The Misguided Messianic Character of Conservative Christian Politics

Many conservative Christians believe they have a divine mandate to restore the United States of America to its Christian roots by force of law.  I believe these efforts are misguided and unbiblical.  

The Constitution is not a Christian document in spite of what we believe the religious commitments of its authors to have been.   A simple return to strict interpretations and applications of the Constitution as the Founders intended should never be equated with Christian righteousness.  More than this, it should not be made a standard by which one judges the “Christianness” of a politician or policy. Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse either our constitution or democracy as the standard by which to define a God-glorifying, "Christian" nation.   Waving an American flag or being a patriot is not tantamount to being a Christian.  If it were then the larger majority of Christians around the world and throughout history have lacked the Christian wholeness that being a U.S. citizen apparently provides. Even more, to say that Christians must “pledge allegiance” to conservative politics is to violate the Christian Faith in ways that border on idolatry.

At best, the Founders allowed for democratic rule by the majority, circumscribed by certain generic inalienable rights, regardless of the religious commitments of that majority. What this means is that the prevailing perspectives of the people, whether Christian or not, are constitutionally authorized to become the prevailing policy of the nation.  Thus the Constitution itself may very well inhibit the rechristianization that many political Christians are fighting for.  The Constitution endorses the platitude, “As the people go, so goes the nation.”

Besides the dubiousness of the mission to restore this nation to its "Christian" roots and constitution, the legislation of Christian morality is not an effective tool for accomplishing national repentance. In fact, it is a waste of political time, energy, and influence. Even if Christians could prevail in policy by democratic means, government is still incapable of preventing sin by force of law, because sinfulness is first and foremost a condition of the heart.  Since no law has ever existed that could change the heart (a fundamental tenet that many Christians appear to be ignorant of), the prohibition of sinful behaviors will neither fully prevent them nor alter the sinful heart-condition that spawned them.  On the contrary, according to Scripture such prohibitions will frequently exacerbate sin.  Therefore, governmental efforts to effect behavioral change for merely moralistic reasons are futile.

National repentance can only be accomplished by preaching and teaching God’s law as part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Preaching and teaching the Gospel is exclusively the domain of the Church.    Government can and should maintain the right of Christians to preach and teach.  If it does not, Christians should preach and teach anyway, for we should obey God rather than men.  But government itself is neither responsible for, nor capable of, effecting the goal of preaching and teaching.  These separate spheres of responsibility for both Church and State comprise the biblical doctrine of what is secularly called “the Separation of Church and State.”   According to this doctrine, the exclusive authority of the Church to preach and teach the Word of God is an inalienable right bestowed by the Creator. 

What then is government’s separate responsibility with regard to the law of God? It is primarily to protect innocent people from the harmful effects of others’ sins.   By “harm” I do not mean simply the offence of someone’s sensibilities, but actual harm (material or immaterial) to another human being’s person, rights, dignity, or property.   Since government cannot change hearts, it can only protect the innocent from the actions of evil doers.  Government cannot change a thief’s heart, but it can and should prevent a thief from taking someone else’s property. Government cannot change a murderer’s heart, but it can and should prevent the taking of someone else’s life (note that abortion falls here).   These protections from sinful acts fit with the biblical description of government as “God’s servant to bring wrath upon the wrong doer” and the biblical mandate to enforce justice on behalf of constituents.

Although government is powerless to prevent sin and change sinfulness, it stands to reason that it has no right to authorize, endorse, command or empower sin.  It may not be responsible to apply the law of God beyond what is necessary to protect people, but it has no right to fight against the law of God.  By way of analogy, I may not be responsible as a private citizen to punish criminals, but that does not mean that I have the right to aid them in their criminal endeavors.  Similarly, the doctrine of “separate spheres of responsibility” does not mean that government itself is authorized to violate or endorse the violation of the law of God. For example, it is possible that a certain immoral behavior might not have any harmful effect upon anyone other than the willing participants.  Government will overstep its bounds to legislate against this behavior, but at the same time it cannot and should not authorize, endorse, empower, or command this immoral behavior.  Government might not be authorized to legislate against homosexuality or premarital sex, for instance, but it has no right to endorse it.

Therefore, the two most pertinent initial questions for evaluating whether Christians should support moral legislation are these:  1) Is this law necessary to protect the innocent from others’ sins?  2)  Will this law authorize, endorse, command or empower violations of God’s law?   The question of whether or not a law will restore a nation to its Christian roots or bring about a revival of Christian moralism is irrelevant.  There will never be a law that can do such a thing.   Christians who use political activism to accomplish these things are wasting their time with useless efforts that God neither endorses nor commands.   They may even be unwittingly working against God’s created order and his Gospel.

[I recognize the theoretical nature of this essay but hope that it spurs some thoughts. There are huge holes in the theory.  For instance, how does cruelty to animals and conservation of the environment fit into this paradigm?  Granting the need for further consideration, I do believe the basic framework has validity, usefulness, and biblical support.]

A Christian Philosophy of Education

A Christian philosophy of education can benefit all Christian families, because all Christian families must educate their children. By some means, they must provide their children with information and abilities that will prepare them for life in the world. Christians should ask themselves, “Does God have anything to say that bears upon the subject of education? Does God say anything that should influence my decisions as I educate my children?” The answers to these questions will help us begin the task of developing a Christian philosophy of education.

What is a Philosophy of Education?

A philosophy of education is a set of first principles that forms the ground for all that we do in education. These first principles seek to answer a variety of questions such as “why and within what parameters will we educate?” They provide the impetus that drives teachers, administrators, parents, and students, giving meaning to their roles and responsibilities. These first principles state what educators believe is foundational, what they can infer from those foundations, and what they cannot compromise. They provide direction and keep educators aiming toward certain goals that, when achieved, will allow all involved to say, “We have been successful.”

Biblical Authority

A Christian philosophy of education necessarily starts with the Bible. After all, we are Christians asking the question, “What is a Christian philosophy of education?” We accept the Bible as authoritative because we are Christians. If we want to know what God’s opinion is about something in this world, we go to the Bible by default, and we accept what it says. So the foundational principle in our Christian philosophy of education is that the Bible is authoritative for Christians. This naturally leads to a question that directs the development of our philosophy of education: “Does the Bible have anything to say about education?”

Biblical Worldview

At the least, the Bible teaches us that education should include a biblical worldview. A worldview, in simple terms, is a way of viewing reality. For instance, some people view reality as if God did not exist, and this belief influences how they interpret the world and everything in it. On the other hand, a biblical worldview presupposes the existence of God and the truth of Scripture. It accepts what the Bible says about reality and integrates the Bible’s teaching into every area of life, including work, entertainment, social experiences, family relationships, and education. In education, young and impressionable learners are intentionally indoctrinated and ingrained with information and skills that will affect everything they do for the rest of their lives. Cornelius Van Til defines education as “implication into God’s interpretation,” which is just a fancy, philosophical way of saying that education is teaching students to see the world as God sees it (Johnson, 44). It is, above all else, providing young minds with a biblical worldview--namely, that this is God’s world and we should see it as he sees it.

History is the record of God’s involvement in time. Science is the study of the composition and patterns of the universe, created and held together by God Himself. In the realm of language and literature, the gifts of communication and creative expression are among the most precious bestowed by our Creator. In the field of mathematics, the orderliness and logic of our minds depends in every way upon the absoluteness and orderliness of the Creator. Since this is God’s world, the facts of history are the work of his providence, the facts of science are his creation, and the facts of language are his gift. Van Til said, “There are not because there cannot be other facts than God-interpreted facts” (Warfield, 22). In order for education to possess truth and integrity, it must lead us to interpret academic facts according to God’s point of view. Education must presuppose a biblical worldview.

Cornelius Van Til in his Essays on Christian Education reminds us that non-Christians do not acknowledge this worldview:

“He too may be an artist, a scientist, or anything else that is open to him at his time of life. He does not believe that the creation lies under the curse of God. He does not believe that Christ, the anointed of God, has lifted the curse from off the ground on which he stands. He does not think of himself as made in the image of God. Every fact of the universe with which he deals does, as a matter of fact, belong to God, but he assumes that it belongs to no one. The last thing he will think of is to do all things to the glory of God” (4.)

The first chapter of Romans explains the effects of misinterpreting the testimony of God’s creation. The creation manifests God’s eternal power and divine nature, so that human beings are without excuse. Unfortunately, they did not glorify God or give thanks to him. Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They claimed to be wise but became fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things instead of the Creator. The result was moral reprobation and condemnation. This is a scary thought for Christians who must educate their children in school systems that do not acknowledge a biblical worldview.

Covenant Theology and Parental Responsibility

In addition to biblical authority and worldview, a Christian educational philosophy should consider the role of covenant theology. Covenant theology recognizes that God’s covenant with human beings is an organizing theme of the Scriptures.

Today, through Christ, covenant families are descendants of Abraham, having been engrafted into the covenant. This covenant continues for them today. He has promised to be our God, and the God of our children, and our children’s children unto a thousand generations. However, there are conditions to this covenant, namely the commands to love God and our neighbors. In Exodus 20:5, God ties the commandments and the covenant together, asserting that his covenant blessings upon succeeding generations require obedience to these commandments. Deuteronomy 6:4 explains how these covenant blessings were to be perpetuated.

“These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them upon your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down, and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door frames of your houses and gates.”

In picturesque language, God says that there is no sphere of life that should escape the teaching that the Lord is our God. This teaching should be constant and pervasive. It should be so ingrained in our hearts and minds that we should be obsessed with love for God. Moreover, the covenant responsibility for passing on this godly obsession rests uniquely and necessarily with parents.

All this begs an application: In the course of our children’s education, are we as parents ensuring that they are constantly and pervasively taught to love God and man? Parents are the means God has chosen to perpetuate his gracious covenant unto a thousand generations of those who love him. They are to teach them day and night, when sitting at home, when taking a walk or going for a drive, when putting children to bed and getting them up in the morning. Parents are to keep love for God constantly before their eyes.

Covenant Community

The children of Christian parents belong in God’s covenant by default. They already have access to many of the blessings of God’s covenant, because God is their God. This place in God’s covenant installs children into the covenant community we call the Church. It is, so to speak, the support group for all those who are partakers, through Christ, of the covenant promises. God is our God, our children’s, and our church community’s. We are all in this together.

This principle of covenant community gives vision and mission to church educational programs for youth. Parents who have baptized their children take a vow in the presence of this community to teach them the doctrines of our holy religion and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In many churches, the congregation also vows to assist parents in the Christian nurture of their children. In so doing, the congregation affirms that parents are not alone in their vows before God. Though responsibilities of the covenant may seem overwhelming at times, we have the body of Christ to strengthen us, provide support and guidance, build us up in our faith, remind us of a biblical worldview, and help us keep covenant with God. The church does this by continually reminding parents of their responsibilities, by bringing those who privately, publicly and home school their children together into one body, by providing fellowship and encouragement, and by providing youth programs in which children meet other covenant children, learn of God, and participate in godly activities. The value of belonging to this community is profound.

For some churches, the covenant community also provides a biblical foundation for forays into Christian school education. Louis Berkhof drew that connection:

"Advocates of Christian education have always maintained that the Christian school is an outgrowth of the covenant idea and is absolutely necessary in order to enable the child to appreciate his covenant privileges and to understand the solemn significance of his baptism in the name of the triune God. They are convinced that the Christian school, as well as infant baptism, finds its main support in the doctrine of the covenant" (Johnson, 65)

Historically, many Christian schools started as a reaction to the decline of spirituality and morality in our public schools (among some other far less "noble" reactions). However, such a reaction falls short of the biblical ideal. Churches should not start Christian schools because they do not like public schools, or because, if all else is equal, they believe that children should be in a protected environment. Churches that start Christian schools should do so because they have vowed to help Christian parents fulfill their covenantal and parental responsibility to teach their children a biblical worldview.

Biblical authority provides the foundation for a Christian philosophy of education. A biblical worldview implies the scope of education. Covenant theology suggests that parents are the guardians of a biblical worldview for their children. Since this is God’s world, and education is an inherently religious task, parents are to pass God’s view of the world on to their children. The covenant community is responsible to assist parents with this task. All this gives poignant meaning to passages such as Ephesians 6:2, in which parents are told to bring up their children in the training and instruction of the Lord, and to Ps. 78:1-2:

“O my people hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things, things from of old – what we have heard and known, what our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from our children, we will tell to the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord, his power, and the wonders he has done. He decreed statutes for Jacob and established the law in Israel, which he commanded our forefathers to teach their children, so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they in turn would tell their children then they would put their trust in God and would not forget his deeds but would keep his commandments.”

References

• Johnson, Dennis E., Ed. Foundations of Christian Education: Addresses to Christian Teachers.Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1990.
• Van Til, Cornelius. Essays on Christian Education. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1971.
• Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948.

Truth in a Cup

An Illustration Designed to Awaken Awareness of Epistemological Uncertainty

You and I are sitting at a restaurant table. As a Christian, I am faced with the task of demonstrating to you the truth of my religion. Perhaps you need to be persuaded because you do not believe that we can know which religion is correct. Or perhaps you believe in a different religion. At the least, you certainly reject the idea that Christianity is the only true religion. And even more, you are offended that Christians so audaciously claim that they alone have the truth.

Let’s put Truth in a cup. Pretend that the empty cup on the table beside us contains the essence of reality— unadulterated Truth. Whatever Truth may be is in that cup. Now we seal the cup, so that neither of us can see it, and we begin to guess the answer to the question "What is Truth?" Our task, then, is to guess what is in that cup.

Here is how we will go about it: We will each explain what we believe to be the Truth. We will take those beliefs about Truth and will each place them in our own separate cups. When we finish filling our cups with our beliefs, we will open the Truth Cup to see which, if either, matches the Truth.

So we fill our cups. My beliefs are traditional Christian beliefs, and I place them in my cup. Perhaps your beliefs are somewhat agnostic, but you do believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to be moral and treat others with respect. Or maybe you don’t. Regardless, your beliefs, whatever they may be, go into your cup.

Before opening the Truth cup and making our comparison to see who is correct, there are several important things to note about the nature of what is in our cups:

1. We cannot change what is in the Truth cup. The truth is not influenced by what we believe. We can grunt and moan and believe with all the faith we can muster and not alter religious reality one iota. That indeed is assumed in the very definition of reality. Reality is what is, and is not merely what we think it is or what we want it to be. So what we have placed in our cups cannot in any way change what is in the Truth cup.

2. It is impossible for both of us to be right. How do I know that? Because when I compare what is in my cup with what is in your cup, I see that my cup contains the belief that Christianity is the only true religion and that all others are false religions. Your cup on the other hand contains a belief that says that I am wrong and have no right to be so close-minded. So we see from the start, without even opening the Truth cup, that both of them cannot be correct. They are both mutually exclusive.

3. Both of us could be wrong. Of course, it is possible that neither of our cups matches what is in the Truth cup. In that case, we should both commit to changing what we believe to match the truth when it is revealed to us. Only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup.

4. One of us might be correct, and the other wrong. Once again, only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup. The loser must either ignore the Truth or accept it by bringing his or her beliefs into alignment with the Truth.

It is possible that you do not agree with these four assertions. If that is the case, the we will place your disagreement in your cup, and I will place these beliefs in mine. We will then compare them to the Truth in the cup beside us.

Now at this point, we should both come back to the reality of the situation and acknowledge a very real problem with our method. After all, we are just pretending. We are sitting at a table in a restaurant and are staring into some cups imagining that we have life’s ultimate answers mixed up in our soda. Finding out who is correct is not so simple as taking the lid off the cup on the table beside us. In reality, the only way we can know the Truth is if somehow it is revealed to us. Revelation is essential. Our choice is to either have it revealed, or live our lives with no confidence whatsoever that we possess the Truth.

The next question for both of us is, "To whom or what will we go for this revelation?" That’s a hard question, isn't it? It must be someone or something that demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely knows what is in the Truth cup and is capable of and willing to reveal it. Either that, or we are left to play the Truth Cup game with that person or thing as well and ultimately must move on to a greater source. Or perhaps we are left to just make stuff up and then place our faith in it as if we knew it were true.

To whom or what will you go to for this revelation? Does this source demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely know what is in the Truth cup? Is this source capable of revealing it? Is this source willing to reveal it? Do you know that you can you trust your source? Or are you placing your faith in made-up stuff? You may not believe that I should trust my source. However, on what grounds do you assert the certainty of your knowledge?

Content of a Personal Letter from Gordon H. Clark

While perusing a book that once belonged to a seminary student of Dr. Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985), I found lodged within its pages two folded letters--one from the student to Clark, and Clark's handwritten three page reply on unlined typing paper. Given Clark's prominent influence in twentieth century Reformed theology, I have reproduced the content of the letter here.

10/28/82

Dear [Redacted],

Your questions remain on the same subject, but they or some of them appear confused. Did you read my exegesis of Eph. 3:9-10 in What Do Presbyterians Believe? Because I am not clear as to the precise point that troubles you—and there are many points in the complicated subject—I shall begin with a very prevalent confusion, but one that seems to me very easy to answer. You ask, Does God condemn man before he decrees the fall? The word before here causes trouble, for it introduces an element of time in a non-temporal situation. Several theologians it is true insist that the problem is logical and not temporal, but then they either follow a temporal order, or as often fail to say what they mean by logical order. Once a person grasps the order, i.e. what the word order means, the problem is easily solved. This I have done in WDPB above.

The importance of logic as distinct from time is found also in the doctrine of the Trinity. Even Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote more on the Trinity than any else ever did, either confused them (sometimes) or thought that everybody else confused them and so [returned ?] again and again instead of completing the doctrine as a whole.

You are right when you say “In the supra’s view, to discriminate comes before the decree to permit the fall.” That is, you are correct except for the word permit. Calvin made it quite clear that there is no such this as permission with God. One who tries to use this idea is sure to be confused, for when it is logically followed, the result is Arminianism or worse.

Rejecting temporal distinctions in God one cannot agree with your wording—which may really express your own position—that “God only looks at one thing at a time and then moves on . . .”

I do not quite see the relevance of your next paragraph on creation. The best I can say is that Genesis seems to say there were three acts of creation, with developments in between.

With respect to the last paragraph on p. 1, I would say that Eph. Is not the only passage that helps this discussion along, though it is, I believe, the clearest expression of God’s motive in creating. But there all sorts [sic] of hints and inferences that must be woven into one complete doctrine.

The lump of clay is of course only an illustration. A potter can make something good or something bad out of it. So also God can make a good man or a bad man, though the literal clay illustration fits a man’s body only. The point of the comparison is that the question of justice cannot be raised against a potter by a lump of clay.

The outline of Romans may help you on your p. 2. Rom 1-3 states the main doctrine of justification and continues with Abraham as an illustration in Rom 4, with comparison between Adam/Christ in Rom. 5. Then comes a major break. No longer expounding the doctrine, Paul takes up two objections (1) antinomianism in chapters 6, 7, 8. (2) his doctrine is inconsistent with the OT, answered in chapters 9, 10, 11. Esau was condemned, not because he had voluntarily committed some sin, but because he was guilty of Adam’s original sin. Jacob was saved, not of course because of any good he did, but because God imputed Christ’s righteousness to him.

Finally you refer to II Peter 5:9. Keep in mind (1) that Peter sent his letters to Christians. He is talking to them and about them (2) In this very sentence he says, “God is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any (of us) should perish.” The verse has nothing whatever to do with universalism.

Now I hope this is of some help, and of you have further questions, send me your next chess moves soon.

Cordially,

G.H. Clark

A Unified Theory of Politics: Lord Government Almighty

Quantum physics has led scientists to search for a unified theory of everything, i.e. a scientific theory that adequately explains all the properties of physical phenomena and predicts their experimental interactions. To date, they have been unsuccessful in spite of scientific advancements.

For nearly two decades I have wondered whether there might also be a unified theory that explains the apparent predictability of politics. For example, if someone is known to be a liberal regarding one social issue (e.g. abortion), there is a high likelihood he or she will also be liberal on many others (e.g. homosexual rights or environmentalism). Conservatives can be just as monolithic on the other end of the spectrum. Of course exceptions exist, but they do not entirely mitigate the predictable tendencies within political allegiances. To explain the predictability of politics, particularly of the liberal persuasion, I would like to posit that a Unified Theory includes a Unifying Moral Principle, a Unifying Worldview, and a Unifying Messianic Entity.

A Unifying Moral Principle: The Fairness Doctrine

Within the heart of every human being is an impulse that directs the moral values of the human race. The touchstone of this moral impulse is the Imago Dei. Having been created in God’s image, we have an inherent sense of right and wrong that more or less resembles the dictates of the Law of God (Romans 2:14-15). At the Fall of Adam, this reflection of God’s image was shattered and distorted. Though broken and imperfect, the image nonetheless remains and still reflects a vague impression of the heart of its Maker.

This broken moral impulse most frequently manifests itself in human societies through the concept of justice or fairness. Justice or fairness is the remaining radical moral impulse of fallen humanity. Justice requires a standard of some sort. The standard for fallen humanity is every person’s sense of self, or ego. By means of this standard, we determine what is fair or just, because we have a powerful notion of what we want for ourselves. We assume that if we would want it for ourselves, we should want it for others just as well. For instance, we do not want our lives or property taken from us, so we do not want lives or property taken from others. By this standard, we determine that things like murder and thievery are wrong.

We can assume that this ego-instrument was in some way an aspect of the Imago Dei, built into us by God’s perfect design. In a perfect, unfallen world, this sense of self would have served unerringly to direct people to do what was right. Knowing how real our own needs were, we would have lived with a constant awareness of others’ needs and, loving them perfectly, would have possessed an unerring standard by which to serve others.

We know that this is the case because when Christ redeemed those who believe in him, he brought them back to this radical moral principle. He clearly stated, “Love your neighbor like you love yourself.” Instead of encouraging selfishness, a redeemed self-awareness should keenly alert us to the reality of the countless egos surrounding us. Christ viewed this redeemed self-awareness as so reliable that he even restated the timeless Law of Love for practical application—“Do to others what you would have them to do to you.”

So the idea of justice and fairness is simply humanity’s way of applying the fallen ego-instrument. To those of us who understand the biblical concept of depravity, the ego-instrument almost seems counterintuitive. We know ourselves too well and have observed countless times our own selfishness running roughshod over everyone else on the way to assuaging our own desires. However, there is a sense in which the ego-instrument still works and should be celebrated, distorted though it may be, as a manifestation of God’s image in the entire human race. When we see people fighting from the depths of their hearts for justice and fairness, we can acknowledge that they would not fight so hard or at all were it not for the simple fact that they are God’s creation.

Humanity is fallen and depraved, however. So we can expect that its applications of justice and fairness would be skewed away from God. Humanity takes what was initially implanted by God, and because it was distorted by the Fall, misdirects it away from the perfect guidelines provided in the Law of God and implanted within humanity’s conscience. We should expect the result to be a severely warped notion of justice. Lacking the redemption provided through the Son of God, efforts to apply the ego-instrument would frequently result in misdirection, imperfection, injustice, imbalance, and evil.

We can see evidence of this radical moral impulse gone awry in human society, providing examples of good things somehow gone bad. It might have some semblance of nobility in its most basic form, but its misdirection by depravity provides for wrong applications and methods. Homosexuals march on Washington for equal rights, believing it unfair that they cannot marry like heterosexuals. Women fight desperately for the right to abort fetuses because it is unjust that someone else should have the power to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Politicians redistribute wealth, power, and healthcare because it is unjust for the wealthy to have more money and resources than the poor. Environmentalists and animal rights activists anthropomorphize the created order and claim that animals and mother earth are treated unjustly. Nearly every act of government on behalf of its people, for better or worse, is rooted in this radical moral impulse that is built into the heart of every person. The issues or causes of nearly every charity, political action committee, or community organization have the concept of justice figuratively emblazoned upon a high-flying banner. This impulse for fairness exists even in the hearts of the most godless of people, though detached from its moral foundation.

Although this unifying moral principle beats within the heart of all humanity, it lacks a divine anchor. Nevertheless, it drives people to seek justice with near religious fervor. Somehow, even those whose morality is detached from its foundation realize that morality requires some sort of religious connection. Ecclesiastes teaches that humans were created with an eternal aspect to their being so that they constantly seek for answers to life’s ultimate questions. Some have called this the “God-sized hole” in the heart of every person. Ecclesiastes makes clear that apart from God humankind will not be able to tell the end from the beginning and the search for answers will be futile. Therefore the search continues incessantly, only in all the wrong places. This search provides the unifying moral principle with a frame of reference and a domain of application. I posit that this frame of reference and domain of application flows from a Unifying Worldview.

A Unifying Worldview: The Cult of the Created Thing

A worldview, in simple terms, is a way of viewing reality. For instance, some people view reality as if God did not exist, and this belief influences how they interpret the world and everything in it. On the other hand, Christians are fond of referring to what they call a Biblical worldview—one that presupposes the existence of God and the truth of Scripture. It purports to accept what the Bible says about reality and tries to integrate that into every area of life including work, entertainment, social experiences, family relationships, politics, etc. A worldview provides an ultimate frame of reference or a paradigm that makes sense of the world in which we live. Worldviews can be expressed or unexpressed, formal or informal, known or unknown, Christian or non-Christian. Regardless, commitment to our various worldviews manifests itself predictably in their domains of application. Worldviews are unifying.

According to the Apostle Paul, those who do not look to God for answers to life’s ultimate questions will seek for them within the only other realm they know—the created order. They seek to fill the religious void within them by means of things that have been created. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). This explains why some cultures have been inexorably driven to worship idols made of wood and stone. Other cultures may not claim a specific deity but are still driven to give their most fanatical affections to elements within the created order. Apart from the true worship of the Creator, all religious commitments will inevitably aim at something less than the One True God. I have called these religious commitments the “Cult of the Created Thing.”

When the unifying moral impulse lacks a divine anchor, and when it combines with a lesser religious anchor such as the Cult of the Created Thing, it finds its realm of application restricted to the created order. Similarly, the means (enforcer) of application for the moral impulse cannot be divine, so it must also be restricted to the created order. This inevitably leads humans to seek for a unifying messianic entity that will enforce the unifying moral impulse within the limited domain of the unifying worldview.

A Unifying Messianic Entity: Lord Government Almighty

Apart from the redeeming power of God, mankind’s only effective means for forcing the unifying moral impulse upon other moral agents is entirely earthbound. Throughout history, the supreme moral enforcer in all cultures has been their collective authority organized as government. Apart from God and the Church, human government of some sort has always been the only available and effective enforcer of the radical moral impulse. In a very real sense, government is the religious deity of the Cult of the Created Thing. It is the messiah, the savior to which all must turn to enforce the fairness doctrine.

Once again, Christians should quickly see a good thing gone bad. Scripture teaches that government was ordained by God to be his servant, ordering society by his principles. Still, to a limited extent, government does indeed serve this purpose, preserved by his sovereign power and influenced by the vestigial shattered image that brokenly reflects God’s character. But a government that fails to anchor itself in the divine and limits itself to a Godless reality will display the effects of depravity at every turn. Its applications of the ego-instrument will swerve bizarrely away from the divine standard of God’s Law. It will view itself as messianic, as the only adequate enforcer of a fairness doctrine that is uninformed by God’s love. It will become, in effect, Lord Government Almighty, the only champion of the people.

The Unified Theory of Politics Applied

How then does this paradigm explain the predictability of liberal politics? I will now posit what readers might expect from a conservative Christian—some have progressed farther down a path of depravity than others. Their applications of the fairness doctrine are a grotesque mutation of the Imago Dei. They worship the created thing in forms like unbridled secular humanism and environmentalism. They place their faith and trust in a Godless messiah to enforce justice. With a little thought, it is not difficult to see how each thread of the Unified Theory factors into fanatical obsession with environmentalism, climate change, cap-and-trade, animal rights, homosexual agendas, extreme feminism, abortion rights, welfare, universal health care, government bailouts, and Wall Street salary caps, just to name a few. The notion of degrees of progress down a depraved path might also explain why some lie at each end of the political spectrum and why some fall somewhere in between. Those farther down a path of depravity may have more fully embraced the shattered moral impulse of the ego-instrument, the Godless Cult of the Created Thing, and a messianic view of government.

Are conservatives then unscathed by the depravity’s power? I think not. They may not have traveled the same path of depravity and might have been preserved by God’s common grace to a greater degree, but this a far cry from saying that conservatives represent what is right in the eyes of God. The greed of unrestrained capitalism, the supposed freedom of deregulation, the arrogant and evangelistic rectitude of democracy, the entitlement of inalienable rights, and the legalism of moral legislation are only a few of the conservative ideals that have been polluted by depravity. Conservatives, like liberals, still see government as a sort of champion, particularly with regards to moral issues. We suffer from the delusion that government would be fixed if only we would return to the supposed Christian principles of our Founding Fathers.

Depravity has impacted the entire political spectrum. This means that any government regime, regardless of its political persuasion, cannot be trusted to accurately represent God’s perspectives. At the same time, some people will take the country more quickly into moral decline than others. The solution to all this however, is not a simple democratic victory by the moral majority. They will not be able to legislate God’s Laws in a way that fixes the human condition, and they will not be immune from the deforming effects of depravity upon their own rule. The only power and authority to countermand the effects of depravity rests in the Lord Jesus Christ. There will come a time when government shall be restored to its original created intention. That time will not come until Christ rules within the hearts of all people everywhere.

Some Formative Opinions on Christianity and the Environment

Many environmentalists push Green for Green’s sake. One local non-profit group has created a commercial that presents the following text interspersed with alternating pictures of pristine and damaged mountains: “One million acres ravaged . . . 2000 miles of stream buried . . . 500 mountains destroyed . . . for cheap coal . . . one mountain can still be saved . . . with clean wind energy . . . help build a wind farm and save a mountain.” Perhaps their reasons are more complex than this, but the fact is that many appear to value Green simply for Green’s sake. Save an acre, stream, or mountain because they deserve to be saved for their own sake. Is this a valid reason for Christians to be green? I cannot speak for all, of course, but I can present my own formative thoughts concerning Christianity and environmentalism.

To Continue Reading this Essay Click Here

Why Presbyterians Do Not Believe that Baptism Regenerates Souls or Remits Sins

From time to time I run into Christians who believe that people must be baptized in order to be saved. We call this “baptismal regeneration,” because they believe that the act of baptizing in some way changes the heart. This position is fairly widespread outside of Baptistic and Reformed circles. The Roman Catholic Church believes that when infants are baptized, their original sin is washed away. Among other protestant denominations, the Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, and Lutherans affirm some form of baptismal regeneration.

Occasionally I run into confused people even in Presbyterian churches. They have often come to Presbyterianism from more baptistic denominations in which it is not unusual to view infant baptism with suspicion, and where they may mistakenly come to believe that we teach some type of baptismal regeneration.

To read the rest of this essay click here.

Why Presbyterians Only Baptize Once

This topic comes up in response to questions I have received from church members while studying the Westminster of Confession of Faith together on Wednesday nights. The Confession states, “The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person” (XXVIII:7). The Presbyterian Church in America requires its ordained teaching elders to subscribe to this statement from the Confession. This means that PCA teaching elders cannot rebaptize anyone who has already received a valid baptism during their lifetime. A valid baptism is defined as an ordained minister applying water to someone in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Church has been baptizing infants since its earliest days. Following the Reformation, a group of Christians began teaching that infant baptism was not biblical and that Christians should only be baptized after they made a profession of faith in Christ. These people were called “Anabaptists” (“ana” means “again” in Greek) because they believed in rebaptizing or “baptizing again” those who had already been baptized as infants. Although these Anabaptists are not the same as today’s Baptists, Baptists do believe something similar: that infant baptism is not valid, and that anyone who has been baptized as an infant must be rebaptized after their conversion and before they can join a Baptist church. Today, most people who rebaptize attend baptistic churches. However, some in Presbyterian churches also believe that rebaptism is appropriate or even necessary. Why is this so?

Click here to read the rest of the article.

What Evolutionists Fear Most

Evolution is an intimidating theory. It predominates among scientists all over the world, who marshal swarms of weighty facts and powerful assertions in its support. It has filtered down into common acceptance by laymen through classroom instruction, books, documentaries, TV shows, and casual conversations. It is ubiquitous and unchallenged by all but those who believe in creation.

However, the massive heft of evolutionary theory depends upon one simple presupposition: the God-option must be excluded from the discussion at all costs. For evolution to be true, the God-option must be shoved off the table.

The God-option is excluded by a deceptively simple tactic—limit the discussion to the exclusive realm of science. Science has defined itself as distinct from religion. The God-option is inherently religious, so its proponents do not have a seat at the science table. Intelligent God-option arguments are irrelevant and will never change the course of the discussion, because the God-option does not belong in the discussion. As experts huddle themselves around the table to decide the origin of all things, they come to a haughty consensus by tightening the huddle. No matter how loudly we object, we will be ignored. The God-option is not, under any circumstances, a legitimate option.

If the God-option is excluded, what can the evolutionists conclude? They must propose that life originated through natural processes. They have no choice. They have limited themselves through the arrogance of their own self-definition. They must therefore marshal their arguments as powerfully as their limitations allow. The full weight of their expertise, education, experience, and intellect is thrust behind the only conclusion they can possibly derive.

As long as Christians fail to recognize this simple fact, evolution will continue to be intimidating and will claim the faith of those who give in to its weight. If God created everything, there is no fact of science that is outside the scope of his domain. If He created everything, no aspect of evolutionary theory is truly intimidating. As Van Til said, “there are not because there cannot be other than God-interpreted facts.” God’s creation cannot undermine itself. God has not proved Himself wrong by means of science. Scientists have instead left God out of the picture, limited themselves to their wild imaginations, and must desperately cling to their conclusions as a result. If they do not, they must fearfully face what they do not dare—the God who made them.

Consolation for the Brevity of Life

Like most people, I sometimes sink into a funk, in spite of the blessings I experience. Most of it comes from a keen awareness of my unworthiness of these blessings. The recent passing of friends my own age makes me also keenly aware of my own mortality. Tomorrow is guaranteed for none of us. I find myself tuning in to every vibration of my heart. Every skipped beat or rushed pattern scares me. My fears are mostly for my family and how they must cope if God were to take me. I know the pain of losing others; I do not want them to experience that on my behalf. Also, the job is not done, and I do not want to leave before it is. I have kids to raise and a church to pastor and a wife to love and the gift of life to enjoy.

When these fears arise, I search my life for consolations--things that would make it all right if God were to take me. And I find that every consolation I want to grab onto is ultimately insufficient: My reputation, my life insurance, my accomplishments, my education, the good character of my children, the temporariness of the inevitable grief, even the unfoundedness of my mortal fears is itself an unfounded consolation. I am driven in those moments to the only remaining consolation that has any real meaning: Christ alone is my consolation--the fear cannot be entirely assuaged by anything else. Nothing else is worth meditating upon in those moments. Even if God grants me long life, nothing that comes next can compare to the glory of knowing Christ. I am his child, he will do with me what he will, and I will be with him for eternity. His love for me does not fail, in spite of my failings.

The question that remains is how can I glorify God in my present circumstances whatever they may be. It is possible to do so regardless of the circumstances. My reputation can be thrown in the dust. My wife could leave me. My children could forsake the church and never speak to me again. I could lose my ministry and need to work a job that just gets me by and seems to have no larger significance than that. Even then I can glorify God. The questions is, how?

I know it must start with this: whether I live or die, Christ is my consolation. There is glory for God and joy for me if I can settle this deep in my heart.