Category: Ethics

Posted on

The God who relents and Federal Vision Theology

The topic of the “immutability” of God has gone through various adjustments and disputations in these last 20 years in the church. In the past, older commentators seemed to close their theological eyes to such difficult passages (God “repented,” “relented,” “changed His mind”) by relegating it to the category of “anthropomorphism.” When something is anthropomorphic, it means that the Bible stoops down to convey a clear message to humanity using human terms. By adopting this response, what interpreters are saying is: this can’t be God, because my decretal God could never think twice about changing His mind–He only has a plan A. However, what would you say if I told you God has a plan A,B,C, and sometimes even D? If you do not believe that is the case, think of how many times He could have destroyed us because of our miserable sins. I am here referring to the covenantal sense. It would be theologically dangerous to assert that God’s eternal plans can be changed or altered on the basis of human actions. But through the lenses of covenant, we see that God is willing to change His judgment (Nineveh , as an example) on the basis of covenant fidelity from His people. In His kindness, benevolence, He relented from doing so. In fact, relenting is part of His gracious character. If He were not a relenting God we would be doomed.

In Exodus 32:12, 14 and 1 Samuel 15:29 and Jonah 3:10, we find multiple examples of this reality. On the condition (see also Exodus 19) that God’s people maintained and kept themselves loyal to their covenant promises, God would give them a great Land–flowing with milk and honey. If they break the covenant promise, God would then punish them accordingly.

Exodus 32 is a marvelous example of this human imploring by Moses. God threatens, but then relents. In fact, this is a clear pattern throughout Scriptures. God threatens, so that,–as Greg Bahnsen would say–there would be ethical readjustments in people’s behavior. If God never threatened, there would be no change. It is through His threatening, that people renew their covenants with God and nations repent of their sins. This is why in times of great natural disasters in early American history, the presidents called for a day of repentance and humiliation.

This is where Federal Vision theology makes Reformed Theology plausible and Biblical. Our beloved Confession (and I mean it when I say this) focuses largely on God’s decretal plans; that is, from before the foundations of the world. The decretal plans of God are unalterable, unchangeable, and immutable. Am I clear? However, what the Confession does NOT place much emphases is on the Covenantal plans of God. By this I mean, the earthly, tangible, physical manifestation of God’s plans. When we speak of God as a personal God, we are referring to this covenantal relationship between God and His people. To make this even clearer: God’s decretal plans work harmoniously with His Covenantal plans. However, His covenantal plans are different than His decretal plan. For instance, through my repentance I can personally communicate my sins to God, without expecting that God is wholly other, but rather expecting that He is wholly near; knowing that He hears my repentance and acts based on my repentance (If you love me keep my commandments).

The secret things (decretal plans) belong to Him alone. It is not for us to speculate or assume; but everything else is revealed to us and our children. This is where we should concern ourselves: with our response to God and to others.

Federal Vision theology has restored this Biblical imperative. Let us petition to our God for He listens to us and acts accordingly to our responses and His holy character.

Posted on

Vos, Misconceptions, and Legalism

Those who have survived the fury of legalism,1 understand its deadly claim on individuals. After many years under legalistic teaching one begins to realize that the overwhelming nature of duty can never be alleviated or diminished by/through the nature of grace. Legalism, as a particular adherence to a code, may in a powerful sense be Screwtape’s tool to entrap the young and vigor-filled Christian.

No one living in a monarchy will deny obedience to his new king, especially if disobedience means death. Nevertheless, the reality is in the nature of this obedience. What is obedience? Further, why is legalism so detrimental in light of the clear commands of the ever-relevant law-word of God? It is answering the second question that one finds some clue into the first. My assumption, unlike so many, is that the Old Testament revelation bears both ethical and salvific ramifications for the New Covenant Christian. The central problem in understanding these sorts of questions is that the idea of “legalism” has been so injuriously associated with the Old Covenant laws and demands. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It is in the Old Testament where the Orthodoxical Shema is first given; it is in the pages of the Old (er) Testament where the command to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) is made first explicit; and it is in the Old Testament where the grace of God is pervasive in the lives of the saints despite their many eggeregious sins. Hence, my contention is that if any case law, ceremonial or moral law is to be interpreted, it is to be interpreted in the context of grace; totus gratia.

The Reformed heritage and its current manifestation have not carefully sorted through such nuances. Sonship theology has exercised little time in considering the Old Testament demands of obedience for fear that it may make modern Christians “legalists.” The fact is modern Christian are miles away from the dreaded, and, rightly so, despised idea of legalism. Modermn Christians are too pagan to even become legalists. Let me note, lest it be misunderstood, that legalism is not in any sense equivalent to obedience to Old Testament law. It is rather the opposite of faithfulness to God’s law, since legalism makes God’s revelation irrelevant and substitutes it with man’s code or standard. Any time autonomous man makes laws and regulations outside of Biblical imperative he has become a legalist. Hence, legalism is obeying laws that find no Biblical grounds;2 and as a result, using that pseudo obedience to attain something that they cannot earn.

Legalism and faithfulness to covenant demands are diametrically opposed. In popular discourse, the two ideas have been used interchangeably when in reality they do not belong in the same sentence, except to explain their great contrast. Micah 6:8 tells us:

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

If to do these things is being understood as legalism, then I want all of it. But far from legalism this is God’s command to His covenant children of all ages. Fidelity and faithfuless to the covenant demands express loyalty; a loyalty that is grounded on grace from beginning to end. The problem with evangelicalism is anti-nomianism. After all, when was the last time you heard a pastor castigating his parishioners for doing too much for God’s kingdom? The opposite is true; parishioners are castigated for being too detached from their Christianity.

On the other hand, (In stark contrast to Sonship theology) the Reformed faith has also been castigated for its Puritan heritage, which some have labeled as legalistic.3 Geerhardus Vos summarizes the criticism:

A consciousness of strict accountability in view of God’s sovereign rights over man has always characterized the Reformed religion, even to such extent as to invite the charge that its puritanic practice savors of a spirit of legalism more at home in the Old Testament than in the New.4

Later Vos defines legalism as those who “obey but do not adore.” Two comments will suffice at this point and the first one is that there ought not to be any distinction between the ethical demands of the Old and New Testaments. If we are aware of the nature of the sacrificial system, then the Christo-centric implications and the ethical implications will leave no doubt that Christ in no sense ever eliminated or abolished the Old Testament obligations for the New Testament believer. Such distinctions are dangerously Marcionite. The second observation is that Vos’ definition is in some sense flawed if one should observe that the very nature of Old Testament law is doxological. You cannot claim to obey the law (first commandment) and yet not adore Jehovah alone.

As a final point, obedience, true obedience, stems from an inward response. It is gratitude to God’s grace, but it is also loyalty to God’s kingship over our lives. In the end, legalism offers death, but God’s laws offer life and to obey Him is the Christian’s delight.

Footnotes

  1. For instance, in the case of Renee Altson in her book: Stumbling Toward Faith [↩ back]
  2. Fundamentalists here can list a vast selection of do’s and dont’s. [↩ back]
  3. One may be aware of the idea of something being Puritanical to indicate it is too strict or tedious [↩ back]
  4. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, pg. 232 [↩ back]
Posted on

The Deplorable Obama and the Biblical Imperative

According to ABC News, Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”

Plan Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger once wrote: “More children to the fit, less to the unfit: that is the chief issue of birth control.” Obama has supported Sanger’s dream for many years and his recent request for sex education is only a sure sign of greater support in the future. I realize he is not endorsing sex videos for toddlers, nevertheless, by affirming such, he is condoning, or at least, encouraging the idea that pre-marital sex is to be expected. Speaking of his own family he writes:

I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity,” Obama continued. “I’ve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual.

Notice carefully that he does not condemn sexual interaction for young people, rather he states that he respects their opinion if they choose to wait until marriage.1 He further notes that his own daughters will be taught that sex is not something casual. By casual, I assume he means it is not to be taken lightly. But if sex is practiced outside its intended meaning, then it has become casual and it has turned its intended meaning upside down.

The travesty of such an approach is that for these candidates children will not be able to live healthy and robust lives before their Creator. They will wonder from their early days about sexual experimentation, which may consequently lead to early sex and possible pregnancy for many. It is true that curiosity leads to practice.

One reader commented that of all the things that could be taught to children, sex education is the most foolish. If Obama believes this will decrease pregnancy rates then he is blind. Children are to be taught by their parents, not by any public educators about the morality or immorality of sex.

What must be done?

a) What Obama misses entirely (this is expected in light of his pagan worldview) is that the indoctrination of children begins in the home, not at school. Hence, his reasoning, whatever it may be2 is bound to failure.

b) Christian parents have no other alternative but to pull their children out of public education. Public education has been doomed to failure from its inception. It is both unbiblical3 and finds no root in the Constitution.

c) Parents aware of the immense immorality of public education are compelled to share with other parents (Christians or not) according to I Corinthians 16:14 in a spirit of love. Unbelieving parents may dismiss your concerns outright, nevertheless, it is a worthy cause to instruct them on the harm this will cause on their children.

d) Though unbelieving parents may reject your presuppositions as Christians, there are other ways of making your point clear than through Biblical data.4 John Stossel’s series: “Stupid in America” may serve as an excellent introduction to the uninformed parent.

e) Finally, however the approach may take place, the solution is always a Biblical one: The regeneration of the heart and of the mind. Christian parents are to recognize that children are a gift from the Lord and showing compassion to them is to teach them in God’s laws.

The church has for too long allowed the world to set the standards of education, it is time for reconstruction in this important area. As Gary Demar has expressed: “Whoever controls the schools, rules the world.”

Footnotes

  1. Here I am assuming this is his meaning [↩ back]
  2. In this case perhaps one is to dispel myths about where babies come from [↩ back]
  3. Deuteronomy 6 [↩ back]
  4. Certainly, the Biblical data compels us to instruct others and frames our thinking as Biblical Christians, nevertheless, the methods used may vary. Gary North once said that if you would like to see liberals fear, remove your children from public education [↩ back]
Posted on

Partial Birth Abortion banned…not really!

I have often wondered how much Christians have surrendered their ethics to the ethics of this world. It has been so long since God’s Word prevailed, that we have lost sight of what is right and what is wrong, being satisfied with what appears to be right when in reality it is utterly wrong. In this case, I refer to the so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban. The latest Supreme Court decision which voted 5 to 4 to uphold Parial-Birth Aboriton.

Partial-Birth Abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions in America. It is so rare for a Supreme Court Ruling to favor our side that when it “happens” evangelicals begin to act as if the war has been won, when the truth is, not even a battle was won. For all the evangelicals who have cheered this ruling, how many have actually read the ruling? 40 pages of it? Very few, and I mean very few. But why is this the case? It is because we ( I include myself) are trained to hear certain words; certain key words like “ban” or “partial-birth” and when they are both in the same sentence, we cheer as if Roe v. Wade has been overturned and as if 4,000 babies actually DO NOT die everyday. The harsh reality is they do die everyday and what appears to be a ruling in the favor of God’s law is actually a ruling in favor of those who wish to continue the murder of the innocent.

Do you want the truth? I am referring to the truth in the ruling itself, not the so-called conclusion of the ruling…but what that conclusion actually means? Here it is in three simple points and the evidence following:

a) Partial Birth was not truly banned.

b) The decision had nothing to do with the personhood of the infant, but only as a regulation on how the procedure ought to take place.

c) Killing the innocent was actually AFFIRMED, rather than BANNED.

Here is an 8-page summary of the 40-page ruling.

And here are a few quotations from the ruling itself…

* p. 17 III (A): …the Act’s definition of partial-birth abortion requires the fetus to be delivered “until… in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.”
* p. 18 III (A): If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable. …no crime has occurred.

On page 30 at Section IV (A), these men optimistically suggest that, “The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.”

If you would like to download or stream a shocking 28-minute audio discussing the details of this ruling click here.

Or for a similar conclusion download this edition of the American View.

 

Posted on

The Incorrigible Son and the Implications for our Modern Era, Introduction

As a theonomist/theocrat, nothing is more critical than establishing a Biblical view of ethics. Throughout the Reformation, sermons were preached in Geneva 1 and in other parts of Europe attempting to establish an ethical system that would faithfully represent all of the Bible. In early American history, the Puritans developed a Biblical view of law and applied it to the society they built. If we are to believe that all Scripture is profitable 2 then we are not to deny the richness of ethical case laws in the Older Covenant. It is not my purpose in the days to follow to make an exegetical and theological case for the permanent validity of Biblical Law for modern society, since many in my tradition have already done so, 3rather I want to focus particularly on one case law found in Deuteronomy 21. This case law refers to the incorrigible Son. Here is the text in the English Standard Version: 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Many evangelicals in both Reformed and non-Reformed camps have assumed that God’s holy and righteous laws bear no significance to our contemporary society. To borrow the words of an evangelical ethicist, “the law of God is irrelevant today.” This attitude enters even into those who are committed to a Reformed approach to life. But if the law of God is irrelevant, then how shall we then live (to quote Schaeffer)? Shall we borrow the ethics of the Book of Mormons or Muslims? Shall we as Christians seek refuge in the nebulous natural law of the philosophers? Or should we as Christians rely on the Scriptures for our guide; as our rule book for faith and practice? I will presuppose that the readers in this series will  assume the latter option, for if you deny the centrality of Scriptures in the ethical dimensions of life, then this article will make no sense.

I am well aware that this short article may cause some to feel uncomfortable with the Bible and perhaps even embarrassed in how the Bible treats certain case laws. Nevertheless, I will presuppose that the Bible contains the good, the bad, and the ugly. It is often in the ugly that we learn how to produce the good.

Most opponents of theonomy have used the case law concerning the incorrigible son to mockingly say: “See, how absurd this law is! Therefore, the law of God in its totality cannot be applied.” This attitude is not valid. After all, we worship a God who killed His own Son. 4 Does this sound reasonable to the modern ear? But if we fear Jesus’ words that every jot and tittle of the law is to be taught and applied, then these laws take on greater significance.

For those who are theonomic and do not agree with my conclusions on this short piece, I ask that you at least read through this series. The esteemed John Murray, who I consider a moderate theonomist, did not believe in the application of this case law to modern society. 5 For those who are of a Reformed persuasion, but yet deny the applicability of the case laws, I ask that you at least consider my arguments. Many times, this passage has been poorly treated and given only a quick glance. However, my contention is that a proper study of this passage will enhance our view of the law and see its rightful place in our society.

Theonomy means God’s Law. I believe in it; and because of this conviction, I am led to deal with the most troubling passages and give it the attention it deserves. This paper is a weak, but honest attempt to deal with a difficult and sometimes horrifying text to the modern reader.

This series is based on a paper I wrote for a class on Ethics at Reformed Seminary/Orlando where theonomy is generally despised. I have divided it into four sections because it will give you the opportunity to interact with me bit by bit. When the series is over, please feel free to e-mail me and ask for a copy of the article in word format. As always be attentive to the footnotes. It is there where I place personal notes and helpful reflections and sources for further study. As Gary North has once said, “you gotta footnote them to death!” I always do my best.
Note: Tomorrow I will post the first section of this paper.

 

  1. Calvin preached over 200 sermons on Deuteronomy [↩ back]
  2. II Timothy 3:16 [↩ back]
  3. Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics is one of the most comprehensive treatment on the Law of God in the 20th century; also R.J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law. Both of these books make up almost 2,000 pages [↩ back]
  4. Acts 4:27-31 [↩ back]
  5. See Principles of Biblical Conduct by John Murray [↩ back]

 

 

    Posted on

    The Basis of Obligation…

    In Arthur Holmes’ Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, he summarizes three bases of obligation. These three are a) Obligation as self-imposed, b) Obligation as imposed by people, or c) Obligation imposed by God. Let me summarize these three positions.

    Obligation Is Self-Imposed

    The greatest advocate of this position was the existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. Since Sartre denied the existence of God, this idea of self-imposed obligation was a natural consequence. 1 Since man is not created in the image of God, then he is under the responsibility to create his own image. Hence, any idea of obligation or ethical demand, is entirely self-imposed.

    Obligation Is Imposed by People

    This is the more tenable position in modern society. The society is the one who determines obligation. Some have called this the “Social Contract Theory”. In other words, these obligations stem from society at large; they are outside ourselves. This position is usually framed this way: “We are part of a society, individuals cannot be a law unto themselves, otherwise we would have anarchy. Therefore, society is to establish laws.” In our modern political language, this would be equivalent to the concept of democracy. That is, the majority rules or the voice of the people is the voice of God. In this position, though somewhat more acceptable than the first, morality or obligation may change within societies after a certain time. What is unreasonable today, may be reasonable tomorrow in accordance with society’s dictates. 2

    Obligation is Divinely Imposed

    Holmes summarizes this simply when he writes, “We ought to do what God wills.” 3 This position assums that there is an absolute God who created heaven and earth and all that is within them, and that human beings are reflective of this God in what is called the Imago Dei. This presupposition asserts that obligation is settled and does not change. Though this position may be held by different religions, since all religions claim to serve a deity of some sort, only the Trinitarian Christian position speaks of humanity as Imago Dei. That is, only Christianity teaches that we are made to reflect God’s image. We are in other words, image-bearers, imitators of God’s purity. We are to reflect this God, and consequently to obey Him.

    Critiques

    Since this is a simple introduction to theories of obligation, allow me to make a few observations. The first theory teaches that the “ought” is self-imposed. The supposed strength of this position is that each of us live in different islands. We are captains of our faith and determiners of our fate. In our own island, we decide what is right and wrong. We are autonomous creatures derived from some evolutionary process. No one can make claims of authority over another, because each person is an authority in and of himself.

    This position is pervasive in our society and it dies everyday. It dies because, at every instance, someone is making some imposition upon you. Whether it be at work, school, or at home, no human being, no matter how individualistic he feels today, can escape the obligation of another upon you. In order to be consistent with this position it would require total rebellion from all sources of authority. Certainly, this would lead to punishment from society at large, and it is likely you will spend your days as you intended, not in an island, but in a prison cell.

    The second position teaches that the “ought” is socially imposed. This is much more reasonable than the first one. Its greatest strength is that we are not individuals, but part of a particular society. The society, made up of individuals make up the obligations.

    The serious deficiency of this position is that it too denies God. Even though some Christians claim to hold to some modified version of this, ultimately this position does not rest on the absolute authority of God, but on the absolute authority of society. In this sense, society itself becomes god. But how are we as people to deal with the ever-changing philosophies of society? How are we to deal with the changing worldviews that occur when large masses from other societies come to this country? There really is no answer. Though today we may reject Militant Islam,4 what is to say that the majority some years from now will make Islam the religion of the land? This position is open to many unexpected situations.

    The third position, is of course the Biblical one. Obligation must by definition be divinely imposed. If it is not imposed, it suffers the consequences of the previous two. However, this does not answer all questions pertaining to technological advances, the threat of nuclear weapons and so on. Because the question then is, By what standard? What is the standard that all people must follow? Is it some ethereal version of natural law, which has been so pervasive during the Scholastic period? Or is there something more concrete. The answer is, there is something more concrete and that is God’s special revelation.5 Today, the idea that we are to follow a definite source of authority is absurd. When our society treasures tolerance, except toleration for Christian morals, it is hard indeed to believe that this position can ever have any hold in our society. But yet, this is our goal and our message. This is what Arthur Holmes calls, “a theonomous ethic.” 6 All ethics and grounding for obligation comes from God, who is the Sovereign imposer.

     

    1. In the last 30 years, atheists have attempted to find some sort of universal obligation in order to deal with the inescapable consequences of this position [↩ back]
    2. One needs only consider the issue of homosexuality. This practice was considered a capital crime only 100 years ago, but now it is considered acceptable and intolerance towards it, may lead to jail time [↩ back]
    3. Holmes, Arthur. Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, pg. 74 [↩ back]
    4. Though in my opinion all Islam is militant [↩ back]
    5. Deuteronomy 4:4 [↩ back]
    6. In Holmes’ case, he is not referring to theonomy per se, though I strongly believe it is the only consistent position within a divinely imposed ethic [↩ back]
    Posted on

    C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part XIII, Lewis and Charity

    Lewis’ discussion on charity is captivating and simple. It is in essence the summary of the law. Love is that great attribute of God that spurs us to love others and to obey God. This point is worth stressing. Love is never meant to be set in contrast to obedience. Love as John Murray once wrote is “feeling that impels to action… if it does not impel to the fulfillment of the law, it is not the love of which the Scriptures her speak.”[1]If ever charity leads to disobedience, then it has betrayed its Biblical purpose.

    Love impels to action, but to be overly introspective about whether we love is unnecessary. Since all our thoughts and actions will be in some way marred with our corrupt natures, the remedy to love is to love. As Lewis writes:

    Do not waste time bothering whether you “love” your neighbour, act as if you did.[2]

    This is similar to the gospel account of the father who asked two sons to accomplish a certain task. One said he would, but did not. The other said he would not, but he did. Who in the end fulfilled the command to love? The one who did. Whether his initial response was erroneous, that is beside the point. The actual proof of love is that he did do it.

    When husbands wonder if they love their wives properly and yet do nothing about, they are being foolish. Instead of thinking, do some lovely thing, buy some flowers, take her to a nice restaurant, and spend time with her. If we men consider all the time we spend thinking about how to love, we have wasted royal time.

    Some will choose to hate (whether out of their depraved nature or satanic influence) and will never taste of how great it is to love. According to Lewis this is a deadly cycle:

    The more cruel you are the more you will hate; and the more you hate, the more cruel you will become—and so on in a vicious circle for ever.[3]

    According to Titus, hate is descriptive of our former nature[4] and should not resemble our Spirit-led lives. If indeed hate resides within us, we are to seek deep repentance.

     

    [1] John Murray, Principles of Conduct, pg. 22.

    [2] Mere Christianity, pg. 116.

    [3] Lewis, 117.

    [4] Titus 3:3.

    Posted on

    C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part XI, Lewis and War

    Little Jack

    youngjack.jpg

     

    Pacifism from its very foundation is immoral. It must be noted that of the countries liberated in World War II by the American and British troops (such as Poland and other European nations) are largely pacifists of one sort or another. Is it not ironic that these nations have the right to be pacifists because they were once liberated by non-pacifist nations? 

    This is not the place to develop the Just War theory propositions, but it is worthy to note that pacifism cannot be lived consistently by anyone. The universal notions of justice and mercy urge all people in all places to stand up for injustice and wicked governments.[1] C.S. Lewis recognized this Biblical principle. The Scriptures teach us to love our neighbors, but this is not a universal statement to be applied in all cases, especially when there is a gun pointed at your little child. As Lewis writes:

    Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If one had committed a murder; the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy.[2]

    Hanging or whatever model one adopts is appropriate for the one who takes life. In the battlefield, all things are lawful. It is not that God desires war as a primary means to accomplish His purposes, but war is a consequence of sin. At times, Holy Wars were necessary in the Older Covenant so that God should purge the world from pagans and idolaters. Wars in the end are desirable to bring justice and justice requires blood.

    Lewis mentions that Jesus or John the Baptist never discouraged anyone from entering the army. Certainly our Lord and the disciples recognized that wars are necessary in this age and shall be necessary until Christ returns. Even then, it will be in war that He will come; defeating and abolishing once and for all that wicked serpent (this is the most effortless victory of all of history, Revelation 20:9).

    In a humorous scenario Lewis describes two Christian men who shot each other and find themselves immediately reunited in the world to come:

    I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the First World War, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed.[3]

    The praying Christian in one side and the praying German on the other; God is pleased with both and gives victory to whom He desires.

     

    [1] This is not in any case a proper reason to invade another nation, but the indignation is still present.

    [2] Mere Christianity, pg. 106.

    [3] Lewis, pg. 107.

     

    Posted on

    C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part VI

    In this final book,[1] Lewis speaks about the “so what” of the Christian life. Book III on Christian Behaviour goes far beyond the theological snobbery. In past times in Church History, theology was not seen as being application. This idea changed radically with William Ames (the Puritan), and more contemporary thinkers in the Reformed and Anglican tradition that stress theology is practical.[2] After all, what would be the sense of theological inquiry if it had no application beyond the classroom or Star Bucks? Biblical theology is ethical and so are all things. If we deny that, we return to the abstractionism of the Greeks.

    C.S. Lewis discusses then the three ideas of morality:

    Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.[3]

    Allow me to summarize Lewis in three words: Human morality is concerned with a) relationships, b) internal, and c) eternal. In this last point, the reader needs to realize that morality goes far beyond our lives here. It prepares us for a life to come. In my own thinking I have tried to ameliorate that absurd notion that our goal is to forget this evil world and prepare for the next. This does not seem to be the idea of the apostle Paul nor of Jesus. Nevertheless, the world to come is of significance to all because our morality may be motivated by it. This should not be a meritorious motivation (Ephesians 2:8-10), but as a sign that there is more to life than this world. C.S. Lewis writes:

    Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live forever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live forever.[4]

    This is brilliant logic! Why should anyone live decently if this is all there is to it? Sartre would be right. Nietzsche would be right. But existential atheism is immoral, because it denies the life to come. This is the already, but the not-yet is around the corner for any of us. Morality is crucial in this respect. As in Pascal’s wager, if you live immorally you have everything to lose, but if you live morally under the guidance of a sovereign authority, you have nothing to lose.

    This world is not eternal. The hyper-Preterist (probably unheard of in Lewis’ day)[5] is wrong in denying that this present world will end one day. Christ will make all things new through the purification of all things. He will not annihilate this world, but bring it to its intended use. It will be a sort of perfect, perfect Eden. Since the earth, in its present form is not eternal, then some elements of this earth are also not eternal, like the state.

    If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilization, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilization with his, is only a moment.[6]

    The idea that the state is only a temporary tool in the hands of God to preserve justice is powerful indeed.[7] In the New Heavens and New Earth, justice will have been completed and civil government as we know it will be done away with, since there will be no more role for justice, since all justice has been fulfilled in Christ’s second Advent. Nevertheless, in hell, the state will also not exist, though that righteous justice will be applied negatively forever. This is what Gary North would term, the eternal negative sanctions of the covenant.

    This holistic theme in Lewis leads to the idea of the intellect. We have been speaking of Lewis’ idea of morality. But true morality is implicit is true theology. The thinking is not absent. In fact, God hates slack (Proverbs 10:4; 18:9). The slacker or lazy will have a hard time entering into a new kingdom where strength, courage, and honor are exalted. This has nothing to do with height or physical strength (consider Frodo). Lewis explains:

    God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on something, which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all.[8]

    Christianity is not alluring at first sight. It is like Christian’s journey in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. It is filled with difficulty and turmoil. Bumper stickers that speak of “Have Joy, Have Jesus” are speaking devilish non-sense. One must count the cost if he is to embrace the gospel. It may even require leaving family and friends. And your brain always comes with you in this new journey. As Lewis mentioned, it requires brain and all. The modern aversion to intellectual endeavor is sinful. In fact, the Christian faith calls for believing intellectuals who at one hand can read the mysteries of Revelation and on the other hand, read of the details of daily living in Proverbs. It is an unbroken unit.

    Christian Behaviour touches on much more. Among them are the seven cardinal virtues. In order to briefly speak of one of these elements, let us hear the words of Lewis on the virtue of temperance:

    Temperance referred not especially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going to the right length and no further.[9]

    The inception of fundamentalism urged that Christians in all places cease to drink their beer and wine. Why? Because they limited temperance to drinking alone. The Sunday morning minister who shuns alcohol and proceeds to indulge his flesh in a buffet is a sinful hypocrite.The teetotalism that Lewis speaks of is a misapplication of the law of plentifulness. God has given us wine and drink so that we may enjoy his bountifulness. Christians forget that their liberties are not tools for abuse, but tools for refreshment.

    Some struggle with certain sins, like alcohol and as a result they deny the cup of wine passed to them at the Eucharist. They think it will tempt them to return to their bad habits. This is once again foolish and has led to the unbiblical notion of grape juice in the supper. This is a result of the early anti-alcohol amendments. Do you think that there were alcoholics in the first century? Of course. Do you think alcoholics back then struggled with temptations in this area? Of course. Then, why did Paul still serve real wine in the Sacrament? He did because no sin or temptation can overcome the shedding of blood of our Lord. The wine serves as perpetual reminder that our sins are blotted out and we are made new through this covenant communion.

    Some will try to impose their temptations on others by saying that since they do not drink, then you should not drink either. To which Lewis responds,

    One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up.[11]

    Christian Behaviour is to be an impetus to all people enjoying all things.[12]This is similar to Luther’s idea that the abuse of something is not an argument for its proper use. Because someone enjoys that which you are tempted with, is no reason to expect that they give it up for your sake (unless mutually agreed upon).  When all things are used properly, then Christian Behavior is seen in its proper light—the light of Christ.

    [1] There is a fourth book in this copy of Lewis’ Mere Christianity that deals with issues Trinitarian. They, as far as I know, were not originally part of the talks. Therefore, they will not be added to this discussion.

    [2] Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, N.T. Wright and others all stress the ethics of the Bible.

    [3] Mere Christianity, pg. 71.

    [4] Ibid. 73.

    [5] With the possible exception of the British author James Stuart Russell.

    [6] Ibid. 73.

    [7] Romans 13.

    [8] Lewis, 75.

    [9] Ibid. 76.

    [10] At least on two grounds, gluttony and Sabbath breaking.

    [11] Mere Christianity, pg. 76.

    [12] Granted, I will not offer the alcoholic a drop of wine in my home. But the issue at the sacrament is an issue of command.