Polemos & Apologia

Law as a Christian Career

2010-03-23T11:26:00.000-07:00

In my last article, I addressed the dangerous fallacy that politics is dirty and Christians should not be active in it. I would like to encourage the Church – and especially home-schooling families – to reevaluate another career/service path that has been much maligned over the past decades. That profession is the practice of law.

Lawyers in our society are often seen as blood-sucking leeches, chasing ambulances and creating victims out of every possible situation in order to line their own pockets. Tort law, that aspect of the legal code that deals with civil suits rather than criminal prosecution, was designed under a completely different culture than we have today. That culture was one characterized by honesty, virtue, and basic Christian morals. The fact that multi-million dollar settlements, medical malpractice, and huge class-action law suits are becoming more and more common is an indication that our legal system has lost its way. Now, even our state governments are jumping on the bandwagon through lawsuits against tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, and the like.

As a foundation, two comments must be made before continuing in defense of the legal profession as an honorable career path for Christians.

1. Civil suits (tort law) are an integral part of our legal code and have been a part of every significant common law system comprising our legal and judicial heritage. There can be no reasonable argument against the need for this aspect of law within our society.

2. Payment for services of any kind is only right, so we cannot begrudge a lawyer being paid a fee for his services – even a fairly significant fee – because his skills are specialized and market forces sets legal fees at a higher rate than, for example, a plumber. However, the regular practice of a lawyer getting paid by taking a percentage of the settlement or award given to the plaintiff is a relatively new concept. This new development has created a situation whereby arguing for more money on behalf of the client, the lawyer stands to make more money. This may seem on the face to be a good thing, but we will see that the goal of tort law is to find a just and righteous solution to disputes between individuals or groups. To link a lawyer’s compensation to the reward is to create an incentive for the lawyer to be driven by greed instead of by his desire for justice.

Tort law under common law systems was argued primarily by the people involved. In Norse cultures, these suits were brought before the elders of the various tribes at the ting, an annual gathering of tribes from a relatively large geographical region for the purpose of socializing, marrying, and conducting commercial / inter-tribal negotiations. These suits were often argued by the persons involved, but sometimes backed up by a representative whose oration skills were honed for this purpose. This “counselor” could be seen as a precursor to our modern attorneys. However, those representatives, as well as the elders who judged, were not originally compensated for their efforts in deciding a case. Rather, this was simply seen as a necessary part of their service to their tribes and to the broader Norse community.

In common law cultures, the ultimate goal of these “lawsuits” was to find the right, or just, solution to the issue. This should come as no surprise since common law cultures and human governments were ordained by God after Noah’s flood and have been in place since.

Genesis 9:6 – Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This instituted the first distinctly human government. If you remember, when Cain murdered Abel, God Himself set his punishment and marked him as an outcast. Here, God ordains that man begin to govern himself and his own society. Only through some system of witnesses and evidence can it be established that a murder has occurred and who committed it. Then, there must be an authority among the given tribe or community that is charged with executing the judgment. This example deals with criminal law, but we see that God’s Law to Israel was filled with tort law examples as well.

What does God say about the purpose of human government, specifically with relation to the enforcing of laws and judgment of lawsuits?

Deuteronomy 16:18-20 – Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 25:1 – If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
II Chronicles 19:5-7 – And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Lest we believe that this purpose and the obligation to human government and the law were somehow limited only to Israel, we see that the New Testament upholds God’s purpose for human government as well as our continuing obligation to be obedient to just laws.

Romans 13:1-4 – Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

I Peter 2:13&14 – Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

What predominant themes exist in God’s establishment of human government? First, its main purpose is to protect and promote justice. Second, the responsibility before God of those who would be lawyers and judges is very great. Third, Christians should obey righteous laws because the human government is ordained of God and acts as ministers of God, even if they are not themselves Christian. Let us look at each of these themes in more detail.

God ordained human government to promote justice. What is justice in this context? Is it simply an adherence to whatever written laws exist at a certain time or within a given society? We cannot interpret the Bible to mean that by any means. Rather, executing justice is an exercise whereby the truth of a situation is determined and then held up against God’s laws. That comparison then reveals which party is righteous and which should be condemned. There may be times where this decision is clear and easy to see, but many instances will require great wisdom and understanding of Biblical principles to know what is the righteous path. There can also be times when the righteous path does not condemn either party, but finds a just compromise. However, the end result of properly executing judgment is to please God’s sense of righteousness. This ultimate goal can be seen in the Apostles’ response to the Pharisees when ordered to keep silent about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Acts 5:29 – Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

The Scriptures given above clearly show that those involved in the practice of law are held directly responsible by God for its justness or unjustness. This leads us directly into the second theme, which is that judges and lawyers hold a position of great responsibility and that they answer directly to God for the discharge of their duties in that regard. In the days of Israel, the king was the supreme judge of the land. Though he had princes and rulers under his command who dealt with many matters, he was the final decision in all “court” cases. In fact, the idea of holding court comes from this principle that the king held court at certain intervals to hear the pleas, requests, and complaints of his people.

Let us see what God expects from this highest court in the land:

Isaiah 32:1 – Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.

Pr 16:10 A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.

Pr 20:26 A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.

Pr 29:4 The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.
Psalm 99:4 – The king’s strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob.

We see a prayer for Solomon in the Psalms that he might fulfill this righteous
duty:

Psalm 72:1-4 – Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son. He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.

We also find passages that explicitly detail the consequences of unrighteous judgment upon the land, as well as God’s ultimate answer to the ruler or judge who declares such unjust judgments.

Isaiah 10:1-4 – Woe unto them that decree unrighteous
decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Proverbs 28:15 & 16 – As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people. The prince that wanteth understanding is also a great oppressor: but he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days.

Those who have the power to make laws, as seen in Isaiah 10:1, as well as those execute judgment, as in Isaiah 32:1, are held up to God’s standards by God Himself. God blesses or curses a nation in many ways and for many reasons. One way the He creates blessing or cursing is by who He ordains to be in governmental leadership. However, even if a given ruler is not placed in power by God as a direct blessing or curse, the ruler’s actions can still bring down God’s mercy or wrath upon the entire nation.

The final point derived from the Scriptures instituting government and reaffirming its place in the New Testament era is that Christians are obligated to obey the powers that God has ordained. We will not spend much time on this point as it is outside of this discussion to a large extent. However, it is worth pointing out that Scripture defines human law as a subset of God’s law. This is why the Apostles had every right in God’s eyes to defy the law of the Jewish rulers and continue preaching. Legal theorists and commentators over the past several centuries have alternately called this “Natural Law” or “Divine Law”. Our founding fathers leaned heavily on this principle that God Himself endows individual humans with certain rights and responsibilities. The government may abridge those rights, but to do so is tyranny and in direct contradiction to God’s will. Thus, we have the quote from Blackstone that I have referenced before:

"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other - It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original." (emphasis added)

To summarize, God expects human government to mirror His laws. Where there is a contradiction, God’s Law must reign supreme. As Christians, we have a duty to portray God’s Law in our lives, even when that goes against our government’s current laws. We should be vocal, as our forebears were, when our God-given rights are abridged and our government attempts to overstep its God-given authority. However, we must be mindful of a lesson I learned as a child, and that I believe should be continually taught to our children. That is, if you are going to complain about something, but have done nothing to try to change the situation, then you are the one who is wrong. Maybe one’s complaint is valid, but one must take responsibility for those things over which we can exert even a small amount of control. Abdicating our responsibility is not a viable option. We have done so as Christians since the late 19th century, and it cannot continue if we would preserve our liberty and serve God as we should.

One way in which we can engage a system that should be righteously upholding justice, but instead is full of corruption and deceit, is to become lawyers and judges. To train ourselves and our children in the Biblical theories of law and jurisprudence. To step into the battle and be unashamed of our Biblical foundation. To boldly proclaim the traditional, American principles of natural / Divine law and God-given rights rather than state-given rights. To call out into the open those lawyers and judges whose behavior is displeasing to God, thus bringing wrath upon our country. All of this must be done with the grace and truth demonstrated by our Lord Jesus.

To learn more about a career in law, I would encourage you to check out Vision Forum’s Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy. Also, Hillsdale college and Patrick Henry college are good places to start, especially for an undergraduate degree that lays a solid foundation for law school. As Christians finally start to re-engage with our society, both culturally and politically, I believe God will raise up more and more law schools across our land that hearken back to the legal theories of our founders rather than the current wicked and corrupt doctrine of legal positivism (relativism). If you know of any such programs other than what I mentioned, please add a comment to let others know.

Politics is a Dirty Business

2010-03-01T08:53:00.000-08:00

“Politics is a dirty business” or “All politicians are crooks” are familiar strains within our church and conservative circles these days – really since the eighties when I became politically aware. Another favorite joke is “Question: What does the word politics mean? Answer: Poly means many, and tics are blood sucking insects!” Bah-dum-bum. This disdain for politics and politicians has become very common across almost the entire range of political ideologies. But Christians seem to particularly eschew involvement in politics and even political discussions. Why is that? I have heard it put this way: “Politics is so dirty and dishonest. Nothing gets done without compromising your principles. A Christian shouldn’t have anything to do with it.”

Now this is an interesting straw man. Should a Christian be involved in something that, by definition, requires him or her to sin? Clearly not! By characterizing politics as dirty, compromising, unethical, etc., Christians and Christian leaders imply that politics is, by definition, sinful. This then leads to a philosophy of disengagement from politics as a way to avoid sinning, or being tainted by evil in some way. So, if politics is truly inseparable from wickedness and dishonesty, then Christians should run the other way. The conclusion is logical, but the premise is flawed.

Let’s step back and look at a simplified, but analogous example. Suppose that a local restaurateur was also a drug dealer. In an effort to hook more people on his drugs, he would include small amounts in the drinks or food of selected customers. This activity is clearly illegal, dishonest, and downright evil. Once this was exposed, every right-thinking individual would avoid that restaurant like the plague. However, would you as a Christian go the extra mile? Would you characterize all restaurant owners as drug dealers? Would you avoid going out to eat from that point on? Ridiculous, you say? Of course it is! Yet, the same logical fallacy is at play here as with politics. The actions of one or more individuals are being applied to an entire industry or system. Do we see corporate graft and dishonesty? Of course we do! Are all corporations dishonest? No. Should we stop buying anything made by a corporation? No. The fact is, even if every politician currently in Washington was as crooked as the day is long, that does not define political action or our governmental system as being corrupt. Actually, it says much more about us as citizens than about politics in general. As Plato said:

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

This is absolutely true. If good men eschew politics, then wicked men will fill the void. There was a time in our country’s history where one could not get elected if one's character was flawed or substantially lacking in virtue. At one point, our country’s leadership was overwhelmingly Christian in their worldview, though they may not have been Born Again Christians individually. An interesting study is to read the writings of our founders and of the Supreme Court cases through the late 1800s with an eye for their opinion of religion. Though they certainly did not want the government to force anyone to be of a certain sect, it is clear that our entire country's leadership held religious instruction (that is, basic Biblical principles of right and wrong) to be key to creating responsible, decent citizens.

My last article focused on how the church has compromised and given up ground, allowing the world and the humanists to take over. It is not simply coincidence that the Progressive movement began in the US at about the same time as evolution and modernistic theology came over from Europe. They all go together. If Christians allow the idea of physical evolution to stand, then societal evolution must inevitably follow. If Christians allow the philosophy of humanism to gain preeminence in public thought, then we should not be surprised when the philosophy of the depravity of man is cast aside. When that fundamental understanding of mankind’s sinful nature is lost to us, it creates a contradiction within our governmental system, because that system was founded on the basic premise that men will seek to enrich themselves and grab more power than they ought to have. Thus, we have three branches of government and a variety of checks and balances to prevent the baser nature of elected officials from allowing them to trample the rights of the people they are supposed to serve. Now, more than 100 years after these seeds of destruction were sown in our country, we are reaping the terrible harvest. As God has said,

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

“But,” we cry, “Christians didn’t sow these seeds!” Sorry, my friends, but standing by while wickedness and false teaching is broadcast is really no different than sowing the seeds ourselves. Our responsibility to this world is to act as salt and light, preserving the world from rampant wickedness and casting the light of God’s Word on sin. If we fail to execute our responsibilities in that regard, we will reap the destruction that follows.

Can we then say before God that politics is dirty and Christians should not be involved? My position would be that we cannot. We must actually do the opposite. Our involvement is more important now than ever. Our responsibilities on this earth have not ended just because our predecessors dropped the ball. We cannot sit around waiting for the rapture, doing nothing but handing out the occasional Gospel tract to some passerby. Sure, we need to “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel”, but Christians and our anemic religion are too much of a joke in most people’s eyes for these kind of “cold calling” methods to work. We need to show our society that we care about them, not that we stand in condemnation of them. Sure, they need to know that they are sinners, but we need to show them a better way so that the contrast between our lives, attitudes, and families and theirs is very clear. Not only should it be clear, but it should be inviting.

Part of that journey back to being credible in the eyes of the world around us is to show that we care about more than just ourselves, our families, and our churches. It’s amazing how insular Christianity has become. Surely, we cannot conform to this world's system, but neither can we be cloistered away like monks. We may work in the world, but do we ever show ourselves willing to love and help those who are not part of our religious circle? Politics is one way to do that. Our country desperately needs people who are willing to give up several years of their lives and careers to serve our country. When a young person joins the military, we generally agree that serving the country in that capacity is a good and honorable thing. However, running for office is no longer seen by the public (or the people who run, oftentimes) as a public service. That has to change. We need to show this country what true, thoughtful, loving Christianity can accomplish in government.

We may never realize the goal of completely restoring our country to its former greatness in terms of virtue and liberty. We may not live to see a day when prayer is allowed in schools, but not forced on anyone. But if we stand up and take responsibility for the deplorable state of our country, then we have a chance that God will bless us again with leadership that will honor Him and the legacy of freedom for which this country is known. We can give our children the opportunity to live in a country that is better – more noble, free, and virtuous, than what we know today. If we keep our focus on ourselves and literally let the world go to Hell, then we should not be surprised when our children and grandchildren suffer greatly for their faith, or worse, join the world on its march to eternal damnation.

Thoughts on the State of the Church

2009-12-28T08:18:00.000-08:00

I'm sure you've heard some version of the following statement if you have spent much time in church:

"The church is about 20 years behind the world in terms of culture, behavior, attitudes, etc."

This is meant to bring home the point that the church is not standing firm and immovable on the unchanging principles of Scriptures, but is compromising. I agree with this statement, but not with one of its implications. That implication is that the world is somehow driving the church. The world discovers a new outlet for wickedness, and it takes the church about 20 years to get used to it and eventually accept it as mainstream. I used to believe this, but I'm not sure that it is true or Scriptural.

Take the following verses into account when thinking about this concept:

Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matt. 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Now I will not discuss the connection of Peter to the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 as that is another topic. Suffice it to say that Peter and rock are not the same word in the original language, and so do not refer to the same person. Yet in this verse, the church is seen as overcoming the gates of hell. Gates do not attack, they are defensive, indicating an offensive posture on the part of the church. There are many ways to interpret what the "gates of hell" refer to, but my belief is that, as Satan is the prince of this world, his kingdom extends (for now) from hell to this world's system and culture. Thus, the church is supposed to be in continual, victorious battle with Satan's spiritual forces, which certainly take shape in the world's wicked cultures.

In Matthew 5:13 we see another viewpoint of how the church should interact with the world. As the "salt of the earth", our function is to preserve, or slow, decay and rot within this world. This is also an active, or offensive, posture since the verse also shows that the salt can lose it effectiveness and is worth nothing but to be used to help hard-pack the road. I think we would all agree that the church is currently seen as insignificant in its impact on our society and is being trodden under foot on a continual basis.

Given these two verses, can we then say that the world takes a step further into wickedness and then the church follows, but with a delay of some years? Or, as the one who is supposed to be on offense in this battle, should we rather say that the church gives in, compromises, falls for Satan's deception, which then allows the world to descend one step further into hell? This may seem like semantics, but I don't think it is. There is a practical difference.

If we are following the world, then we create an excuse - a fall guy. It's not really our fault. Look what we have to work with today. Someone gets saved and they are not going to pull themselves out of the muck of this world to stand out among their former buddies as a holy roller or someone who is better than them. Furthermore, the methods of Scripture don't work anymore to reach these misguided wretches. We have to go where they are and reach them with a form of message that is appealing to them. So you see, it's not our fault, it's just how this world works, degenerating over time until Christ's return.

Now I agree that this world will continue to deteriorate, but I do not agree that we can discard God's methods in favor of the world's idea of marketing in our churches. Sure, if you want to build a mega-church with dozens of programs and nationwide TV and radio syndication, then you have to reach a LOT of people to keep the money pouring in. However, that seems more like a corporation than a church to me. We should remember that EVERYONE except his chosen disciples, left Jesus after John chapter 6 because they could not bear His teaching. If Christ Himself had so small a following, why does any mere man believe his church should be packed with thousands every Sunday? I'm not saying it's wrong based on the numbers, but how did we get those numbers and what good are they in the fight against Satan and his minions?

If we, however, turn it around and say that our failures to hold tight to the principles of Sola Scriptura, and to maintain the lifestyles and holiness such a belief requires, have allowed the world to slip further and further toward perdition, then we accept responsibility and have a corresponding path toward a solution. There are many passages in the Old Testament that show the effectiveness of corporate repentance. God blesses those who look at their predecessors, humble themselves, and ask God to forgive them for the sins of their fathers as well as their own sins. The church will not see revival, nor will the world experience a renewed societal impact from the church until we stop saying that we aren't responsible for the past.

It is the church's fault that evolution was not laughed out of existence. Were we there personally? No, but we are the only ones currently able to take responsibility for past failures and turn to God in repentance and hope that He may bless us once again. It is the church's fault that our country is no longer a Christian nation. We had every branch of government and every state and federal foundational document and practice supporting us. We gave up the fight and let the atheists and God-haters take over. It is the church's fault that Christians everywhere have given up and are quietly waiting for the Rapture since the world is "so bad" that we can't do anything about it. The list goes on and on.

Perhaps one of the most egregious errors is that the church has allowed itself to split into so many factions waring with each other that it has no ability or strength to fight our real enemies. This is not a call for the current brand of ecumenism, which sacrifices doctrine for the sake of peace. Rather, this is a humility that leads us all to understand that we don't know everything, nor do we stand in judgment of other Christians. Church leadership is called to make sure that church members are born again and Biblically baptized. Further, they must conform to the practices of that church and be in submission to Church authority. However, that authority extends over practice in the church and certain practices outside the church that may require discipline. It does not extend to demanding absolute doctrinal conformity. It couldn't truly police such a jurisdiction anyway.

Why do we argue and split over doctrinal positions that ultimately do not significantly impact behavior? And if the behavior is the point of contention, why do we not then strive to find the Biblical answer together, rather than believing our position to be unassailable? Pride is the only answer. And that pride has led us to where we are today. Some churches know very little doctrine and focus on emotions, leading them astray because they have no firm foundation. Other churches strive to perfect their doctrine, but have no compassion for those who are not as pure as they are. And there are myriad churches in between. Yet, as the American church, we have proven ourselves to be petty, childish, and effeminate - something that is not appealing to anyone, regardless of the packaging.

If you have any love for this once-great country, and a desire to see it restored to its place as a light to a dark world, I humbly ask you to examine your own heart and the heart of your church. Repent personally on behalf of your local church and the church in general. Prayer is a powerful tool when wielded by the weak and humble, for therein is God's strength made manifest. Our country and culture are not hopeless. If Jesus were to come tomorrow, our attitude of repentance and brokenness for our country would still not be wasted. If there is never another revival in our land before the return of Christ, doing what is right for the honor and glory of God, and not for ourselves or our pet program at the local non-profit organization that is misnamed a church, will not go without reward.

Church Covenants - Relic or Relevant?

2009-10-03T15:02:00.000-07:00

In the last article, we explored the extent of Biblical authority and jurisdiction within the church and how it relates to the other God-ordained organizations of family and government. As we ended the article, we said that many errors around authority have sprung up relatively unchallenged in our churches today - ranging from the over-extension of pastoral authority to the abdication of church leadership authority. Our proposal for a solution to this is not a new one, as nothing new can be true by definition. We can gain better insight or detail, but the underlying principles have existed since Creation. Our proposal is exactly what the church of the 16th century developed - a church covenant.

The development of a church covenant historically is linked to the dilution of the doctrine of baptism. The New Testament model called for the Christian to:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19-20

The idea of baptism is inextricably linked with the concept of teaching, or discipleship. When one was baptized in the early church, there was a historical significance to it that related not only to the vertical relationship with God, but also to a horizontal relationship with man. Many people do not understand that baptism was a well-understood practice in the Jewish world. When one became a proselyte to Judaism, the Pharisees routinely immersed, or baptized, them as a symbol of their induction into a new religion, and all of the responsibilities that entails. Essentially, baptism is an act of covenanting with a new religious group. Thus, when Jesus commanded his apostles to teach and baptize all nations, he was instructing them to lead the pagans to a saving knowledge of Christ and then to baptize them as a symbol of leaving their old life and entering into a new one.

In today's churches, this meaning is used only in the vertical sense. Baptism is a symbol of our death to sin, burial, and resurrection to new life in Christ. This is proper as far as it goes, but it leaves out the meaning in the horizontal sense. Certainly, there is a testimony involved that can be considered to be horizontal, but what is that testimony, really? Is it meant as a message to the unsaved or to the saved? Is it meant to be evangelistic or something else? If we examine its purpose in Judaism and in the early church, we will see that it was an open proclamation of leaving their old life and community to join with a new one. This was often a very solemn decision because family and friends would most likely be forsaken, viewing the baptism as a symbol of betrayal and repudiation of their beliefs, which is exactly what it was. This betrayal would bring severe consequences in most cases, often including disinheritance and disavowal by the family. Thus, the negative aspect of the horizontal relationship - disavowal of the old life - was a very real and tangible thing to early Christians. Further, the implicit covenant with the new family, the spiritual family, was also very solemn. This was their new community. Few of their old friends, neighbors, and family members would have anything to do with them now. They needed the church as the new support group and family to replace that which they had lost. This meant that the idea of leaving a church to simply go find another one was not taken lightly. Ideas of church leadership, authority, and discipline were concrete and dynamic in their application. This community had to survive against opposition and hatred, often from those they used to call family and friends. Without sticking together and working through their differences, they would have no chance.

Thus, the covenant was implicit in the baptism. The horizontal component of baptism created a rift between the new church member and their former lives, creating a new familial bond with a diverse group of former strangers, brought together by the Spirit of God into a new community. This community had its rules of conduct and organization, which could not be ignored without consequences. This is also why we see numerous examples in the epistles where Paul commended a church member from one community to another community. When circumstances forced someone to move, it was critical that they be inserted into a new community quickly and seamlessly, with no question as to their salvation, baptism, or good standing within the church.

As the baptism of children became the norm within the Catholic church and within the Church of England, baptism lost some of its meaning. A more explicit form of covenant was needed to solemnize the joining of a church, since baptism had been corrupted sufficiently to have lost its power in this regard. In our day, baptism has lost almost all of its significance in the horizontal regard. People are baptized as infants, then as children joining a church corporation, then perhaps baptized again if they are saved later in life. Ignorance and confusion abound with regard to the meaning of baptism. Thus, our churches have been deprived of a ritual that had great significance in the early church.

Rituals are important. God made us with an innate sense of solemnity associated with rituals. Our modern society tries to portray such things as hokey because Satan understands that a life lived without milestones marked by rituals is a life that is not memorable or anchored. A true baptism ritual, understood in both its vertical and horizontal aspects would have great power in the life of a Christian. No longer would a Christian hop from church to church, looking for someplace they "like". They would understand that their new family cannot be forsaken without the same pain and suffering associated with forsaking their physical family. Becoming a member of a church is not simply assenting to a doctrinal statement, which is, in most cases, either too anemic or over-specific to be of any actual use. The church is not a social club for Christians, a platform for dating and forming friendships within a "safe" environment. It is the body of Christ. When that body loses a member, it bleeds and loses some of its functionality. A house divide against itself cannot stand. Satan has decimated the church and made it impotent in our society by making membership a light thing; a voluntary, relatively insignificant action. The church has been complicit in this compromise by treating membership in a corporate way rather than a spiritual way.

A covenant need not be long or burdensome. It simply is a document that creates a formality to joining a church. It requires a commitment and ritualizes that commitment. It provides a vehicle for teaching what true church membership is all about. It should not require a prospective member to assent to a doctrinal statement that is so detailed and closed that only a seminary student from that particular denomination could honestly understand and assent. It should simply apply the New Testament principles of church membership. It should require a testimony of salvation through a changed life - this is the proof that the teaching part of the Great Commission has been accomplished properly. It should require a commitment to God and His church as evidenced by a solemn ritual of baptism. The signing of the covenant finalizes the ritual and specifies the continuing duties of the church members toward leadership and toward one another.

The final benefit of a church covenant is that it also spells out the responsibilities of church leaders, including the scope of their authority. A covenant is a contract that has been used since the time of Adam. It demonstrates and formalizes an agreement between two or more persons as to an exchange of goods, actions, or ongoing responsibilities. In the area of the church, it succinctly defines the responsibilities of leadership, the individual member, and the church as an entire body. When this is defined and on paper, there is no open door for usurpation of authority by leaders or lack of submission by members. Those in violation of the covenant are exhorted by the other covenant members to restore themselves to the covenantal relationship. If that cannot be accomplished, then that relationship is dissolved, by the offender, not by the innocent party. Excommunication is not an offensive act, but a defensive one. It is an effort to excise a cancer before it spreads. However, it holds no weight if we are simply dealing with a social club. The disciplined member is not given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh as Paul states in I Corinthians, and is thus not given the opportunity to feel the weight of discipline and repent. Rather, they go to the church two streets over and start over again in their "new club".

In this way, the church has abdicated its authority as a whole. If churches required a letter of recommendation as is seen in the New Testament epistles, it would eliminate this church-hopping phenomenon and exert spiritual pressure upon those whose rebellion and independent spirits strain against Biblical church authority. A prospective member who is not new to the geographic area should be looked upon with some measure of suspicion since they have broken fellowship with their former church for some reason. They may be in the right, but that cannot be assumed. Nor can they be allowed to join the new church without fully understanding that they are making a solemn oath and covenant before God. We must understand that we live in a day where the church has compromised away most everything that makes a church influential in a society. It is our fault that our country has degenerated to the point it has. One of the ways in which we have compromised is by not expecting church members to uphold their end of the church covenant. Our desire for numbers and the need to staff our ever-increasing programs, which have nonetheless failed to impact our society and stem its descent into paganism, requires us to accept all comers. We cannot afford to be picky, otherwise the corporate entity that is called a church suffers.

A restoration of a church covenant is a call to something greater - a call to a second Reformation. A call to restore the doctrines of the New Testament that have been sacrificed in the name of expediency and pragmatism. A call to restore the church to its former position in our formerly Christian nation as the arbiters of right, incubators of righteous leaders, and foundation of social activism. Not because these things are the ends, but because bringing glory to God requires us to take dominion over this world and to reach the lost en masse. Serving those around us in this world, not only those who are in our select circle, glorifies God and will lead to an outpouring of His Spirit in our country. If God is sovereign, and if God appoints the rulers of this world, then we must acknowledge that our covenant-breaking, compromising ways have led us to where we are now. God has put us in bondage as he did with the Israelites so many times in the Old Testament. We have the leadership in our country that we deserve. Re-institution of the proper exercise of church covenants is not the only needful thing, but the repentance and searching of the Scriptures required to properly institute such a practice across denominational boundaries is exactly what we need. Maybe the covenant can simply be the vehicle.

Obey Them That Have the Rule Over You

2009-09-23T10:06:00.000-07:00

In the last post, we discussed the general principle of God as the sole source of law, authority, and jurisdiction. We also looked at how the Scriptures instruct the family to function with certain jurisdictional boundaries. However, the father of a household does not have unlimited authority or unrestricted jurisdiction. One of the limits upon his jurisdiction is given in Hebrews 13:7-17. In this passage, the church members are instructed to submit to church authority in two verses - verse 7 and 17 - shown below:

Heb 13:7 - Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Heb 13:17 - Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

We know that this refers to church leadership because verse 7 specifies not only those who rule, but those that have spoken the word of God. Secondly, we must understand that this rulership itself has limits on authority and jurisdiction, with which we will deal in a moment. First, we must understand that church leadership has the responsibility to watch for our souls and to set an example of behavior for us to follow. Part of this responsibility may go beyond simple teaching and enter into rebuke or even excommunication in the most extreme cases. The church as a body, led by the elders, has the duty to speak into the moral lives of their individual members, specifically that of the husbands and fathers. In the case of sin in the life of a head of household, or in the lives of the family for whom he is responsible, the church leadership can exert their authority to exhort and rebuke, always with humility and love, but with power nonetheless. This is one example of how no person on earth can escape being under the Biblical authority of another person or group of people. We are all answerable to God, but we also are accountable to others in certain cases defined in Scripture.

Does this passage in Hebrews command us to unilaterally obey the pastors or elders of our church? There are many in the fundamental Christian community that would claim so, either openly in their teaching or more subtly by their actions and expectations. However, it must be noted that this verse gives its own limitation, as well as other limitations that can be found within the entire body of Scripture. The limitation given expressly in verse 7 is "whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation". Even the great apostle Paul, when exhorting the churches to follow his example, made sure to be clear that his example was only of use so long as he was following Christ (I Cor. 11:1). Thus, a similar jurisdictional limitation is placed on a church leader as upon a father, namely, that any command contrary to a proper Biblical interpretation of the precepts, patterns, and principles of Scripture should not be obeyed.

The next limitation is common to all human authorities. Only God has unlimited authority and jurisdiction. The human institutions ordained by God - family, church, and government - are limited by the nature of their charter. Of all leaders in these organizations, a father has the most breadth in the types of authority and jurisdiction he is called upon to exercise, however its scope is severely limited as it extends only to his wife and unmarried children. The church and its leadership were chartered to serve as the body of Christ to bring honor and glory to the Father. The church is the repository of doctrine and defender of both faith and practice. Thus, the church cannot exert authority over a father or over a governmental leader except that person be a covenental member of that local church, and the focus of the exertion of authority relates directly to false doctrine or practice. Finally, civil government's charter is to keep the peace and protect the God-given rights of its people. Any laws passed that do not fulfil those responsibilities, or encroach on these God-given rights, are outside of the government's jurisdiction. The government may be able to force compliance through police action, but that does not mean they are within their rights as civil leaders.

Returning to the discussion of the authority of church leadership, we can then dismiss the idea that the pastor or elder can expect obedience in any realm where issues of right and wrong are not involved. This may seem like common sense, but unfortunately the corruptive influence of power can reach into the hearts of learned men of God as well as any other man. I have heard preachers say that a church member should consult their pastor before any decision, including the purchase of a car (the preacher's example), and then obey the pastor's advice. While I do not disparage the wisdom in consulting someone (or several people - Prov. 11:14) before major decisions, this proposition presents two major errors:

1. It implies that it would be sin not to consult the pastor. There is no Scripture to support this, so this cannot be sin. A pastor may be wise in specific areas, thus recommending himself to such a consultation, but even if it might be prudent to consult him, it is not required by God.

2. The idea that advice given by a pastor has the force of command and puts the hearer under obligation to obey is a perversion of the passage we have been looking at in Hebrews. As with every human institution, obedience to proper authority figures is commanded in Scripture, but only within the charter of the organization. Because buying a car is not a moral or doctrinal issue, the pastor has no jurisdiction to exert authority. His advice may be good, but it is not sin to ignore that advice.

Another example I have experienced personally is a pastor who wants a member to serve in some capacity within the church. When given the reply that the proposal would be prayerfully considered, the answer was, "I am your pastor, and I have already prayed about this. This is God's will so you don't need to pray about it." At least he was being honest! Many pastors have this same philosophy but know how poorly such a philosophy would be received by any thinking church member. The error here is that there is someone between the Christian and God. The pastor stands in between as a priest. The Bible clearly teaches the priesthood of the believer, eliminating the distinction of a clergy class versus a laity class. Any exhibition of this class behavior in the church is patently against Scripture. The teaching that we each have different gifts is Biblical. The exaltation of one gift, or a person with a gift, over another within the church is specifically taught against in 1 Corinthians.

Further, this kind of action intrudes upon the action of a prophet, who gives messages from God to the people. It is not my intention to deal with the Biblical case for the cessation of revelatory gifts in this paper. However, it must be said that messages from God outside of His revealed Word are subjective, inconsistent, and arbitrary in nature. Even if you believe that God continues to give specific revelation through means other than Scripture, it cannot be argued that such revelations are suspect. This is due to our sinful nature and the tendency toward emotional reactions and creation of self-fulfilling prophecies.

What then is within the jurisdiction of the church leadership and the church itself in terms of exertion of authority? It is clear from many Scriptures that unrepentant heresy is ground for excommunication. We say unrepentant because we must give the chance for a well-meaing, but mistaken brother or sister to be corrected, as shown in the following verses.

Titus 3:10-11 -- A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Romans 16:17-18 -- Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

The word "heretick" is a direct transliteration from the Greek word hairetikos, which means
"schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine" according to Strong's Concordance. This Greek word is not limited in use to the Bible alone, so we must interpret the meaning of the word in light of Scripture, which is what Romans 16:17-18 helps us do. If one studies the factions that were referred to as heresies in Scripture and early church history, it becomes clear that each heresy perverted some doctrine in a way that disallowed Biblical salvation. A clear example is Arianism, which denied the deity of Christ. Though they claimed to believe the Bible, they misinterpreted Scripture and used human logic in contradiction to other Scriptures to claim that Jesus was a created being rather than God the Son. Without Jesus being God, He is not infinite. Without an infinite sacrifice, the weight of the world's sin could not be borne by one man, invalidating the doctrine of salvation.

Not all false teaching or division is heresy. The Corinthian church was sharply rebuked for their divisions and for certain practices leading to further divisions, but Paul did not call for the excommunication of those who were involved in those factions or practices. However, the unrepentant man having sexual relations with his father's wife was excommunicated. This leads us to the second area of jurisdiction within which the church and its leadership must operate.

The church must hold its members accountable to one another for aspects of holiness and unity. Matthew 18 outlines how a dispute between two individuals can become an excommunicable offense. Essentially, the offense itself does not matter, but rather the attitude of the offender. If the offender makes restitution or otherwise restores fellowship with the one offended, then brotherhood and unity is restored. However, if the offender is not willing to restore fellowship, then the sin for which the church becomes involved is that of divisiveness and a proud, unloving spirit. The church members may also choose to separate to different degrees over practice, but this is an individual action, not an action of the church as a whole or dictated by the leadership. We see this presented as follows in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Although this is presented as a command, it is given to the church as a whole, not to the leadership. Further, this is not a call to excommunicate, as shown by the final verse where we do not count the offender as an enemy, but continue to exhort them as a brother.

In conclusion, we find that the church leaders are not called upon to dictate to the church when they should excommunicate or otherwise limit fellowship with other believers. This must come from the church as a body to be effective. However, the leaders must be the ones in the vanguard to protect doctrine and practice within the church. They cannot exert authority outside what is revealed in the Scriptures. They cannot expect obedience in everything, but only in those doctrines and practices over which the church has been given charge in the Bible. Excommunication is reserved for continued rebellion in practice or for unrepentant heresy. Simply disagreeing on doctrine that does not undermine salvation is not sufficient enough for excommunication, though it may merit a limitation of fellowship on the part of individual church members.

The leaders are absolutely within their jurisdiction to teach and exhort in very specific ways, including making recommendations to the church concerning discipline issues. The church must compare the information that is known about a situation with Scripture and then make a Biblical decision without allowing emotions or close personal relationships to get in the way. Much of these concepts have been neglected over the past few decades, or they have been perverted to give leadership powers not designated in the Bible. One way to avoid neglect and abuse within the church is to reintroduce the concept of a church covenant. We will discuss this idea and its many important ramifications in our next article.

We Must Obey God Rather than Men!

2009-09-09T16:23:00.000-07:00

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." -- Acts 5:29

This single verse illustrates the foundational concept of jurisdiction. That is, an individual is responsible first to his Creator, then to other lesser authorities. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England were an essential component of the founding fathers' libraries and should have a prominent place in the minds of modern legal scholars. In these commentaries, Blackstone elucidates the principles of law from the highest plane to the lowest. It is important to understand that our country's Constitution, and many of its churches, were built upon these legal principles. Let us look at some of the most significant statements made with respect to the subject of jurisdiction:

"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other - It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original." (emphasis added)

"But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason... And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy... But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error. This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, has been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures."

"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (emphasis added)

Blackstone's commentaries were written to parse the common laws of England such that the average educated person could understand them. In order to set the stage for his discussion, he led with an introduction that included the statements above. In essence, the foundational legal treatise used to create our form of government claimed that all true laws come from God as the only infinite, all-wise, and perfect being. All human laws must either conform to this natural and divine law or it must limit itself to statutes toward which divine law is indifferent.

Thus, a law that attempts to force one citizen to murder another is an invalid law as it contradicts both the natural law and the divine law revealed in Scripture. We must understand that we are not simply saying that the law is bad, but that it is truly not a law at all because no human legislature has the authority to contradict God's law. On the other hand, a law that dictates that one must stop at a red light when driving is a municipal law that stands outside of the natural or divine law. Because God is indifferent to this statute, it cannot contradict His law, making it fall completely within the power of human government.

This is why the issue of jurisdiction is so important. Although clear contradictions of God's law can be recognized and protested or ignored, what limits government at any level from multiplying laws and becoming tyrannical? What stops church leadership from extending their God-given authority into spheres in which they have no say? What stops a father from overstepping his bounds within his family? Only the right understanding of jurisdiction can address these issues. We will start with the family as that is the foundational unit of the other two God-ordained human institutions.

Ephesians 5:21 - 6:9 describes the lines of authority within families, which included servants, or slaves, in that day:

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

The hierarchy of the family outlined in this passage is simple: husband over the wife, who is over the children; with servants reporting the husband and being placed in whatever capacity he sees fit. But the hierarchy is only the surface of this passage. Because it is the jurisdictional limitations that make this passage so important to us today. The husband and father has supreme authority in his household, yet he must answer directly to God and live within God's revealed law. This means that the father must rule over his household within the following confines:

He must love his wife as Christ loved the Church
He must love his wife as he loves himself
He must continually aid his wife in her personal sanctification and walk with God
He must not ask his household to break God's laws
He must not act in a way that provokes wrath in his children
He must treat his servants with respect and dignity, understanding that a servant is not lower than his master in the eyes of God

These limitations to the man of the house are extremely confining. Although a wife is told to obey her husband, his commands must always be for the good of the wife and the family, since Christ does not command His Church to do anything that is not for their ultimate good. The husband must live a life of sacrifice for his wife since Christ gave the ultimate sacrifice for the Church. He must work with his wife (and the rest of his family) to bring them ever closer to God as Christ works in our hearts to sanctify us. He must be careful that his actions and words do not lead his children to righteous anger. We cannot prevent an angry outburst from our children, but this passage makes it clear that justifiable anger at unfair and unjust practices is the clear fault of the father, and the child is not liable. Finally, he must understand that, although his position or wealth may give him mastery over another person in some capacity, he cannot treat that person as sub-human because God does not see the servant as being any different from the master.

The commands to the wife, children, and servants must be understood within the confines of the ultimate familial authority. The wife should obey her husband as the Church should obey Christ. Yet, the husband is not perfect as is Christ. However, where the husband is operating within the confined of his jurisdictional authority, the wife must obey. This does not mean that the wife can ignore her husband's directives if she does not see the proper "love" coming from him. Rather, it means that the husband's jurisdiction cannot extend outside of the divine law from which he derives his authority. Likewise, the children must obey their parents in the Lord, again clearly indicating that the parents cannot command their children to disobey God's law. There are several Asian countries where the husband and father will order his wife and/or female children to become prostitutes or thieves and bring home the money. A Christian wife or child in that situation cannot obey that man because he has stepped outside of the divine authority to which he is answerable. As Blackstone said, "no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this [divine law]."

Notice also that the Scriptures are very specific in directing the submission of wives, children, and masters. Wives are told to submit themselves to "their own husbands", not any husband. Thus, my authority over my wife extends to no other woman in the world - my jurisdiction is limited. Likewise, this limitation is placed upon the children and servants as well, meaning that the man is king in his own home, but no one else's home.

This may seem like common sense, but has some far-reaching consequences. A wife cannot Biblically work for another man unless her husband gives that man certain authority and jurisdiction over his wife. Otherwise, she should not obey another man. If her work requires her to act in contradiction to her husband's directives, there can be no question or conflict as to the resolution - she must obey her husband. Children may be placed under that authority of a tutor, teacher, or caretaker, but the limitations of this authority must be clearly taught to the children by the parents. This is one major problem with public schools since they actively teach principles and philosophies that are in direct violation of God's law and the Christian parents beliefs. The children must understand that these philosophies are to be rejected openly and clearly, without challenging the authority of the teacher in those areas where they may be correct. If a child is not mature enough or outspoken enough to do this, then they should not be subjected to this contradiction of authorities in their lives.

If the family is to be ordered correctly, it requires men to be active rather than passive. They must defend their families from the encroachments of other people, groups, or institutions that would undermine their God-given authority. If a Church is teaching a philosophy or engaging in practices that directly violate what is being taught in the home, then the father is responsible to take action. I do not believe this means leaving that Church in most cases, though that may need to happen on occasion. However, the father cannot be silent on the contradiction being presented to his family. Otherwise, he is implying that this particular doctrine or practice does not really matter, leaving the wife and children to decide on their own what is right. Such passivity must be rejected. Likewise, fathers must take action against the encroachment of today's culture and our government into their families. This may be a simple as clearly refuting wrong philosophies, or it may be as difficult as breaking away from cultural influences such as television, music, and movies that go against the laws of the home. There may come a day when we find ourselves in the same position as the founding fathers, where we need to defend our homes and families against the unlawful actions of our own government.

Whatever the situation, we must remember that all aspects of right and wrong, as well as the interpretation of the principles and how they apply to our lives, belong to God alone. No human individual or group can redefine what is right or wrong. Thus, our first responsibility is to obey God. Where God and man are not in conflict, our lives are easy and happy. Yet our society today is moving very quickly away from God's laws, so we must be prepared as Christians to proclaim our allegiance to God as the apostles did, even if it means beatings, imprisonment, or death. Can we do less than those who have run the race before us?

Importance of Understanding Jurisdiction

2009-08-21T17:15:00.000-07:00

"Give me that money!" This statement has different connotations depending on the relationship between the speaker and one to whom he is speaking. If for example, the speaker is a thief, the appropriate response from the soon-to-be-victim would be to defend himself with appropriate force or escape. It would be inappropriate to simply surrender the money unless no alternative existed. On the other hand, if it is a parent speaking to a child who has just taken a $20 bill off the table that was not his, then the statement demands obedience.

What is the difference? Jurisdiction and authority. In the first case, the thief has no jurisdiction whatsoever. He has no right to demand that anyone give up any money to him. He may be armed, thus forcing the surrender of the money from an unarmed victim, but that does not give him either jurisdiction or authority. In the second case, the parent has both authority and jurisdiction, necessitating compliance. These two cases are very understandable in that authority and jurisdiction are either both absent or both present.

What if authority and jurisdiction do not coexist? Which one takes precedence? The Bible gives us the clear answer to this question in Acts where Peter and John are brought before the Jewish leaders to answer for their repeated flaunting of their authority. The Jewish leaders beat the apostles and let them go on the condition that they keep quiet about Jesus. The apostles response is simple: "We must obey God rather than men."

Did these Jewish leaders have authority? Yes, they did. They were religious leaders as well as pseudo-political leaders underneath the Roman regime. Therefore, the apostles did not refuse to obey them because they lacked authority. Since the apostles were Jews, they were underneath the authority of these Jewish leaders. However, the question was not one of authority, but of jurisdiction. The Jewish leaders had authority, but God's authority trumps man's authority in every case. Further, the Jewish leaders were condemning the apostles without any Biblical foundation. Their religious jurisdiction does not allow them to condemn heretics based on their own definitions. Essentially, they did not have the right to make up the rules as they went along and expect others to obey. That was outside their jurisdiction.

Thus, a person can have authority without having the jurisdiction to act with authority. A police officer has authority, but only within his jurisdiction. We must then recover the lost legal philosophy of limited jurisdiction in order to restore the many imbalances that exist in our society.

The idea that the leadership of a church has authority is a Biblical, but unpopular, doctrine. However, there are those in the Fundamentalist camp that would take the proper authority of pastors or elders within a church, concentrate that authority within one person, and then claim that there are no limits on their jurisdiction. Because of this false doctrine, the majority of the Christian community has totally rejected the idea of authority within the Church.

Men have been beaten down by modern culture, public education, and even the Church. Men have been taught that their masculinity and aggression are bad and must be suppressed. Women, conversely, have been taught to insert themselves into work, political, and social situations where aggression, ambition, and assertiveness are required, making them sacrifice their femininity. Children have suffered because their parents have no idea how to operate within the confines of a nuclear family. Thus, authority and jurisdiction have become twisted within our families today. Roles and responsibilities are confused, and foundations are destroyed. Without a positive, clear example of a solid family in society, we have degenerated into a culture that accepts broken homes, sodomite relationships, and overall lack of commitment.

Finally, and farthest reaching, is the complete disregard for jurisdiction within our government. A human government without limitations on its jurisdiction is an abomination and threat to liberty in every case. Why? Because mankind is flawed. Sin has destroyed our ability to see truth clearly and do what is right. Our thirst for power, influence, money, and fame lead us to do terrible things. Put one person or many people into positions of power without jurisdictional limits and they will parley their authority in one area into authority in others. Finally ending up with the power to force compliance in areas where they have no business even making suggestions, such as how we run our churches or homes.

As is the case with so many of the critical failings of our society today, this one began with the Church mingling jurisdictions and compromising on the Biblical teachings of law and jurisdiction. If we believe that the Bible is truly sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, then it should hold the answers to where the lines of jurisdiction must be drawn in a proper society made up of families, churches, and secular government. In the posts to come, we will investigate precepts, patterns, and principles that should clarify these lines of demarcation, allowing us to repent of the apathy that has allowed encroachments on our liberty to occur. Maybe if the Church repents and begins to fight for a Biblical society, God will see fit to release America from the captivity and depravity within which we are sinking deeper and deeper as time moves on.

Obama's health care plan

2009-08-21T11:01:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting to note how far our country has fallen. In the early years of our republic (and we are a Constitutional republic, by the way!) Savannah, Georgia was almost completely wiped out by an "Act of God". The debate in Congress at that time was whether or not the federal government should fund a reconstruction project to rebuild the city. The debate did not focus on the demographics of the city, how much the state should be expected to contribute, or what other pork could be added into the bill. Rather, the debate centered on one single point - can the federal government even do this under our Constitution. Now here's the real kicker... The decision was a clear "NO!"

When was the last time any so-called conservative pulled out that argument and stuck to it? The 10th amendment is pretty clear that any power not expressly given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people. If our "Conservative" leaders had stuck to their guns for the last ~140 years (read since the Civil War), we would not have any national debt, nor the host of bureaucratic programs that rely on continual deficits.

We would not have the issue of vouchers since there would be no such thing as the Department of Education or federal education mandates. We would not have the troublesome issues of how to fund Social Security and Medicare since they would not exist. We would not have an income tax since that amendment to the Constitution was only allowed by ignoring the clear wording of the main body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We would not have inflation since fiat money is not legal under our Constitution. Without fiat money, we would not have had the booms and busts of the past several decades that have centered on the financial sector, most notably our current crisis. This would then lead to us not having TARP or the nationalization of the automotive and banking industries.

Given the plethora of evils perpetrated upon our country by those who would ignore the Constitution and its myriad of controls upon governmental power, one would think that the country is ready to say "Enough!". Yet, we must understand that it is not sufficient to simply let our dissatisfaction be known. After all, it should be abundantly clear that our elected officials do not seek to represent us in any way, nor do we have any real power to really change our government since each election is inevitably a race between two people who, at best, know nothing of our Constitution and the legal theory behind it. At worst, the choices in a given election are downright evil and openly greedy for power and all of its fringe benefits.

One of the fundamental Christian principles throughout the Bible is that God cares just as much - if not more - about the methods we use as the ends we achieve. Pragmatism is a humanist, nay demonic, philosophy! The ends never justify the means. This false doctrine has led the Church to abdicate its leadership role in what used to be a Christian nation. Whether you subscribe to Christian principles or not, it cannot be argued that our country started from a position of great strength, founded upon a wise Constitution, and have moved by gradual degrees, through pragmatic compromises, to our present state of incompetence and weakness. Since the method of our resistance matters, we cannot object to the government proposals for health care based on issues of funding, logistics, or impact of individual line items. Such an approach cedes the premise that the government has the jurisdiction and latitude to even consider such an action.

The argument that must begin taking shape within every town hall meeting, every talk show, and around every dinner table is that our government has long overstepped its Constitutional authority. We cannot simply allow this to continue, and this hot-button topic is a perfect time to raise the Constitutional standard high and finally hold the megalomaniacal leaders of this country accountable for their patently illegal actions. Please remember that legality is not determined by the vote of one or more people. Such democratic notions have historically always led to dissolution and destruction of the society. Legality cannot change on the whim of a person because that would make that person a dictator. Yet somehow the same action on the part of a two-party Congress is less tyrannical? Not at all because the method and end results are the same.

I now call all those who understand that our government has left us behind - disenfranchised and seemingly helpless - to band together to send a clear message in every forum possible:

We will not allow these dictators to rule over us!

Let us oust every incumbent, regardless of political party. There are few, if any, who have ever upheld their oath to defend the Constitution. Let us then impeach them at the voting booth. It doesn't even matter who the alternative person is at this point because there are very few choices that are any better. If you can find someone who truly stands on the literal interpretation of the Constitution and will stand on that for every vote, then elect them! Otherwise, we are just sending a message to those who believe themselves to be our rulers rather than our servants. That message is simple: We don't want you any more. We won't re-elect you, nor will we elect clones of you. Every election for the next ten years will deliver turmoil upon Washington DC. Let the new Congressmen and Senators sit uncomfortable upon their seats and vote with trepidation in their hearts. Let the lobbyists know that all their money can be spent on these temporary leaders, but in two, four, or six years they will be gone, replaced by those who owe the lobbyists nothing. Finally, let them understand that the only way to get re-elected by a free people is to fight for freedom and defend the Constitution!