Peter Leithart summarizing N.T. Wright’s “God in Public” speech.

Against Anabaptists and revolutionaries, the New Testament does not reject pagan order, but teaches that the church must submit to the rulers that be because order, even pagan and oppressive order, is preferable to chaos. The New Testament holds together the truth that the powers are corrupt with the demand that they be obeyed. This is a sign, Wright said, that the order provided by political authorities is a common good, a good shared by Christians and non-Christians, and a common good that Christians should support and further.

These two things can be held together when we recognize that the cross is the victory over powers that twist their God-given mandate to maintain order into tyranny, but after the cross and resurrection the powers that be are reinstated as agents of order, even agents that Jesus, the heavenly king, uses to advance His purposes. He may use them and then judge them, but they are enclosed within his rule. The Church meanwhile is called to remind rulers of their duty to seek wisdom from the Son, and this witness may result in martyrdom, which, Wright said, is central to any Christian political theology. The church also cultivates forms of common life that anticipate the eschatological kingdom and challenge political authorities to imitation.

In short, because Jesus is Lord, the church can collaborate without compromise and critique without falling into dualism. [Emphasis mine.]

“Truth is not a bunch of puppies running around, you can’t just grab the one you like.”

Emerson Cod, “Pushing Daisies“

As explained previously, here it is being executed properly (if the former mayor presented himself, and the Bishop follows through).

Gen 1:26-28 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

God created us in His image: we have dominion over the creation, we are fruitful and multiply, we are creators. Necessary to the mission of multiplication and dominion is the desire within to multiply and dominate. Thus, as we read the Scriptures, we find that those with a Biblical worldview are also those who desire children and a godly offspring. Think of Hannah who was so desperate for a child that she was willing to give him up as soon as she weaned him! All to have a child. Think of Sarah and Rachel who, out of desperation to provide their husbands with children, gave to them their handmaids.

As we continue to read the Scriptures, we find that those who have strayed from a Biblical worldview are those who sacrifice their children to Molech, who turn them over to false gods. It seems that God has given a desire to multiply to those whom He wants to multiply and has taken that desire from those who have rejected Him. Which, of course, fits perfectly with His prescribed blessings:

Deu 28:11 And the LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your livestock and in the fruit of your ground, within the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to give you.

and curses:

Deu 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock.

Having created us in His image, He has called us to fruitfulness, and blessed the faithful with fruitfulness and the desire to be so. Those who have denied Him, He has given over to their unnatural lusts, and cursed them with fruitlessness and the desire to be so.

OR, this is all due to Darwinianism and the mommy gene, you pick which is easier to swallow…

Sometimes I get a little excited about Ron Paul and what I expect he will do for America.  But I am careful never to confuse that with the work that only Jesus Christ can do for America.    For, to confuse that would be to equate Dr. Paul with the Messiah, making the State the Messiah, Savior of the World, and we know this to be an absolute fallacy–yes, absolute truth exists.

To remind us of what the State as Messiah would look like, a hymn of tribute:

Caesar loves me! This I know,
For his welfare tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong;
They are weak, but the state is strong.

Refrain

Yes, Caesar loves me!
Yes, Caesar loves me!
Yes, Caesar loves me!
His Welfare tells me so.

Caesar loves me! This I know,
As He started schools long ago,
Taking children on His knee,
Saying, “Let them be given to Me.”

Refrain

Caesar loves me still today,
Watching over me on my way,
Wanting as a friend to give
My property and money to all who live.

Refrain

(HT:  ReformedCovenanter)

Theonomics or theocracy is a touchy subject, especially because it is often misunderstood. However, there has recently been some news that might shed some light on this for us. First, though, it might help to properly understand the “chain of command” in a theocracy by contrasting it to the “chain of command” in an ecclesiocracy (which is often confused for a theocracy).

In an ecclesiocracy your chain of command would look like this:

God
|
Church
|
State
|
Individual/Family

In a theocracy your chain of command would look more like this:

God       God      God
|             |            |
Church  State    Individual/Family

Notice that the Church, State, and Family are all directly under God in a theocracy. What happens, then, is that the Church is subject to the State only in matters where the State has authority, in other words, only when it falls under the State’s jurisdiction. For example, it is the State’s responsibility to punish criminals. If a member of the church, a clergyman for example, commits a crime such as murder, he would be subject to the State for punishment. Likewise, members of the State government would be subject to the Church where they entered her jurisdiction. So, let’s say a magistrate used military might to unjustly kill hundreds of civilians, the church would be responsible to excommunicate that magistrate or bar him from the Lord’s Table. Obviously, the Family would meet these same jurisdictional limitations. The magistrate would be subject to the voting power of the family, the church subject to the family’s voice in church matters (voting, tithing, membership, etc.) Obviously the family would be subject to the jurisdictional authority of the state (punishment for crimes) and the Church (excommunication, Lord’s Table, etc.)

As we can see, any one entity only has authority over the other where God has given them that jurisdictional authority. They are all subject to God’ s Law, hence, a theocracy or a theonomic structure.

Interestingly, this is exactly what we see in the Pope’s recent refusal to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The Vatican made no attempt to exercise any kind of authority over the United States civil government except for that authority granted to it: in this case, fellowship and communication. The Pope made it clear to the United States what his position is on the Iraq War by refusing to meet with the Secretary of State. This is exactly the thing the Church should be doing every day. Government officials who violate God’s Law should be excommunicated, disciplined, and/or refused the Supper depending upon the situation. When President Bill Clinton committed adultery, his Southern Baptist Church should have disciplined him. When Representatives and Senators support abortion or homosexual marriage, the Church should be standing in the gap against them. When government officials engage in unjust, preemptive wars, the Church must stand up against them in defense of justice for the innocent. This is where the Church has authority and yet this is where the Church has offered nothing more than idle threats.

According to this USAToday article, most think they intended to.

This is an interesting article for several reasons.

First, I like how the USAToday reporter maintained so-called “neutrality” with this line:

“The survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation.”

Erroneously?  Erroneously?  Where’s the neutrality in that word?  Never mind the fact that the documents of our Founding Fathers express thanks to God, calling Him the Giver of our rights, or that the Constitution was written in “the Year of our Lord.”  What LORD would that be?  Allah?  Mohammed?  Buddha?  Or, the Lord Jesus Christ?  You get one guess.

Second, it is interesting because of how many Christians out there would disagree with the sentiment that America can be a Christian nation.  I’ve heard Gene Cook, Jr. from the Narrow Mind state over and over again that America cannot ever be a Christian nation, that no nation can be a Christian nation.  There is only one kingdom of God, blah, blah, blah. 

Again, this interests me because it is a flat rejection of the Great Commission,

“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

The therefore is a reference back to the fact that Christ has been given ALL authority both in heaven and on earth, I wonder if that means over whole nations on earth?  But, it doesn’t matter, because He then specifically says that we are to make disciples of the nations!  And whom do we baptize?  THEM!  Them is not a reference to just a scarce few individuals from a nation, but to the whole nation, and then we teach the nation.  Without the pronouns, the passage would read like this:

“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing the nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching the nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

The very Commission given to God’s people for the expansion of His Kingdom teaches us that His Kingdom will engulf whole nations, and when it does those nations will be Christian nations.

Read this at the Reformed Covenanter:

John Gill’s Theonomy

–
mattb

The fact is that the popular modern conception of the individual is derived from Greek thought rather than from the Bible, and may even be regarded as anti-Biblical.  We tend to think of our bodies giving us our individuality and separating us, one from the other.  In the Old Testament it is our flesh–a word for body hardly exists in Hebrew–that binds us to our fellow-men; it is our personal responsibility to God that gives us our individuality.  Since man (’adam) is bound to the ground (’adamah) from which he has been taken, and through it to all who live on the same ground, he cannot help influencing them by his actions.  Abominable conduct causes “the land to sin” (Deu 24:4; cf. Jer 3:1, 9).  That is why drought, pestilence, earthquake, etc., are for the Old Testament the entirely natural punishment of wickedness (cf. Psa 107:33 f.).  If a man dwelt in a polluted land, he could not help sharing in its pollution.  The chief terror of exile was not that the land of exile was outside the control of Jehovah–a view that was probably held by very few–but rather that it was an unclean land (Amos 7:17).

(H.L. Ellison, Ezekiel:  The Man and His Message (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1956), p. 72, as quoted by R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Craig Press, 1973), p. 428.)

You may recall a previous discussion where it was pointed out how people are inclined to justify their behavior because the same behavior is seen in animals, specifically, homosexuality.  It is argued that since animals show homosexual tendencies, and humans are just more evolved animals, then homosexuality must be a legitimate lifestyle for man.

Well, let’s add male chauvinism to the list of allowable behaviors.

–
mattb