Law and Gospel Vol. 2

WINTER 2012

General Editor

JOSEPH BOOT Contributing Editor

RANDALL S. CURRIE EICC Founder

JOSEPH BOOT

4

Editorial:

6

Treasures, New and Old: Augustine on Law and Gospel:

10

Ryan Eras

Dr. David Robinson

Neither Generous nor Just? A Critique of Tim Keller’s Generous Justice: Rev. Joe Boot

15

Church and Culture Part 2: Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation?: Jeffery J. Ventrella, ESQ

22

Law and Gospel or Law as Gospel: Jennifer Forbes

26

Resource Corner

Jubilee is provided without cost to all those who request it.

Jubilee is the tri-annual publication of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity (EICC), a registered charitable Christian organization. The opinions expressed in Jubilee do not necessarily reflect the views of the EICC. Jubilee provides a forum for views in accord with a relevant, active, historic Christianity, though those views may on occasion differ somewhat from the EICC’s and from each other. The EICC depends on the contribution of its readers, and all gifts over $10 will be tax receipted. Permission to reprint granted on written request only.

Canada Post Publications Mail Agreement Number: PM42112023 Return all mail undeliverable to: EICC, 9 Hewitt Ave., Toronto, ON M6R 1Y4, www.ezrainstitute.ca

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

To receive Jubilee please visit, www.ezrainstitute.ca/jubilee Or write to us: EICC, 9 Hewitt Ave., Toronto, ON M6R 1Y4. jubilee@ezrainstitute.ca

WINTER 2012

JUBILEE EDITORIAL: ISSUE 7 PAGE NO.

4

RYAN ERAS RYAN ERAS is Operations Manager at the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity. Ryan holds a Master’s degree in Library and Information Science at the University of Toronto, where he focused on bibliographic control and the history of censorship. He has served in various educational and support roles, providing bibliographic research and critical editorial assistance for several academic publications.

He lives in Toronto with his wife, Rachel, and their daughter, Isabelle.

Welcome to volume two in the two-volume Jubilee series on law and gospel. In many ways, this issue picks up where the first left off. I mentioned previously that the biblical understanding of law and gospel is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented; in this issue I would like to consider some of the roots of this pervasive error, how it came to infiltrate the church, and the importance of maintaining and defending a consistent biblical worldview with respect to law and gospel.

Marxism is by now a familiar theme to readers of Jubilee, and its subversive doctrines have been exposed and critiqued in greater detail than this editorial warrants. It is worth remembering, however, that Marx’s dialectical materialism did not spring full-panoplied from a post-Napoleonic, post-Industrial worldview. While Marx built his philosophy largely on foundations of Greek philosophy, particularly Plato’s Republic, the specific revolutionary outworking of Marxism is a direct descendant of Hegel.

If he is given any thought at all, Hegel is usually associated with the formulation, “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” – a vague and uncertain aphorism often used to support forms of universalism (and also a historical exaggeration; Hegel used this formula only once, and attributed its origin to Immanuel Kant).1 However, it is his early and less popular theological writings that provide a key to understanding his philosophical system at large, and it is here that we see most obviously Marx’s linguistic and ideological inspiration.

The problems of the ‘saviour state’ – government efforts to fix, heal, teach, and otherwise restore mankind through legislative fiat and social programming – are addressed in more detail in another article. This worldview is popularized and made concrete by Marx, but it is Hegel who, perhaps unaware, planted the seeds of this insidious ideology, and it is in his writings that we find their foundation. The Hegelian term geist, or ‘Spirit,’ is used interchangeably with terms like ‘God,’ ‘the absolute,’ ‘Other,’ or the divine ‘Idea.’2 Regardless which of these terms is used, they refer to something utterly at odds with the holy and righteous character of God revealed in Scripture.

According to Hegel, only by immersing itself in human communities, and then finding expres-

WINTER 2012

sion in the states and laws that emerge from this union, can spirit – and man – come to a realization of their own freedom. However, the Hegelian understanding of freedom is a dubious goal, for it is the freedom “that man has in following his own essence, reason…. To follow reason is to participate in the larger life of the state, for ‘in the state alone has man rational existence’.”3 The purpose of the Hegelian spirit-God in history is to bring people to a realization of their own freedom; beyond participating in the life of the state, Hegel is not clear what the purpose of freedom is, or even what it is freedom from. The striking thing about this liberating agenda, however, is that it is necessarily accomplished through man, in the form of the state and in the arena of history. Hegelian ontology asserts two points: that “man is the vehicle of cosmic spirit, and the corollary, that the state expresses the underlying formula of necessity by which this spirit posits the world.”4 According to Hegel, then, God needs man and man’s institutions just as much as man needs God; without the world and the state, God is stagnant, powerless and inarticulate. In fact, God himself is subject to a higher power, that of Reason.5 Reason, which is somehow a personality separate from God, is prior to and above all else, including Spirit.

Such a characterization of God, the state, and freedom has very real implications for an understanding of law and gospel. In the first place, it irreparably severs the teaching of Jesus from the Law revealed to Moses. Hegel identifies an element of “positivity” in religion – an inferior, physical expression manifested in creeds and dogmas; this positivity he understands as an impediment to the realization of the freedom of the human spirit.6 Problems of sin, rebellion, law, and holiness do not factor into Hegel’s religious outlook; freedom is merely a question of understanding. It is religion and religious expression which Hegel believes to be dead, not sinful humanity.

This break from Old Testament law also moves Hegel to interpret Christ’s incarnation and ministry through a cracked lens. Hegel argues that historically, Christianity included a ‘positive’ element out of necessity, due to the condition of the first-century Jews to whom Christ came. Between Pharisaic religious law and political Roman law, Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Editorial: Issue 7 5

Hegel believes that the Jewish worldview could not comprehend the unmediated reality of total freedom, and so Jesus was constrained to deliver a message of total freedom through a ‘positive’ medium, in the form of speaking with authority. Jesus’ message, according to Hegel, was intended to “convince [people] of the inadequacy of a statutory ecclesiastical faith,” and therefore he “must of necessity have based his assertions on a like authority.”7 Hegel’s Jesus is a revolutionary, antinomian moral and spiritual teacher, unencumbered by Old Testament law and eager to free his followers from the yoke of obedience to ritual, teaching rather “the value of a virtuous disposition.”8 Such a subjective, rootless ‘spirituality’ is still in vogue.

A key emphasis of Jubilee and the EICC is that of God’s claim to and authority over every aspect of our lives. One of the purposes of these two volumes has been to demonstrate that it is God’s law and God’s gospel that work together for our salvation and sanctification. We are not simply ignorant, awaiting more complete understanding; we are the dead brought to life – convicted and executed under the law, and raised to new life by the gospel. It is significant that at each of these points, the God of Scripture is the one purposing and acting for his own ends, the continuing unfolding of his Kingdom. God is King and lawmaker; he is not manipulated or necessitated into his actions, nor is he dependent on created men or women and their organizations to manifest his Kingdom purposes. Utterly distinct and transcendent, God has acted on our behalf, and as St Paul tells us: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph. 1:7-10)

Hegel’s concept of history destroys the possibility of a distinct, transcendent God, replacing it with a lesser god, a god dependent on human will and rationality.

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

To be sure, history moves forward, but we can go confidently, knowing that God is not a shifting, insecure Idea, working out his own selfknowledge through the historical process. Rather, he is the God who created the world and reveals himself to us according to his purpose, and he holds history itself; we would do well to remember the testimony of Job: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2).

IN THIS ISSUE In the previous issue, Joe Boot demonstrated not only the value, but the necessity of biblical law in contemporary culture. Here he reviews Tim Keller’s Generous Justice, discussing the perils associated with abandoning a biblical understanding of law and gospel. Also appearing is the conclusion of Jeffery Ventrella’s critical analysis of Church and Culture. Ventrella continues to engage questions on the relationship of the church to the world, explaining the importance of declaring and living a complete gospel message. With reference to Augustine’s repudiation of Manicheism, David Robinson explains the Christian hermeneutic for understanding and applying biblical law to contemporary life. Jennifer Forbes examines secular man’s hope to achieve salvation by legislation and the consequences of abandoning biblical principles of civil, church, family and self-government.

“A key emphasis of Jubilee and the EICC is that of God’s claim to and authority over every aspect of our lives”

1

Walter Kauffman, Hegel: A Reinterpretation, (New York: Anchor Books, 1966), 37.

2 Charles Taylor, Hegel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 394 3 G.W.F. Hegel, quoted in Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 96.

4 Taylor, Hegel, 387.

5 Hegel, quoted in Taylor, 1975.

6 Hegel, “The Positivity of the Christian Religion,” in Early Theological Writings, translated by T.M. Knox and Richard Kroner, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971).

7 Hegel, “The Positivity of the Christian Religion,” 76.

8 Hegel, “The Positivity of the Christian Religion,” 70.

WINTER 2012

PAGE NO.

6

DR. DAVID ROBINSON DR. DAVID ROBINSON is a fellow of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity, and an associate pastor at Westminster Chapel.

David has a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of St. Michael’s College (at the University of Toronto), where he studied the history and theology of Early Christianity. His doctoral dissertation translated and analyzed an early Christian commentary on the book of Revelation.

He has presented papers at various academic conferences and has published articles in Studia Patristica, Worship, Humanitas, and Revista Vida y Espiritualidad. David also teaches courses in historical theology and church history at Tyndale University College.

David lives in Toronto with his wife, Megan, and two children, Samuel and Leah.

Treasures, New and Old: AUGUSTINE ON LAW AND GOSPEL

WHEN AUGUSTINE BECAME BISHOP of Hippo in North Africa, he turned to the letters of Paul with a renewed intensity. He had studied Paul’s letters with the same intensity a decade earlier, during the period of his conversion to Christianity. A lot had changed in ten years.

He studied Paul in the mid-380s while negotiating Platonism and Christianity. The Platonists satisfied his intellectual curiosity, but they also inflated his ego: “I was puffed up with knowledge. Where was the charity which builds on the foundation of humility which is Jesus Christ?” (conf. VII.20.26).1 His motivation for studying Paul’s letters at that time was personal. When he returned to Paul’s letters in the mid-390s, he was not only a Christian, but a bishop. His motivation for studying Paul was now pastoral.

One of the pressing issues of the day was the reception and application of the Old Testament in the Church’s doctrine and life. How should Christians relate to the Law? This question was particularly relevant given the influence of Manicheism, a pseudo-Christian religion which viewed the Old Testament as an expression of Jewish superstition, inspired by an evil god. The Manichees were critical of Christians for preserving and teaching the Old Testament as divinely inspired Scripture, yet ignoring much of what it taught in practice. Manicheism was a growing religion and it appealed to Christians. In fact, Augustine himself followed its teaching for almost ten years. The Manichean threat doubtless influenced his decision to write commentaries on Paul’s letters to the Romans and the Galatians, which address the relationship between Law and Gospel.2 The following article considers Augustine’s response to the Manichean critique of the Christian reception, interpretation, and application of the Old Testament. His view on Law and Gospel is most clearly expressed in two works: (1) his commentary on Galatians and (2) his long response to the Manichean Faustus.3 In both these

WINTER 2012

works, Augustine makes a distinction between sacramental laws, which are prophetic and no longer binding, and moral laws, which regulate life. Augustine identifies the believer as someone no longer living under the law, but under grace.

This does not mean, however, that the moral law is abolished or redundant. On the contrary, those living under grace long to fulfill the righteousness of the law and are empowered to do so by the grace of the Spirit.

SACRAMENTS AND MORALS The apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians in response to Judaizers, who indiscriminately imposed the Law on Christians. A few centuries later, Augustine had to respond to Manicheans, who indiscriminately disposed of the Law altogether. Both Paul’s Galatian opponents and Augustine’s Manichean opponents were critical of Christians for treating the Old Testament law like a smorgasbord. Either Christians should submit to the whole Law or do away with it altogether. While both the first-century Judaizers and the late fourth-century Manicheans held polar opposite views concerning the Law, they arrived at these views by way of the same hermeneutical error. Both failed to distinguish between sacramental and moral laws. Augustine explains the difference, one must first realize there are two divisions in the law. Some come under sacraments (in sacramentis) and some come under morals (in moribus). Under sacraments are: circumcision of the flesh, the temporal sabbath, new moons, sacrifices, and all countless observances of this kind. Under morals are: ‘you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not bear false witness’ and the like. Now surely it is impossible that the Apostle does not care whether a Christian is a murderer and an adulterer or chaste and innocent, in the same way that he does not care whether a man is circumcised or uncircumcised in the flesh. (ex. Gal. 19.2-4)4

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Treasures, New and Old: Augustine on Law and Gospel 7

Likewise, in his response to Faustus, he writes, the Manicheans are completely ignorant of the difference between commandments that regulate life and commandments that signify life. For example, ‘you shall not covet’ is a commandment that regulates life; ‘circumcise every male on the eighth day’ is a commandment that signifies life. (c. Faust. 6.2)5

The Christian reception and application of the law is not as haphazard as the Galatians and the Manicheans suppose; rather, it is guided by a consistent hermeneutic, which distinguishes between sacramental commandments that signify life and moral commandments that regulate life.

Sacramental commandments are prophetic. They foreshadow or signify something about the salvation and life that is revealed in the advent of Christ. Augustine cites 1 Corinthians 10:6 and 11 as biblical warrant for this sacramental designation of certain Old Testament commandments. While recounting the Exodus, Paul writes, “now these things took place as examples for us ... upon whom the end of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:6, 11 ESV).6 The reason Augustine appeals to these verses is not immediately obvious in our English translations, which almost universally translate the Greek word typos as “example.”

This is a perfectly acceptable translation of typos, and, in one sense, Paul is rehearsing the history of the Exodus in order to exhort the Corinthians.

Nevertheless, the word typos and 1 Corinthians 10 as a whole invite us to move beyond superficial exhortation.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul writes that Israel was baptized into Moses, ate spiritual food, and drank spiritual drink from the rock that travelled with them – and that rock was Christ! Typos carries a deeper connotation than “example,” and so does the Latin word figura, which is the word used for typos in the Latin text of 1 Corinthians cited by Augustine. According to his reading, Paul was saying that these things took place as “types” and “figures” for us, upon whom the ends of the ages has come. From a Christian vantage point, reading the Old Testament at the end of the age, what is written needs to be interpreted

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

typologically or figuratively. The Christian reader of the Old Testament needs to discern whether what is recorded in the Old Testament has typological or figurative significance; that is, whether it signifies a future or spiritual reality: Christ and the church.7 For example, as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:4: “all drank the same spiritual drink.

For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” The rock in the wilderness (see Exodus 17:1-8) was a type or figure of Christ, who gives the Spirit.

In the same way, certain Old Testament commandments functioned as types or figures. For example, circumcision on the eighth day prefigured Christ’s resurrection on the eighth day.8 Circumcision signified the cutting away of the mortality we inherited from Adam and the hope of eternal life. Christ’s resurrection from the dead brought about the reality of eternal life, of which circumcision was merely a sign.9 Augustine maintains that the commandment to circumcise needed to be observed prior to the advent of Christ, because its observance was prophetic and signified eternal life in Christ. After the advent of Christ, however, its observance is no longer prophetic or significant.10 Thus, he concludes concerning sacramental laws, such as circumcision, “now that the things which they signified have come and been revealed, we are no longer commanded to do those things, but we read about them in order to understand them” (c. Faust. 18.4).11

“The Christian reader of the Old Testament needs to discern whether what is recorded in the Old Testament has typological or figurative significance; that is, whether it signifies a future or spiritual reality”

The reason Paul was so incensed with the Galatians was not that they wanted to be circumcised, but that they placed the hope of salvation in circumcision.12 They mistook the sign for the reality to which the sign pointed. Augustine maintains that Christians do not treat the Law as a smorgasbord, picking and choosing whichever observances suit their fancy. Certain Old Testament laws functioned as types or figures which pointed to Christ. Now that Christ has come, their observance is redundant. What was once commanded to be observed now serves as a testimony to Christ.13 Augustine writes concerning sacramental laws: “all these are explained to Christians so they may simply understand their significance without being forced to carry them out” (ex. Gal.

WINTER 2012

8 Treasures, New and Old: Augustine on Law and Gospel

19.6).14 Even so, Christians still observe the moral laws of the Old Testament, which regulate life; however, they do so under God’s grace.

OBSERVING THE LAW UNDER GRACE

“The law reveals sin and humbles proud sinners, so that they might seek the grace and righteousness found in Christ”

In order to understand Augustine’s application of the moral law to the Christian life, we must consider his account of the four stages (gradus) of human life: (1) prior to the law (ante legem); (2) under the law prior to grace (sub lege ante gratiam); (3) under grace (sub gratia); and (4) in eternal peace (in pace aeterna).15 This short article does not permit an exposition and analysis of these four stages. Suffice it to say that Christians live in the third stage and await the fourth. In order to understand Augustine’s view on the relationship of Law and Gospel, we need to consider his explanation of the second and third stages.

Those living under the law are carnal people, whose observance of the law is motivated by self-interest and temporal comforts. Such people obey the law out of fear, in order to avoid the punishment for transgression.16 They have no desire for righteousness, no spiritual love, no grace; however, the law itself points them to the grace of Christ and prepares them to receive it: The law was ordained for a proud people so that they might be humbled by their transgression (since they could not receive the grace of love unless they were humbled, and without this grace they could not fulfill the precepts of the law at all), so that they might seek grace and not assume they could be saved by their own merits (which is pride), and so that they might be righteous not by their own power and strength, but by the hand of the mediator who justifies the impious. (ex. Gal. 24.14)17

The law reveals sin and humbles proud sinners, so that they might seek the grace and righteousness found in Christ.

Those who live in the third stage, under grace, are no longer under law; however, this does not mean the moral law has been abolished or set aside. On the contrary, those who live under grace long to fulfill the righteousness of the law.

Augustine follows the apostle Paul, who writes in Romans 13.8: “the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” First, he notes, “if loving one’s WINTER 2012

neighbour fulfills the law and the love of one’s neighbour is especially urged in the Old Testament also, then it is clear that the Scripture given to the earlier people is also the law of Christ, which he came to fulfill by love when it was not being fulfilled by fear” (ex. Gal. 58.2).18 Second, he maintains that the fulfillment of the law “is possible only through spiritual love (caritate spirituali), which the Lord taught by his example and gave by his grace” (ex. Gal. 46.6).19 The believer’s observance of the law is made possible by spiritual love and “Christ bestowed this love – the love that alone can fulfill the righteousness of the law – publicly through the Holy Spirit whom he had promised” (c. Faust. 19.27).20 Christ, the lawgiver, not only demonstrated the fulfillment of the law by his perfect obedience, he also enables the believer to fulfill the law by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who removes the fear of the law’s condemnation and fills the believer with a love for righteousness. Thus, the moral commandments “are fulfilled not through the oldness of the law, which gives commands and increases the sin of the proud because of the guilt of transgression, but through the newness of the Spirit, who gives help and liberates the confession of the humble by the grace of salvation” (c. Faust.

19.30).21 God’s moral law reveals how we ought to live and, by the grace and liberty of the Spirit, believers are able carry it out.

CONCLUSION: GRACE AND TRUTH The prologue to John’s Gospel concludes with the announcement that “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17 ESV). For Augustine, this verse announces the fulfillment of the law in Jesus Christ: For the law was given through Moses, but it was made grace and truth through Jesus Christ.

When the law is fulfilled, it is made grace and truth. Grace pertains to the fullness of love, truth to the fulfillment of the prophecies. And because both come through Christ, he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill them, not so that what had been lacking might be added to the law, but so that what had been written in it might be carried out. (c. Faust. 17.6)22

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Treasures, New and Old: Augustine on Law and Gospel 9

For Augustine, the Gospel announcement that grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ corresponds to his distinction between the sacramental and moral laws of the Old Testament.23 The grace of Jesus Christ enables believers to carry out the moral commandments. The truth of Jesus Christ reveals the prophetic significance of the sacramental commandments. Thus, in Christ, both the sacramental and moral aspects of the law are fulfilled.

Faustus asked Augustine why he still accepted the Old Testament when he had the New Testament: “what is old does not fit with what is new, as Scripture testifies, ‘no one sews a new patch on an old garment; otherwise greater damage will result’ (ex. Matt 9:16)” (c. Faust. 8.1).24 Augustine replied, “we are not sewing a new patch on an old garment, but we are being educated in the kingdom of heaven like that head of the family whom the Lord mentions, who brings forth from his storeroom things both new and old” (c. Faust.

8.2).25 He elaborates later in the same work, “in order to understand the two Testaments, the Lord gave this comparison: ‘Every scribe learned in the kingdom of God is like the head of a household, who brings forth from his storeroom new and old things’ (ex. Matt 13.52)” (c. Faust. 15.2).26 The Christian pastor and scholar is like a steward who enters the storeroom of Scripture and supplies the household of God with treasures, new and old.

ans in North Africa.

Plumer, 185.

5 WCA I/20, 93 (translation slightly modified).

6 c. Faust. 4.2; 6.2,9; 8.2; 10.2,3; 12.37; 13.10; 16.10; 18.6; 19.7; 22.24; 32.9.

7 Cf. c. Faust. 12.2; 18.7.

8 Augustine follows an early Christian tradition of referring to Easter Sunday as the eighth day of the week, which expresses the eschatological significance of Jesus’ resurrection. His resurrection inaugurates the new creation and so stretches the calendar.

9 c. Faust. 5.2-3; 10.2; 16.29; 19.8.

10 c. Faust. 19.11.

11 WCA I/20, 233.

12 ex. Gal. 33.1; 34.5; 41.4-5, 7.

13 c. Faust. 6.9; 8.2; 10.2.

14 Plumer, 153.

15 ex. Gal. 46.4-9; ex. prop. Rm. 13-18.

16 ex. Gal. 21.5; 42.7; 43.2; 46.4-5; 58.2-3.

17 Plumer, 167.

18 Plumer, 227.

19 Plumer, 211.

20 WCA I/20, 257; cf. c. Faust. 17.6; Rom 5.5.

21 WCA I/20, 260 (translation slightly modified).

22 WCA I/20, 231.

23 c. Faust. 19.18, 31.

24 WCA I/20, 108.

25 WCA I/20, 108; cf. c. Faust. 4.2, 15.2.

26 WCA I/20, 185; cf. c. Faust. 4.2.

4

“The grace of Jesus Christ enables believers to carry out the moral commandments.

The truth of Jesus Christ reveals the prophetic significance of the sacramental commandments”

1

aint Augustine: Confessions, trans. Henry ChadS wick, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 130.

2 While he only wrote partial expositions of Romans, he published a complete commentary on Galatians (Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians, ed. and trans. Eric Plumer, Oxford Early Christian Studies [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003]; Augustine on Romans, trans. Paula Fredriksen Landes, SBL Texts and Translations 23 [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982]).

3 Answer to Faustus, a Manichean (Contra Faustum Manichaeum), vol. I/20 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, ed.

Boniface Ramsay, trans. Roland Teske (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2007) (English translations cited hereafter as WSA I/20). Faustus was his former teacher and one of the most influential ManicheEzra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

WINTER 2012

PAGE NO.

10

Neither Generous nor Just?

A CRITIQUE OF TIM KELLER’S GENEROUS JUSTICE

REV. JOE BOOT

REV. JOE BOOT is the founder of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity and the Senior Pastor at Westminster Chapel at High Park, Toronto. Before this, he served with Ravi Zacharias for seven years as an apologist in the U.K. and Canada, working for five years as Canadian director of RZIM. A theology graduate of Birmingham Christian College, England, Joe earned his M.A. in Missiology with the University of Manchester.

His apologetic works have been published in Europe and in North America and include Searching for Truth, and Why I Still Believe. His forthcoming book, titled The Mission of God, is scheduled to be published in 2013. Joe lives in Toronto with his wife Jenny and their three children Naomi, Hannah and Isaac.

This article is excerpted from Joe Boot’s forthcoming book, The Mission of God, to be published

by Joshua Press.

IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE that the dominant understanding of “justice” among many Western liberal Christian leaders is that of state-enforced redistribution. This coercion is typically cast in terms of loving our neighbours, defending the cause of the poor, or some other misappropriated Scripture reference. What is surprising––and disappointing––is to turn to ostensibly conservative, reformed churchmen and find the understanding of justice amongst some of them to be equally muddled. Timothy Keller, for example, in his confused and confusing work, Generous Justice (the title alone being a contradiction of Deuteronomy 16:18-20), ties himself in knots trying to relate biblical justice to a vision of ‘social justice’ he somehow feels obligated to defend. Keller is a capable evangelist and evangelical pastor, and it is discouraging to think that he seems to have become over-anxious to please the current culture. His book is a good example of what happens when well-meaning evangelicals fail to clearly define justice and righteousness in terms of obedience to the law of God and instead import cultural fads into their interpretative exercise: they end up with a hybrid abstraction that, in the name of being biblical, reads humanistic views of justice into Christianity.

Keller starts badly by using a contemporary story, rather than Scripture, to set up his discussion and to define justice: Although both Heather and Mark were living comfortable, safe lives, they became concerned about the most vulnerable, poor, and marginalized members of our society, and they made long-term personal sacrifices in order to serve their interests, needs and cause. That is, according to the Bible, what it means to “do justice.”1

WINTER 2012

This is pure question-begging. No specific biblical testimony supports the idea that this is the meaning of justice. Again he writes, To do justice means to live in a way that generates a strong community where human beings can flourish. Specifically however, to “do justice” means to go to places where the fabric of shalom has broken down, where the weaker members of societies are falling through the fabric, and to repair it. This happens when we concentrate on and meet the needs of the poor.2

Certainly God’s law, amongst many other important things, requires us to help the poor as an aspect of a righteous life, but how is Keller’s definition of justice supported by mishpat – the rule of God’s law?

Keller makes several critical mistakes that need to be addressed in some detail, as they are now common errors in the Christian community.

First, he does not explicitly make justice and righteousness virtues that are clearly defined by God’s law, and consequently, ‘doing justice’ is not consistently viewed as being concerned with obedience to the law of God. Secondly, a failure to presuppose the validity of biblical truth and a misunderstanding of common grace lead him into concepts of shared ideals, learning experiences, and cooperation with non-Christian visions of justice that are totally unbiblical. This leads to the dangerous result that the ‘fruit’ of the gospel is interpreted as congruent only with his particular vision of social justice, which inadvertently pushes the door ajar to a redefinition of the gospel.

To the first point, although paying lip service to the law of God as having “some abiding validity that believers must carefully seek to reflect in their own lives and practices,”3 Keller does not appear to take the statement seriously enough to apply it, because he himself is not sure how or what Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Neither Generous nor Just? A Critique of Tim Keller’s Generous Justice 11

to apply. According to Keller, Christians are no longer under God’s theocratic rule and since the church is not the state (which, contrary to Keller, actually was not the case even in Israel), there is ‘massive change’ in the application of God’s standards; although exactly what these massive changes are he does not tell us.4 He adequately describes the fulfilment in Christ of ceremonial or restorative shadows in the law that pointed to the cross or our separation to holiness, but then with rather contorted logic he writes, “Do we still have reason to believe that the civil laws of Moses, though not binding, still have some abiding validity? Yes.”5 But this is confusing. If they are not binding [required], how can they have abiding validity? The law is here reduced to useful advice or helpful pointers that have ‘some’ value.

Keller admits that the law of God is grounded in God’s moral character and so, “we should be wary of simply saying, ‘these things don’t apply anymore,’’’6 and we must find some way of expressing these ideas in our present practice. Yet at the same time, according to Keller, nations are no longer bound to the law of God and the worship of the God of Scripture.7 After these muddled caveats he goes on to cite some illustrations of biblical law involving care for the poor (short-term debt, laws of release, charity etc.) and rightly notes that Scripture reveals that obedience to God’s law would virtually eliminate a permanent underclass.8 However, there are glaring weaknesses and omissions in this part of his argument, including: his total failure to deal with the details and significance of tithing in the law of God for social welfare; his denial that gleaning laws were a form of charity; and his serious misuse of the law of Jubilee as allegedly “relativizing private property.”9 Keller’s neglect of a proper treatment of the tithe in particular is very surprising, because the tithe is required by God in his law (Num. 18:28; 2 Chr. 31: 5-6; Mal. 3:10). Furthermore, it is a matter of justice, because tithing is giving God his due. Not to tithe is explicitly described as theft from God and is thus a form of injustice (Mal. 3: 8-12; Mk. 12:14-17; Matt. 23:23). By failing to give God his due, people are also robbed of blessing because the use of the tithe includes education and meeting the needs of the poor (Deut.

14:28-29; 26:12; 33:8-10). As Ray R. Sutton has Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

pointed out with respect to Keller’s neglect of the law, “those who appear to be so much in favour of helping the poor abandon the most obvious Scriptural advice when they reject the application of the entire Bible.”10 The end result of Keller’s pages on the law of God is decidedly odd to say the least. The argument might be accurately summarised like this: a. We are not under a theocracy so Biblical law does not bind us. b. God’s law reflects God’s character, so it must have abiding validity [does bind us?]. c. Some of it is still valid somehow (no criteria offered). d. When applied, God’s law actually worked (in Israel). e. However, we are not in covenant with God in our nations today so we can’t apply what worked for the nation of Israel. f. All is not lost however. The goal of some Biblical laws was to eliminate permanent, systemic poverty. Taking the ends but not the means of Biblical law, we can still pursue that goal today.

What happens then is that the “great care”11 taken to apply God’s law that has “some abiding validity” becomes an exercise in abstraction.

Justice is abstracted from biblical law as though means and ends are not intimately related and appointed by God, and so abstracted ideas or principles can then be re-imagined and applied in place of biblical law. It is certainly true that detailed exegesis is needed in interpreting the law of God––there have been changes in administration since the Promised Land of the Israelites, but not changes in substance. To use Biblical law as a resource for ideas that sound useable and pliable for a chosen end, rather than as the binding Word of God, is simply unfaithfulness. Biblical law and justice are no more separable as means to end, than the preaching of the gospel is separable as means to the end of the salvation of sinners.

Keller’s approach to the law is like the strategy of Formalist and Hypocrisy, two characters in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, who attempt to take a shortcut and climb over the wall onto the path to Zion rather than going God’s ordained way through the gate. When asked by Christian why they did not enter by the gate, they use human custom or tradition as their excuse; yet the gate was God’s only appointed means of entry to the

“if they are not binding [required], how can they have abiding validity?

The law is here reduced to useful advice or helpful pointers that have ‘some’ value”

WINTER 2012

12

Neither Generous nor Just? A Critique of Tim Keller’s Generous Justice

blessings of Zion. Keller appears to be looking for a shortcut over the wall onto the path that leads to justice, a compromise with the world’s customs or visions of justice in this regard, without the necessity of entering via the gate to justice in God’s law.

“God’s law lays out for us the way of love or charity (Rom. 13:10), the way of righteousness (Ps. 119), and the way of mercy and justice (Matt.

23:23)”

God’s law lays out for us the way of love or charity (Rom. 13:10), the way of righteousness (Ps. 119), and the way of mercy and justice (Matt.

23:23). We must go to the whole of God’s law in both testaments to understand all of these requirements. The righteous man or woman lives a life that is the opposite of lawlessness. He will obey the Ten Commandments, he will tithe (including the poor tithe), he will seek the welfare of the fatherless and widow, he will pursue justice in the courts, and he will do much besides––this is what the righteous or just man or woman will do. But Keller, because of a neglect of the whole law of God, tends to collapse all of these virtues into a sharp focus on the idea of a redistributive transfer of wealth and simply call that ‘justice.’12 He suggests that “the Bible does not say precisely how that redistribution should be carried out”13 and he deliberately refuses to rule out the liberal policy of state-sanctioned coercion, suggesting one can find support for this in the Bible.14 Although he notes family breakdown in passing, as well as some other social ills, he offers no serious treatment of many pressing issues of righteousness and justice today. He has space to speak of the civil rights movement and race relations as they relate to poverty,15 but there is no discussion of abortion, or sexual slavery and pornography (except in passing as evidence of ‘structures’ of inequality), or crime and violence, or the prison system or capital punishment on their own terms.

Keller’s sole emphasis is economic relations and poverty, which implies ––whether he wants it to or not––that most social problems are essentially by-products of economic inequality. In one of his most strained statements, Keller even suggests that at the centre of the Mosaic legislation was the “principle of equality.”16 Considering this statement in the light of the biblical text, there can be no response but to state that this is sheer nonsense.

Thus, despite recognising that true righteousness is broader than poverty relief, Keller none-

WINTER 2012

theless spends the bulk of his book discussing redistributive ideas of justice––redirecting resources from the haves to the have-nots. Why? Because justice is, according to Keller, “one of the main things [God] does in the world. He identifies with the powerless, he takes up their cause.”17 But is that the meaning of God’s justice, or is it in fact the borrowed language of cultural Marxism and liberation theology? This is not only an inaccurate definition of justice, it is a dangerous one.

What specifically is the ‘cause’ of these nameless powerless or poor? And is the designation ‘powerless’ anything more than an abstraction used to promote class warfare?

Because poorer people are often without the social status or influence that money can offer, they can be more readily deprived of justice in the courts and political realm (they can’t offer bribes or hire top lawyers) and so the Bible frequently refers to poorer people (not some abstract proletariat) as those at greatest risk of oppression, especially the orphan and widow, since their weakness (by virtue of being without a provider and protector in the figure of a father and husband) might be taken advantage of. Any injustice perpetrated against people because of their disadvantaged state is abhorrent to God; we are to give special attention to ensure the rule of law (mishpat) for all such vulnerable ones and oppose all injustice; we are to show mercy and compassion and open our hearts to them according to God’s law. But this surely does not mean God takes up every ‘cause’ of marginalised (powerless) groups, or those on low incomes; surely powerlessness or poverty does not make a cause just or righteous by definition.

In Scripture, there is no inherent righteousness in poverty or powerlessness or the cause of those in such a condition. Keller is playing with fire with his definition of justice, because the cultural Marxism of our age says there is ‘righteousness’ inherent in the cause of the ‘powerless’ or ‘poor’ that justifies revolutionary action. For them, justice is equalisation, described as ‘fairness.’ Hence, the only qualification for special treatment in our society is proving that you are a part of a victim group: women, the poor or low income earners, aboriginals, blacks, gays, transvestites, Muslims, atheists, prostitutes, members of former EuroEzra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Neither Generous nor Just? A Critique of Tim Keller’s Generous Justice 13

pean colonies, and so on. Acquiring the status of a ‘victim’ can provide disproportionate influence and power as new ‘histories of oppression’ are told and retold. These alleged histories become ideas charged with power, being put to political use to create guilt. This creation of collective guilt laid upon ‘society’ makes the causes or objectives of all such groups a matter of ‘justice’ and ‘liberation’. God’s defence of a particular cause is not qualified by the economic status of the defendant, but by the nature of the cause, which leads to the question of which causes are or are not legitimate. Keller simply fails to grapple with this seriously.

Consider the example of theft. If I am poor and plan to steal from those who have more than me, whether by burglary or by the long arm of the state, will God take up my cause? Scripture teaches that God takes up the cause of the righteous, whether they are rich or poor, president or ploughman (Prov. 3:33; 10:24-25; 11:8; Ps. 9:7-8; 18:20; 34:15-16; 37:25-33, 37-40). He certainly pleads the cause of the poor when their poverty means they are deprived of their due (justice), but God does not plead a man’s cause simply because he is without wealth or power.

Such an idea is ridiculous because the poor are perfectly capable of oppressing the poor: “a poor man who oppresses the poor is a beating rain that leaves no food” (Prov. 28:3). If a poor man oppresses a poor man, whose side does God take? Is he left with an insoluble ethical dilemma because unjust structures led the poor to steal from the poor? Surely not; God takes up the cause of the righteous. If a poor man’s lack of wealth deprives him of access to justice in his case, God takes up his cause according to the Bible. But the judge can show no partiality in hearing the case of the poor or powerless. The concern of God’s word is with impartial justice and with righteousness.

Nowhere does God permit partiality in men’s dealings with men based on their economic status; such an attitude is a perversion of justice.

This is precisely why Keller’s anti-biblical vision of unconditional and coerced charity is mythological and dangerous. As Sutton points out: If we support those who have become poor through their own immoral behaviour, then we are subsidizing evil. God does not call us to support evil. Satan does, however; such charity Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

expands his kingdom at the expense of God’s. We should resist his temptation. There can never be unconditional charity in a world of scarcity. To give charity to one person is to deny it to another.

There can be no neutrality. The myth of neutrality undergirds the reality of the modern welfare state: compulsory wealth-redistribution.18 The second problem that emerges in Generous Justice is Keller’s weak vision of Christian apologetics and the attendant misunderstanding of common grace that leads him to conclude that non-Christians share much in common with believers in matters of justice, so much so that Christians can learn from non-believers regarding how to be just. He rightly recognizes that faith commitments and assumptions lie behind all visions of justice, but suggests, “... our ideas of justice are rooted in views of life that are nonprovable faith assumptions.”19 This denial of an effective proof for Christianity implicitly weakens Christians’ confidence that they are in possession, by grace, of God’s authoritative revelation with regard to the truth about justice. Rather than reducing Christianity to an appealing or most ‘probable’ choice amongst various views of life, the Christian claim must be that without the God of the Bible and his infallible word, there is no possibility of ever knowing what justice is for anyone. Indeed without this God, there is no proof of anything. Thus Christianity is established by the impossibility of the contrary––this is known as a transcendental argument.

“God’s defence of a particular cause is not qualified by the economic status of the defendant, but by the nature of the cause,”

If we are left wrestling with various concepts of justice without a clear proof for the validity of one or the other, then the best that Christians can hope for is a seat at the relativistic table of our culture. The popular discursive language of having ‘a seat at the table’ sounds humble at first blush, but we must not forget that Christ doesn’t ask for a seat at the table––he owns the table! Without this conviction of Christ’s absolute Lordship, compromise of God’s word is cast as humility and a watered-down vision of justice becomes good enough. Keller writes, “Believers have many of the criteria for a righteous and just life laid out in the Bible. How easy it would be to disdain all non-Christian accounts of justice as being useless ... Christians’ own theology should lead them to appreciate the competing views of justice ... because they know from the Bible that WINTER 2012

14 Neither Generous nor Just? A Critique of Tim Keller’s Generous Justice

“Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways” (Prov. 28:6)

WINTER 2012

they are all partly right.”20 Keller then outlines secular schools of thought that emphasize rights, virtue or the common good and says that according to the Bible all of these are crucial aspects of justice. But in all this Keller apparently does not grasp the significance of the problem of criterion.

He says believers have many (but not all?) of the needed criteria for righteousness and justice in the Bible. In expressing it this way, he appears to be judging Scripture based on a wider, unnamed criterion, so that Scripture is contributing to a bigger picture of justice; but it does not authoritatively define and establish a binding vision that cannot be enriched by other insights.

When justice is truly concerned with God’s righteous law in all Scripture, poverty is not the defining issue Keller makes it; neither is poverty seen as the worst thing to befall a person, “Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways” (Prov.

28:6). What matters most is integrity before God and a righteous life. On the other hand, if Keller’s definition of justice is correct, how can the poor themselves live righteously and ‘do justice,’ since they have no wealth to distribute?

If justice is primarily about economic redistribution, how can the poor be just beyond engaging in political agitation for themselves? The Bible tells us it is by the gospel that we are made rich in God, whatever our social or economic status (2 Cor. 8:9). In fact, the apostle Paul spoke of his own physical and economic poverty in the service of the gospel, as “making many rich,” for though Christians face economic hardship, as having nothing, we yet possess everything (2 Cor. 6:10).

For St Paul covetousness is a snare (1 Tim. 6:9), but, “there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world” (1 Tim. 6:7). In addition, the biblical answer to man’s powerlessness is not social liberation and transfers of wealth; a man may be wealthy and exceedingly influential, yet impotent in life (just look at our celebrity culture). The end result of all rebellion against God is frustration and powerlessness. There is only one true source of power, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). Rich or poor, we can be, “clothed with power from on high”

(Luke 24:49), because, “God gave us a Spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim. 1:7). When Christians preach Christ as the deliverer and the Holy Spirit as our source of life and power, when we live out these realities in our lives, it will be clearly seen that, “the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining” (1 Jn. 2:8).

1

imothy Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s T Grace Makes Us Just (New York: Dutton, 2010), 2.

2 Keller, Generous Justice, 177.

3 Keller, Generous Justice, 24.

4 Keller, Generous Justice, 21-22.

5 Keller, Generous Justice, 22.

6 Keller, Generous Justice, 22.

7 Keller, Generous Justice, 23.

8 Keller, Generous Justice, 26-28.

9 Keller, Generous Justice, 27-28.

10 Ray R. Sutton, ‘Whose Conditions for Charity?’ Gary North (ed.) Theonomy: An Informed Response (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), 239.

11 Keller, Generous Justice, 29.

12 This implies that anyone who doesn’t pursue a vision for wealth redistribution and sacrificial living by subsisting on minimum requirements in order to give more money to the poor is both unjust and uninterested in justice.

13 Keller, Generous Justice, 32.

14 Keller, Generous Justice, 32.

15 Keller, Generous Justice, 85-88.

16 Keller, Generous Justice, 57.

17 Keller, Generous Justice, 6.

18 Ray Sutton, ‘Whose Conditions for Charity,’ Gary North (ed.) Theonomy: An Informed Response (Tyler: Institution for Christian Economics, 1991), 254.

19 Keller, Generous Justice, 155.

20 Keller, Generous Justice, 158.

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Church and Culture Part 2:

Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation?

Editor’s note: the following text is the remainder of Jeffery Ventrella’s critique of a draft statement produced by a major American evangelical organization, regarding the interaction between church and culture. The first half of this statement and Jeffery’s responses can be found in the Fall 2012 issue of Jubilee. Part one addresses the undue priority this organization places on personal evangelism in the mission of the church, while the present section addresses more specifically the scriptural principles to be applied in engaging with social and political spheres of culture.

THE BACKGROUND AND THE OCCASION As one will notice, the “Church and Culture” document, though well-intended, manifests many analytic and theological deficits and defects. This organization had explicitly invited me to be candid and critical—iron sharpening iron and all that. I was. I completed the project as asked.

My hope is that by graciously engaging with the proposed answer, many will be edified, all to the glory of God’s only Son, Jesus the Lord, who saves us from something for something.Quotations from the document are italicized, and my comments appear in regular type ENGAGING THE CULTURE We affirm that the church must actively engage the world. We acknowledge that the church has a responsibility to care about the government, to pursue justice, to cultivate a biblical worldview, to promote and protect the dignity of being made in the image of God, and to apply the gospel to critical issues in today’s world.1 • Clarity is needed regarding the distinction between the institute church and local individual believers, as well as what constitutes the gospel, and in particular, what it means to “apply the gospel” to the culture.

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

We deny that apathy or disengagement is an acceptable stance for the church to take in the world. The church cannot remain silent, indifferent, or inactive where God has clearly spoken in his word. We further deny any distinctions between sacred and secular spheres that stifle cultural engagement among those in the church.

• Assumption: the use of the term “secular” is being used in its current modern, not in the traditional medieval triadic [sacred, profane, and secular], meaning.

• This language could be taken to imply that God’s Word has NOT spoken to certain areas, which is mistaken in one sense since God’s Word addresses all of life. Now, the Word does not tell us, for example, which heart medication to use for a person with diabetes, but it does contain all that is necessary for life and godliness—this is a subtle but important point affecting one’s perception of Lordship and the doctrine of scripture.

• And, while Scripture is God’s special revelation, God also speaks via the created order (Ps. 19) and in His incarnate Son. Truth is not confined to explicit biblical citations. Example: Paul in court before Festus spoke “true and rational words” (Acts 26:25). Thus, there could be “issues in the modern world” that can and ought to be addressed properly reasoning from the created order predicated on the natural law written on the heart (Rom. 2:14, 15).

PAGE NO.

15 JEFFERY J. VENTRELLA

JEFFERY J. VENTRELLA oversees the design and implementation of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship and ADF Legal Academy programs. He currently serves as a Research Fellow and on an ad hoc graduate thesis committee for the Department of Philosophy and Constitutional Law for the University of the Free State, South Africa. His book, The Cathedral Builder: Pursuing Cultural Beauty (2007) is part of ADF’s Blackstone Core Curriculum Project, which he also edits. Mr. Ventrella is married, and with his wife, Heather, enjoys the challenge of rearing four very active boys and one beautiful daughter: Jefferson (21), Chandler (19), Kirklan (17), Jackson (15), and McKenzie (6).

DOING GOOD TO EVERYONE We affirm that the church is explicitly charged with the responsibility to love those outside the church and do good to everyone.

While this love is expressed most significantly through evangelism, it also includes engaging our culture with concern for issues of justice, promoting the good of society, and caring for the poor and underprivileged. In a democratic society, seeking the good of society can WINTER 2012

16 Church and Culture Part 2: Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation

also include the performance of our civic duties, even while we maintain the centrality of the gospel in the life of the church.

• Defining “the good” is important for this section—there should also be some interaction with the moral law since Jesus defines “love” in terms of the “law” (Jn. 14:15; He also defines “law” in terms of “love,” Matt. 22:34-40). See also: “sin is lawlessness” (1 Jn. 3:4) and note Paul explicitly referencing summaries of the Decalogue in discussing the public/explicit role of the law (1 Tim. 1:8-11).

“the function of the institute church must include equipping the saints to live a Christian life, including life in the public square”

• This latter passage is critical since it shows that no conflict exists between law and gospel, as some Lutheran formulations assert: compare verses 8 and 11—the law, which is known—i.e., beyond debate or dispute—to be good if used lawfully, is to be applied in the public square against evildoers and “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrinein accordance with the glorious gospel . . . “ • This is basic run-of-the-mill Reformed ethics, but indicates that the function of the institute church must include equipping the saints to live a Christian life, including life in the public square—all of which is consistent with, and in accordance with, the gospel. Plainly, “gospel” is much more than “Jesus died for my sins,” though it surely includes “the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

• Given these data, it is difficult to justify the assertion that “love” is most significantly expressed via evangelism. In fact, love is most significantly expressed to those “outside” in legal terms: the second great commandment: loving neighbor as one’s self. The context of Jesus’ teaching coupled with the OT reference from Leviticus He quotes is far broader than “evangelism.” Love for the outsider means treating them lawfully, that is, in accord with justice, which Paul says is “in accordance with the glorious gospel.” (1 Tim. 1:11).

We deny that the church’s responsibility to do good to all people can be reduced to doing good to believers only (although the household of faith is first and foremost where we do good), nor can it be reduced only to evangelizing the lost (although evangelism is the

WINTER 2012

greatest good we do in the world).

• This is quite true, except for the second parenthetical. Support is needed for this dubious proposition: “evangelism is the greatest good we do in the world”; this cannot be literally true, nor is it textually or theologically true. űű The greatest commandment is to love God with all of our minds—not evangelizing; therefore, the greatest immorality is failing to love God in this way—not failing to evangelize. It would seem that the greatest good would be to discharge this greatest of duties.

Further, Micah 6:8 defines “good” differently from evangelism as well. űű Another example: man’s chief end—glorifying God and enjoying Him (WSC Q1)2— again, is not evangelizing.

• None of this should be taken to mean that evangelism is unimportant or can be ignored, but it is overstatement to assert that evangelism is the “greatest good” that Christians do in the world. By the same token, “proclaiming the gospel” means more than telling people that “Jesus saves,” though He surely does. Again, the Gospel is the coming of the Redeeming King in all its dimensions.

• One implication of this imprecision would be to cause believers to question the legitimate call (vocation) the Lord has upon their life. An individual’s greatest good could be discovering the cure for cancer, or leading an army to liberate an oppressed people. While personal salvation ought to be sought and desired for all persons, the reality is that individual Christians only play a role in this good, and often not an ultimate role—there are frequently many intermediate steps when a lost sinner is regenerated, but each “secondary cause” is significant. This is an implication of Paul’s teaching regarding the division of labor: some plant, some water, and some harvest.

Each aspect has preconditions that can constitute equally valid “goods” according to individual callings and providence—good works prepared beforehand. To impose a “hierarchy” on such goods is to travel beyond the biblical witness.

• Moreover, “evangelism” also occurs within the family, not only outside the covenant communiEzra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Church and Culture Part 2: Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation 17

ty. Thus, in one case, the “good” occurs entirely outside the world, rather than in the world. Yet this good—the salvation of sinners––is equally valid to the salvation of other sinners “from the outside world.” Also, see again the discussion regarding “the good” and the correlative use of the moral law of God.

matter of prudence, rather than precept.

OUR CONCERN FOR THE POOR

THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE CHURCH

We affirm that all Christians are called to have a concern for the material and temporal needs of the poor, orphans, and widows, and that this genuine concern is to be expressed through compassionate action. As a community of disciples called to merciful action toward the poor, it is therefore natural and appropriate for God’s people to be mobilized––as a component of Christian discipleship within in the context of church ministry––toward the alleviation of physical suffering. Such care for the poor always carries a hope and intention that our service will open the door for gospel opportunities.

We affirm that individual Christians can and should, to differing degrees, be active in various forms of stewarding the environment, defending our country, reforming societal structures, engaging the culture through art and music, and developing economic, political, and social theories.

We deny that efforts toward the alleviation of temporal suffering displace our ultimate concern for the eternal state of the poor. Conversely, we deny that the overriding significance of eternal salvation diminishes our motivation to care for the temporal needs of the poor. Rather, we long to see all facets of God’s mercy expressed toward the people He has called us to love and minister to.

• Does Scripture really mandate that “mercy ministry” be accomplished exclusively in the “context of church ministry?” Put differently, should every mercy ministry be done in the context of church ministry: űű Crisis Pregnancy Centers űű Legal Clinics űű Soup Kitchens űű AIDS assistance űű Mission work to Muslims and other “closed” populations • Clarity is needed as to what is meant by “church” in this context and whether the mechanism for the delivery of mercy ministry is really a

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

• Concern for the “poor and oppressed” can be expressed effectively in areas other than traditional mercy ministries: defending marriage against ungodly divorcement, fornication, co-habitation, same-sex “marriage,” etc. is a structural mechanism that insulates against poverty.

We deny that the church as an institution bears primary responsibility for these things.

Members of the church must respect the distinct call of the church as an institution and not insist or assume the church should do more to address the particular cause they have been called to as individual believers. It is vital to maintain a distinction between the responsibilities of the church as the church and the responsibilities and calling of individual Christians.

“evangelism also occurs within the family, not only outside the covenant community.

Thus, in one case, the “good” occurs entirely outside the world, rather than in the world.”

• This principle, while basically accurate formally, needs substantive articulation to be effective. If scripture addresses environmental stewardship, citizenship, societal structures, the arts, economics, politics, etc. then the institute church ought to address such matters in keeping with its directive to proclaim the “whole counsel of God,” which includes, but is not limited to, evangelism.

Put differently, one cannot fulfill the first and greatest commandment of loving God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, if our minds are empty. We cannot take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), if we are not supplied an understanding of Christian thinking in every area. After all, in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, (Col. 2:3), not simply evangelistic knowledge. Therefore, to equip the saints to have the mind of Christ means that the elders will provide instruction and example concerning knowledge beyond evangelism or

WINTER 2012

18 Church and Culture Part 2: Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation

the “gospel” narrowly construed, knowledge that could be applied in differing degrees by individuals depending on their specific callings.

• Put tersely: the fact that the institutional church does not do these things does not mean that the church should not equip its members to do them.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PASTORS

“one cannot fulfill the first and greatest commandment of loving God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, if our minds are empty.”

We affirm that there are no universal Christian duties, including acts of mercy and caring for the poor, in which elders are not responsible to provide a degree of leadership through delegation, example, instruction, and guidance. We affirm that the leaders of the church are responsible to provide biblical wisdom and guidance to equip the church in their responsibilities to the government.

We deny that the immediate concern of pastors in their official role in the church should be to rally the church to pass legislation or mobilize the congregation to transform social structures. In complex social, political, and ethical issues on which there is no clear word from God, and in issues unrelated to the main concerns of the church, pastors in their official capacity are wise to remain silent.

Elders should refrain from using their office to support candidates, endorse parties, or advance policies. The calling of pastors to devote themselves to the ministry of the word and prayer, the administration of the sacraments, and the discipleship of the flock toward godliness and faithful witness must not be overshadowed by usurping the responsibilities of the government through political and social concerns.

• This statement is overbroad: what if a “court or king” declares that evangelism directed to homosexuals is “hate speech?” If this occurs—and it has—then it should be of “immediate concern” to the pastors to address it prophetically.

• The same is true regarding the creational ordinance known as marriage: in fact, God directs His people to focus on marriage when living in exile in Babylon (Jer. 29)—we know from Paul’s musing rhapsody in Ephesians that marriage, as being one man and one woman, is somehow a

WINTER 2012

declaration of Christ and the Church. To some degree, promoting the legal union of marriage communicates the glorious redemptive metaphor of Christ as Bridegroom, the redeemer of His Bride, the Church—this too should be an immediate concern.

• The ministry of the Word must not be truncated, as would be the case if this assertion is applied consistently. As Calvin noted (paraphrased), pastors must not speak more than the scriptures, nor must they speak less than the scriptures. The form of the limitation as articulated in the draft statement is fine, but the “hard work” is what the “ministry of the word” entails; that is the issue at hand. The Great Commission commands us to teach obedience (“discipling”) to ALL THINGS Christ taught. He taught about much more than personal evangelism.

• Taken literally, this section risks creating a “canon within a canon” by subordinating some things which scripture does not. This is exactly what theological liberals do, rather than proclaiming the whole counsel of God. • Moreover, there is a prayer and devotional component here as well: Jesus taught us to pray, “deliver us from evil” as well as, “thy will be done on earth . . .” Can we faithfully pray and anticipate God’s answer to these petitions if the elders’ only focus is on personal salvation or “evangelism?”

God’s will is far more than “saving individual souls.” In fact, He saves us by grace through faith to walk in good works, “which God prepared beforehand” (Eph. 2:10). Those good works necessarily include works of civic righteousness: mercy, justice, etc. And, God’s Word trains the saints in righteousness so that they may be competent and equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), which includes civic righteousness and matters beyond “the local church” or evangelism. A contrary interpretation would mean that by definition no good work exists beyond the local church or evangelistic efforts. Such ecclesio-centricity cannot be biblically justified and is flatly confuted by Romans 13. Surely the church, in expositing God’s Word, should address such topics since the Word addresses such topics.

• By way of analogy, one can affirm that the husband is head of his wife, but that principle Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Church and Culture Part 2: Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation 19

stated barely, without more, fails to communicate the substance of what that structure necessitates, i.e, what it means to lead, to be a husband, etc.

• The notion that elders should avoid “endorsing candidates or policies” is problematic practically and theologically3: űű John the Baptizer confronted Herod because of his deviation from God’s design for marriage—this stands as a negative endorsement of this political official. űű If the whole counsel of God is proclaimed, which is the elders’ charge, then the pulpit will unavoidably address “policies” to the extent that such policies express moral/ ethical matters: abortion, stem cells, marriage, “hate speech,” adoption, gambling, “affirmative action,” etc. űű As Jesus taught, there can be no neutrality—no man can serve two masters; one will either be FOR Christ, or AGAINST Him, and this reality will express itself on occasion as the Word is faithfully preached; endorsement—negative or positive—as to policies is unavoidable if the preaching is to be faithful. űű The foregoing truth also impacts a leader’s devotion to prayer: When elders faithfully (obediently) pray for civil leaders (1 Tim. 2), how do they pray? The content of such commanded prayer necessarily impacts how one biblically views the candidate and his or her policies, or support for policies. Example: during the Clinton adultery scandal, should the elders not pray that he repent, that his marriage be preserved, that his indiscretion calls into question his ability to lead under scriptural standards, etc? In uplifting President Obama should the elders not seek the Lord to grant the gift of repentance vis a vis Mr. Obama’s stated agenda to sign ENDA4, FOCA5 and otherwise enact godless policies he has endorsed? Faithful prayer will necessarily implicate the “endorsement” of candidates and policies. űű Peter commands us to “honor the emperor” (1 Pt. 2:17). We certainly do this in our daily lives of submission, but should not a pastor instruct on this? And if so, should not the pastor provide ethical parameters regardEzra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

ing what does, and does not, constitute biblical submission and “honoring?” Moreover, is not the very act of honoring and submitting itself a form of endorsement—such honoring “endorses” that Christians are not lawless anarchists and that the civil magistrate enjoys legitimate authority at the very least?

• In sum, a blanket “code of silence” regarding candidates and policies is inconsistent, unworkable, and ultimately unfaithful.

TRANSFORMING SOCIETY We affirm that the most effective way to transform society is by preaching the gospel, guarding the gospel, and applying the gospel to our lives. We affirm that the message of the gospel, as the power of God for salvation, is far more powerful than legislation.

• This is true only if “the gospel” means something other than individual conversion, which actually is the case: the coming of the redeeming King. Accordingly, the Great Commission given by this King explicitly contemplates the training (“discipling”) of cultural structures, (nations— ethnoi), not simply individual humans, (anthropoi).

• It is true that “changed people change cultures,” but the question is how does this occur and what role, if any, does the institute church play. The answer is that by proclaiming the whole counsel of God to the gathered church, including Scripture’s (individual and structural/corporate) ethical mandates, these individuals grow into maturity by learning to discern “good from evil” (Heb. 5:12-14). The idea here contemplates something beyond “getting saved” and this too is the work of the institute church. How are the saved to learn to discern good from evil?

“God’s will is far more than “saving individual souls.” In fact, He saves us by grace through faith to walk in good works, “which God prepared beforehand”

űű Example: faithfully expositing Romans 13 explains to the redeemed and regenerated individuals that the civil magistrate not only has power, but has authority, that is, his power is legitimate; and, that authority is good because it comes from God. Moreover, it comes from God with a telos: to be a servant of justice. Thus, the preaching, to be faithful to the passage, must exposit what is justice, how is it determined, etc. One cannot textually biWINTER 2012

20 Church and Culture Part 2: Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation

furcate “evangelism” from faithful citizenship.

“Moreover, the fact of persecution itself will be culturally transformational just as it was during the centuries leading to the Constantine Compromise of the Edict of Milan”

We deny that faithful churches will always “transform the culture.” Even when the church is faithful to Christ it will often be ridiculed by the world and persecuted by authorities. Societal transformation is no measure of the success of a church.

• Faithful churches transform people by God’s grace; because people form part of a society’s various cultures, a faithful church will in fact “transform the culture.” This is the point and premise of Jeremiah 29—seeking the good of the pagan city via marriage, economics, and prayer.

• Moreover, the fact of persecution itself will be culturally transformational just as it was during the centuries leading to the Constantine Compromise of the Edict of Milan (313). The world notices when one suffers as a Christian (1 Pt. 3:16, 17).

• Another area of inquiry ought to be addressed: how should Christians interact with culture(s)6: űű Condemn? űű Critique? űű Copy? űű Consume? űű Create?

All responses could be appropriate, but if the whole counsel of God is being proclaimed, there ought to be some intentionality in equipping Christians to be self-conscious in such matters.

FREEDOM AND DISCERNMENT We affirm that in many cases, a local church eldership has the freedom to choose whether or not it will be involved in a particular social cause, or meet a particular need in the culture. There is an important distinction between possible actions and essential actions for the church. The leading of the Holy Spirit, the practice of spiritual discernment, and a determination to guard the centrality of the gospel must govern these decisions.

• This is fine so long as the atmosphere of the “whole counsel of God” is kept in mind.

We deny the establishment of arbitrary rules

WINTER 2012

that restrict the involvement of the church in culture and violate the principle of Christian freedom.

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SETTING We affirm that the relationship between the church and culture can vary significantly depending on the historical and cultural milieu of the church. The nature of cultural engagement and the relationship between the church and state is complex, and the differences between various cultures and governments must be carefully considered.

We deny simplistic, one-size-fits-all approaches to understanding the relationship between church and culture. We deny that a persecuted church or a church in a highly autocratic society should approach cultural engagement in the same manner as a church in a democratic society, or a theocratic nationstate.

• Amen: this is the principle of being men of Issachar7.

OUR ULTIMATE HOPE We affirm that when Christ comes again, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess the lordship of Jesus Christ. All kingdoms and rulers and governments without exception will one day bow before the eternal King Jesus. We affirm that the Christian hope rests entirely on the return of Christ.

We deny the triumphalism that places its hope in patriotism, politics, revolution, social action, or anything other than the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

• Amen—[or the dispensational rapture!]

Thank you again for inviting my input. I believe that my motive seeks God’s glory; I hope that I have not in any way obscured my message by anything in my manner.

At the end of the day, this crucial question is really not about Church and Culture; rather, it is about Christ, and then following Him wherever He leads, even if that “feels” uncomfortable. The reality is that this question is one of worldviews,

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Church and Culture Part 2: Isolation, Accommodation, or Transformation 21

which in my view generates significant implications for the Christian life, a life to be lived under Jesus in His fullness as Prophet, Priest, and King: “[T]he faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth” (Rev. 1:5).

Grace, Jeffery J. Ventrella EPILOGUE The ministry in question has found trying times since this interaction occurred. Yet, the fact remains that no person, nor can any church, be neutral toward the culture. As John Frame aptly remarks: Clearly it is wrong to say that God authorizes or approves the development of culture antagonistic to him, or even culture that claims neutrality.

There is no neutrality…Everything we do is either for the glory of God or it is not (1 Cor. 10:31). It either comes from the wisdom of God or the wisdom of the world, and these are antagonistic to one another. Unbelieving culture exists, and it exists by God’s decree and permission, but not by his precept. He does not approve it.8

1

hroughout this article, the text of the “Church T and Culture” document is presented in italics using a different font.

2 Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1 3 To the extent this prohibition stems from a perceived prudential concern regarding the IRS and tax exemption, it is well intended, but remains legally deficient. Discussing this point presently, however, is beyond the ambit of this response.

4 Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would create, inter alia, legal “protection” for “sexual orientation.”

5 Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate virtually all restrictions concerning abortion.

6 Andy Crouch, Culture Making—Rediscovering Our Creative Calling (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2008), 68-70.

7 See 1 Chronicles 12:32 8 John M. Frame, The Escondido Theology (Lakeland, FL: Whitefield Media, 2011), 135

Jesus doesn’t want a place at the table; Jesus owns the table. And, therefore the church must not be a bomb shelter; instead it must be an ammo depot, equipping Christians to graciously engage the culture with the weapons of redemption applied to all areas of life. For that is the very end of redemption, as Paul teaches: [Jesus] . . . gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. (Titus 2:14 ESV)

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

WINTER 2012

PAGE NO.

22 JENNIFER FORBES

JENNIFER FORBES serves as both the Director of Safe Families Canada and the Director of Development for the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity.

Originally from London, Ontario, she is now based out of Toronto.

Jennifer holds a BA in International Development from York University.

LAW AND GOSPEL or LAW AS GOSPEL Psalm 119:174, “I long for your salvation, O Lord, and your law is my delight.”

My undergraduate studies took place at Toronto’s York University where I was enrolled in the International Development Studies program.

Many students were drawn to the program with the desire to study issues surrounding poverty in developing countries. The hope was that, with this degree in hand, one could work through various governmental and non-governmental organizations to find solutions to the myriad of social, economic and political issues facing the global south. When it came time to think about what to do after graduation, professors and advisors often repeated the same thing to students: “Don’t go into development work. Go get a law degree – that’s the way to effect change.” Why a law degree? Why did these academics see legislation and law as central to bringing about massive systemic and societal change?

If the advice of my former professors does not alarm you, it should. For behind this advice is an underlying philosophy which sees man-made legislation as the way to salvation. For many non-biblical thinkers, their law is gospel.

LAW AND GOSPEL For the Christian, law is both judgment - “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Romans 12:2) - and delight - “The law of your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces” (Psalm 119:72). But the law is never salvation: “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). The law reveals our sin and by it we are judged. The

WINTER 2012

“good news” (gospel) is manifest when we declare that Jesus Christ willingly bore the punishment of a guilty verdict in our stead. After dying our death, Jesus conquered death, was raised to life and is now seated at the right hand of God. He is the reigning King who, by his justification, enables us to be citizens of his Kingdom. His law, the same law by which we are judged, becomes our joy once we have been justified because we now hunger and thirst for the righteousness of our beloved King. To live according to His law is love: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). His law tells us everything we need to know to walk in godliness, sets out the terms of abundant life and lays out the parameters for a just society in a sin-filled world.

LAW AS GOSPEL Without the biblical understanding of law and grace, and the God who gives both, what are we left with? The secular thought of our time, in declaring that God does not exist or is irrelevant, has made human beings the source of all law (an idea that is not new in history). Governments are formed that make laws and change laws according to the currents of the culture. Rather than acknowledging our transcendent law-giver to whom we will be held accountable, what was wrong yesterday could be allowed tomorrow and what was permissible in the last decade could be a heinous injustice in the next. The thinking which eclipsed God also denies the problem of sin. Instead, all social problems are attributed to various environmental factors or systemic power relations, of which we are all supposedly victims.

The dominant secular humanistic thinking, combined with postmodern analytical methods and the rise of Marxist political theory, moves Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Law and Gospel or Law as Gospel 23

us toward pragmatic measures of social control through legal manipulation and programming by the civil government. It is thought that if we could just control or change our environment and the structures around us we could have a better world. Legislation becomes the way to bring about systemic change for it forces people to abide by the progressive moral order. The law becomes the “gospel” because we look to it for salvation and transformation - to bring about whichever ideal or end we seek (e.g. universal healthcare, the end of poverty through the redistribution of wealth, special ‘rights’ for people of all ‘sexual orientations’ or ‘genders,’ etc.).

Without the biblical understanding of the selfgovernment of individual believers by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the separate structures of accountability and governance in the family, the school, and the church, the non-biblical theorist today thinks in terms of only one form of government: the civil government (also known as the ‘state’). Without an understanding of God’s providential plan in history, and his power at work to bring about his purposes now, we are left to trust in the will and power of human beings, a will executed through the laws of the civil government. A former neighbour of mine demonstrated this quite well. He works for the government of Canada in environmental protection and believes particular measures need to be taken by all Canadians in order to stop global warming.

In frustration, he vented how most people were not concerned enough nor doing enough to ‘save’ the planet. Then he militantly went on to boast of how as a policy writer he can force Canadians to do what he sees as best and to comply with his standards, since his ‘saving’ policies are being enforced through legislation.

Though in the West we have increasingly moved towards more civil government control at the local, provincial, and national levels (with an expectation of state provision), most people are not under the illusion that politics is perfect. National governments and their politicking have not proved faultless. Though some critics (including Christians) see their untrustworthiness evidencing a need to limit the power of civil government and reduce its size and reach (premising the immoral natural state of every individual), others Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

have become advocates of universal jurisdiction, desiring instead to place politicians under the supervision of an international judiciary.1 Unlike politicians elected by the people, this judiciary, with an incredible arbitrariness in its procedure and decision-making standards, would lack accountability. Rather than civil governments acknowledging that they are under the authority of God (as was the case in the founding of both Canada and United States), they would be accountable to an international court which functions as ‘god’ – judge of all, accountable to none – the tyrant court.

Advocates of universal jurisdiction argue that because of the ineptitude of state governments, politics must be replaced by law, a universal law – full stop. It is believed that this replacement would bring about peace and justice for all, even though there is no historical evidence to support this theory. Many of the ideological supporters of universal jurisdiction are the minds behind the Rome Statute which instituted the International Criminal Court, which operates today. Canada played a key role in the development of this court and was the first country in the world to adopt comprehensive legislation implementing the Rome Statute.2 We as a nation are therefore at the forefront of embracing law as gospel.

GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom. 8:7).

Though this article has criticized the pharisaic state with its ‘saving’ laws, this does not mean that Christians should be anti-law. Rather the purpose is to examine if we are Hegelian3 in practice – placing too much hope for provision (providence) in civil governments and progressive law instead of taking responsibility for other spheres of governance (i.e., the family, school, vocation, charity) which are laid out in Scripture. Far from being anti-law we should be defenders of God’s righteous law: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Rom. 3:31). Christians need to thoroughly examine God’s law and all its gracious provision for the restraint of evil and the blessing of communities; and we must seek our salvation

“The law becomes the “gospel” because we look to it for salvation and transformation - to bring about whichever ideal or end we seek”

WINTER 2012

24 Law and Gospel or Law as Gospel

“The sad irony that I have witnessed in my generation is that we rejected the legalism we saw in the church (rules established from arbitrary human standards rather than biblical standards), only to then embrace legalism in the state.”

in the gospel of Jesus Christ alone. For if we will not live by the Ten Commandments in our personal, familial, vocational, and community lives, then we will live by the ten thousand pharisaic commandments of overarching civil governments and the various ideologies behind them. A lawless church and lawless Christians do not reform and preserve a society (Matt. 5:13) but are party to its decay. God declares through Ezekiel 7:26, “Disaster comes upon disaster; rumor follows rumor.

They seek a vision from the prophet, while the law perishes from the priest and counsel from the elders.” The sad irony that I have witnessed in my generation is that we rejected the legalism we saw in the church (rules established from arbitrary human standards rather than biblical standards), only to then embrace legalism in the state.

A flourishing society begins with regenerate men and women who live in obedience to Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are justified through faith in Jesus, and sanctified as the Holy Spirit works in the life of each believer to conquer sin, teaching and enabling him to govern himself according to God’s laws, bearing fruit in what he does. The law still stands and becomes the standard by which a believer makes choices in relation to the people and world around him. It becomes our joy, as the Psalmist cries out, “I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart” (Ps. 40:8). As new creations in Christ, regenerate men and women – the priesthood of believers (1 Pt. 2:5,9) – are to bring the gospel of the kingdom and rivers of living water (John 7:3) to their families, communities and societies, no matter what society they live in – religious, pagan, pluralist, and so on.

In 1 Timothy 1:8,9, St. Paul tells us, “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers….” God’s law is the moral order he desires for the nations. Its purpose is both to teach us the right way to live and to restrain evil.

WINTER 2012

CONCLUSION It is not within the scope of this article to get into the specifics of the interpretation and application of God’s law; our aim is to challenge believers to evaluate whether or not we are thinking biblically about our interaction with society and the world. Are we caught up in the humanistic thinking of our day which places much hope in growing statist idealism, or are we submitting all areas of life, including our vocations and actions in the public square, to the standards of Scripture? God’s law or man’s? God’s definitions of justice and mercy, salvation and regeneration, or our own? We must be sure to take St Paul’s words seriously and, See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him (Col. 2:8-15 ESV).

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

Law and Gospel or Law as Gospel 25

1

Roth, K. (2001). “The Case for Universal Jurisdiction.” Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. 2 Canada and the Court: Canada at the Rome Conference,” Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, last modified September 18, 2012, http://www.international.gc.ca/court-cour/ icc-canada-cpi.aspx?lang=eng&view=d 3 In Hegelian philosophy, the individual mind is only partly free, but obtains full realization by subjecting itself to incorporation into the State.

The State is the social embodiment of the Idea and stands for God himself. Hegel taught that the constitution, furnished by the State, embodies the collective Spirit of the nation. Therefore any “value” is through the State alone.

Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

WINTER 2012