with His hand.

With God, things don’t just happen,

Everything by Him is planned.

So as I face tomorrow,

With its problems large and small,

I’ll trust the God of providence,

Give to Him my all.

A God-blessed future for everyday of 2018 to all!

Making a Stand

Teaching

Did Martin Luther really say, ‘Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God!’? That statement, after all, creates the drama of that speech in the Diet of Worms in 1521. To remove it is like saying that Douglas MacArthur never had his I shall return moment. Or that Han Solo never said to Skywalker, May the force be with you. Or that Apollo 13 did not call to base, Houston, we have a problem! To eliminate that line gives the feeling of an amputation of a precious part.

Many scholars are of the belief that the dramatic line of Luther’s speech was a later addition, not part of the original. The line was in the earliest printed version of the speech. But it was not in the minutes, the on the spot record, of the Diet. I have this weird idea that probably, at that point, the recorder(s) of the minutes was himself riveted by the drama of the moment, and skipped that line – and someone else was making his own on the spot record, which found its way in the printed version.

Of course, that cannot be the way we write history. The Reformation historian, Heiko Oberman, in his masterful Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (English edition Yale, 1989), suggests the following as original in Luther’s speech:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason – for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves – I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.[i]

But ultimately, does it really matter if that line was uttered or not? To me, the most profoundly radical line is in the words: My conscience is captive to the Word of God. And because of that, Luther made the stand that he did, whether or not he uttered the dramatic words. He made a stand that defied the most powerful institution of that period. Because he made a stand, history changed course.

This poses a penetrating question to each of us who espouses the principles of the Reformation in our own generation. Are we making a stand where it is most challenging?

Making a Stand in a Roman Catholic Household

Living in a society where more than 80% of households are Catholic, any member of such household who experiences gospel conversion is immediately cast into a gauntlet. Because the challenged party is of loved ones, it makes the dare even more excruciating. That many families today happily recognize and practice freedom of religion for their own members does not make the decision to make a stand any less poignant.

There is a significant number, however, that is still saddled with Middle Ages intolerance. For any member of its own household changing religious affiliation is unacceptable rebellion. Short of the honor-killing that still transpires in Islamic household, there are other options, such as, disinheritance, ostracism, and banishment from home. Under these conditions, many converts choose to be silent; and some of them still go through the motions of Catholic rituals in the family – e.g. rosary and mass. One must exercise every sympathy for those who choose this option. But at the end of the day, it is a lamentable compromise – a failure to make a stand.

It was Jesus who challenged loyalties in His words, Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matt. 10:34-38 ESV)

No religious faith promotes family faithfulness and dutifulness more than does the Judeo-Christian religion. But such is the world-altering impact of the kingdom of Christ. Since its inauguration in the death-resurrection of the Christ-event, all who will become members of His kingdom, those who submit allegiance in faith to His Lordship, must have no greater authority over them – not the state; and no greater love – not even the family. A member of the kingdom of Christ will love his family even more – for the sake of Christ. But he will not, and must not, on account of love for family, abandon Jesus in His demands as Lord.

This is where a gospel convert in a Catholic family is being called to make a stand. To make a stand is not to abandon the family. That is what cults on the fringe will tell their followers; not the Christian gospel. A converted husband or wife will be even more loving and faithful to the spouse; and a converted son or daughter will be the more obedient and compliant to parents. What marks their stand is the Lordhsip of Christ giving the direction, the motivation, and yes, also the limitation in the practice of their relationship.

The discovery of the gospel of grace would have exposed the contradiction of Catholic rituals and their false hope in human righteousness. A true believer glories in what the Reformers call alien righteousness that is in Christ. A believer’s liberation from self-righteousness would bring with it a similar change of judgment as Paul had of his Judaism: I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ (Phil. 3:8 ESV).

Making a Stand in a Compromised Evangelical Church

Rather than an easier challenge, being in an Evangelical church renders making a stand even more agonizing. Presumably, that is where the believer might have found his converting faith in the gospel. His commitment to his church would have been animated with gratitude for saving grace. The people in that church, he would be counting as brethren as dear as, if not more than, his own family. The leaders, the pastor especially, would be like his spiritual fathers.

But it is often the case that what he has learned to accept as his spiritual abode is challenged by the discovery of Reformation truths, long hidden from him. He discovers a teaching of grace that has much more depth than what he is wont to hear from the pulpit as no more than opposite to salvation by works. He learns that grace is the free disposition of the sovereign God. Knowing that the giving of grace to whom He wills is God’s choice in eternity – unnerving at first – discovers the sinner’s utter unworthiness. While in his young days, he has accepted the definition of grace as undeserved favor, this is still different from what he now knows as the doctrines of grace.

Reformation truths would have also exposed something wrong about the method of evangelism that he has been taught is the way to get sinners saved. A few spiritual notions to share which once accepted, there is a ready formula of a sinner’s prayer he was trained to dictate – and then assure the prospect that he has been saved and is going to heaven, and never to doubt it. He once enjoyed the simplicity of it all. He joined the chorus of Amen! by the crowd once the pastor reported so many number of decisions for Christ. Of course, he wondered why many of those so pronounced never showed any sign of change. But then, after all, he was taught that there was a category of Christians who remained worldly – they were still going to heaven, though without reward. Carnal Christians, that is what they were called.

This exposes for him another issue. Where has holiness gone? The teaching he received is to the effect that holiness is a second blessing that many, unfortunately, never attain to. They remain unsanctified most, or even all, of their lives. But he was told it was unkind to doubt that they were true Christians. Until he hears the Reformation challenge that restores some truths taught from the long past. He is reminded that there is a warning, For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Rom. 8:6 NKJ). There is also the exhortation, Pursue… holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord (Heb 12:14 NKJ). Does this not sound like, no holiness no heaven? He never hear such a principle in his evangelical church.

As more of the old truths pile up in this Christian, he will soon come to a denouement. He comes to the conclusion – he may have been avoiding for as long as he could – that his beloved evangelical church is compromised! What is he to do? It will be wrong to suggest that making a stand immediately leads to separation. He will seek what he could do to influence the church to the ways of reformation. The right balance is to accept that we are in an imperfect church, but that imperfection is not a cover for the degeneration of a church. The Confession of faith strikes this balance:

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always has had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in Him, and make profession of His name.[ii]

After trying everything to influence for reformation, and to find that the leadership, instead, is digging its heels for a stand on the compromised ways, a believer must come to a point of decision. Will he make a stand? To do so is like tearing his own flesh and breaking his bones. Many choose to just grit their teeth amidst the falsehood, and they stay on. It is a miserable decision.

Martin Luther made a stand as a Catholic monk in defiance of his beloved Church. The decision of Luther in the 16^th century extends the challenge to us, 500 years since, in this 21^st century. Not to make a stand is the easier option. It does not make ripples of trouble. It courts no enemies. It bears no burden of conflict. It is to live in quietude. But it is the immobility of the comatose – just barely living without changing course.

But one cannot catch the infection of the Reformation without being called to make a step of conscience. Whether one has a dramatic line is immaterial. It is imperative that one should be of the conviction, My conscience is captive to the Word of God. That is the man who will make a stand.

Let goods and kindred go,

This mortal life also;

The body they may kill:

God’s truth abideth still,

His kingdom is forever.

[i] Cited in Christian History # 34: Luther’s Early Years

[ii] 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: XXVI. 3

Treasure in Earthen Vessel

First blog post

With this piece, I join the blogosphere. There are now more websites than people on earth. For yet another one, an explanation is due. It is hoped that this blog will be a commentary on a wide spectrum of issues. But it will be defined by clear-cut boundaries.

First, I will primarily draw my thoughts from the Scriptures. The conviction that, I hope, will define every piece of this blog is Sola Scriptura – that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and the only Word of God now. Not dreams or visions; not popular opinions or dramatic experiences; and certainly, I reject vox populi, vox Dei. I avow with full confidence the Confession:

The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.

The scriptures manifest themselves to be the word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very word of God.[1]

A substantial part of my commentary will therefore be exegetical and expository. This is the essential task of the virtue of honesty to the text of the Word of God. I will not twist the text just to have a charming aphorism. The text, as the author intended it to mean, shall always be supreme. But because I believe in the perennial freshness of the Word of God, the meaning of the text in its time will always have a meaning that is timeless and an application that will be timely. I am committed to engage the text in its historical meaning, as well as engage the readers in their relevant context.

Secondarily, I will draw from the rich reservoir of history. Specially so of Christian history. It is enriched by councils and confessions; controversies and disputes; Christian men and women in their profound wisdom and egregious follies; Reformers and heretics; persecution and martyrdom; visionaries and missionaries. To ignore these is to be impoverished in thought. Indeed, if we are sensitive to the lesson of providence, we can see in history the pattern of the gospel. As Michael Horton puts it:

The Christian who is alert to God’s clues in history knows that the pattern is always bad news followed by good news. The Gospel always has the last word over sin, death, and temptation – whether it be the believer’s individually or the church’s generally. It was, after all, into a world fallen as a result of the will to power that our race heard the surprising announcement of saving grace: The seed of the woman will crush the serpent’s head. He who beguiled the royal couple into seeking their own autonomy would himself be destroyed. And just as the world was looking upon the disfigured body of the crucified Messiah in disgust and mockery, God was acting for the salvation of his enemies.[2]

Finally, I can only draw from my own thoughts and experience – and it will always be with limitation and infirmity. This is not to detract from the greatness of the message; but to admit the frailty of the messenger. Apostle Paul puts it best: But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us (2 Cor 4:7). Having referred to the unsurpassed New Covenant glory in the previous section, Paul is humbled by his calling as one of its ministers (3:6). He combines these two thoughts – calling the New Covenant message as treasure, though he as its messenger is but an earthen vessel.

The same consciousness will pervade every commentary in this space. I will seek to spell out the treasure of the truth of the New Covenant. It will sometimes sound positively assertive without being arrogant; confident without being contemptuous; challenging but not defying. But because the treasure is in earthen vessel, it will always be subject to correction and criticism, and open to dialogue and exchange – for that is the way to growth and maturation.

Every piece in this blog will consciously seek after the truth of the Scripture. It may not sit well with the current version of political correctness and orthodoxy. In this, it is merely extending the mission of the church on earth – a mission depicted by Paul as to take every thought captive to obey Christ (2Cor 10:5). C.S. Lewis makes an excellent analogy in his Mere Christianity:

Enemy-occupied territory – that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.[3]

[1] Westminster Larger Catechism # 3-4

[2] Michael Horton, We Believe: Recovering the Essentials of the Apostles’ Creed (Word Publishing): 4

[3] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity; cited from A Year with C.S. Lewis: Daily Readings from his Classic Works: 78