It Is All About Justice

Dr. Joel McDurmon is one of my favorite writers on the subject of  theonomy. He is currently publishing, in installments, his book The Bounds of Love: An Introduction to God's Law of Liberty. It is a much easier read than Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law and he tries to avoid a lot of jargon, instead focusing on what theonomy isn't and how it could be practically applied in a modern setting.

His recent post The Abiding Moral Principle for Penal Sanctions does not disappoint. Here is my favorite quote from this chapter:

Anyone who wishes to deny these facts will find himself in the unenviable position of arguing that at least some, if not all, of God’s laws and prescribed sanctions are unjust and that man’s laws are more just than God’s. If this were not absurd enough on the face of it, such a proponent would then have to list for us which of God’s punishments are unjust and why.

My only issue with Dr. McDurmon is his use of the word "state" when he talks about who should execute justice and punishment under the Law of God. The Law itself does not delegate this responsibility to a state at all. In fact, reading the Law itself we see God directing his commands at "You." That is, all of God's people are responsible for keeping and obeying and enforcing the Law. It doesn't require a state at all. When the people need a judge, they can select one, as they did over and over in the time of the Judges -- a time which was marked by a lack of an earthly state and  by direct rule by God the King. What brought the time of the Judges to an end was the demand of the people to have a King like the heathen and their rejection of God as King.

The Bible does not mention that the cause of the people during the time of the Judges turning to sin was because they didn't have an earthly government. Many modern Christians, however, seem to think that obeisance to a state is the very definition of God's will. I would encourage everyone to read the book of Judges with a fresh eye and without the presupposition that it epitomizes all that is bad about anarchy. After all, if there is no king in the land and everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, but what is right in his own eyes lines up perfectly with the Law of God, it would be a great place. The problem is not the lack of a king, the problem is the lack of obedience to God's Law Word.

Model Penal Code - From the Pit of Hell

Because of my support of theonomy, it should come as no surprise that I have an interest in how men form their legal codes. It is frustrating to me that most Americans (including most lawyers) have no real understanding of how the United States arrived at their current catastrophe consisting of federal and state law codes. Government education is so inadequate in teaching this that it hardly bears mentioning, but it is sad beyond measure that private schools and Christian schools don't do it any better.

A brief summary of the history of American law goes something like this:  The colonists brought the English Common Law with them when they settled here. The English Common Law draws much of its precepts from the abuses addressed by the Magna Carta as well as from what is often called "natural law" but was more directly drawn from the Ten Commandments. Law was not enshrined in the form of statutes until later. Instead, judges and juries applied the principles of the Common Law to cases, and if there were appeals, the opinions of the judges in those appeals became precedent for future cases, analyzing the specifics of the cases with the enduring principles of law.

Over time, individual colonies, and then states, began to collect their various ordinances and statutes into books. Legislatures became busy bees, drafting new laws as often as they met. This departure from the Common Law led to the birth of the idea that law evolves. Since law evolves, and man is constantly gaining new understanding of how men should relate, it becomes not only preferred, but necessary to revise the actions defined as criminal and punishments proscribed for their violations. Lawyers and legal scholars began to complain about the differences in laws from state to state. Not because there was something fundamentally wrong with creating new law (which there is) but because the legal elite wanted to be in charge of writing those laws, rather than leaving to mere legislators.

Enter The American Law Institute in 1923.  ALI formed a committee to write the document which would become the Model Penal Code. This document was intended, as the name suggests, to be a model for all of the states to adopt as their own state statutes, thereby creating a more uniform set of laws across the several states. It became the new Ten Commandments for a justice system seeking to rid itself of all relations to religion. The result was a separation of the justice system from all justice.

Unfortunately, this abomination is widely praised, endorsed and nearly worshiped by Christians. People will accept all manner of injustice in order to avoid the Law of God. "Any law but God's!" is their cry. While God's so-called people will give lip service to the Ten Commandments and assert that all modern law flows from God's law, they are incapable of showing any connection when challenged. One of the most common "arguments" I hear is that God's command for people to be held responsible for the damages to persons resulting from a fall from their roof is justification for every modern law from building codes, to speeding tickets, to laws against spitting on the sidewalk. I have heard people argue that the Cities of Refuge are justification for keeping criminals in prison.

Show me any positive reference to prisons in the Scriptures. Show me any place in the Law of God where punishment for a crime involves incarceration. You won't find it because that is an abomination. Holding men, created in the image of God, in a cage without access to other humans, to sunshine, to productive work is the very definition of inhumane. The Law of God doesn't even distinguish between what we call "criminal law" and what is called "tort law" or "civil law." There was no difference because justice is focused on restoration and reconciliation, not punishment, isolation and life-long labels.

The subject is vast and can't really be covered in a blog post, but I needed to get this off my chest. I see that the ALI is now working to re-write the Model Penal Code where it touches sexual assault because man's understanding of this issue has allegedly evolved again. No doubt this new revision will further erode fundamental rights of due process and purposely weigh the law against men in favor of women's perceptions of truth.

The Model Penal Code is anti-marriage, anti-family and anti-Christ. It is injustice codified. It is an idolatrous and godless generation that seeks to make man better by increasing the reach of laws. Submit yourself to the perfect law of liberty and you will have no need for any other. 

Do it God's Way

From reading the Law of God, we can gather that He intends for a woman to have one and only one sexual partner during her life. The Law requires a virgin who is taken either willingly or by force to be taken as a wife by the man who humbled her. The only exception is in the case of a seduction and the woman's father utterly refuses to permit the marriage. Even in that case, the man is required to pay the price of a virgin to the father, perhaps because she will never marry, or in the very least, she will not be able to command the price of a virgin as a bride-price, due to her not actually BEING a virgin.

If you want to hear some wailing and gnashing of teeth, just mention in some Christian circles that not only is virginity preferred by men choosing a wife, but that virginity can be objectively measured. You'll hear a lot of caterwauling about how a hymen can be broken by riding horses or using tampons and that it isn't FAAAAAIIIIIRRRRR for men to expect women to be virgins when there isn't a comparable, measurable standard for men. Well, fair or not fair, the Bible says there is such a thing as "tokens of virginity."  But only for women.  (See Deut. 22)

We will probably never know all the reasons for God's guardrails on sexuality. He has claimed his sovereignty over human sexuality and His people will obey Him in this regard. It is known that a lack of chastity leads to the spread of disease, and this is an important reason for maintaining purity. But researchers are now discovering that a woman's offspring may be affected by any or all sexual encounters, even those that do not result in conception. What man wants to sire children who carry the traits of his wife's former lovers? Just don't do it.

Is Taxation Theft?

Thou shalt not steal. 

You may recognize that from Exodus 20:15. It is part of what we call the Ten Commandments, the laws given to God's people, through Moses. I am going to make the case that taxation is a violation of this command.

The reason I'm sort of stirred up about this right now is that our local school board is asking the voters to undertake a 25 year bond in the amount of 5 million dollars which will be paid by adding a levy to what property owners pay every year in property tax. Let's talk about the local school district. 

Current enrollment is 161 students. For the entire district. Kindergarten through grade 12, there are 161 students in the entire district. Including all sources of funding, the spending per student in this district is over $20,000. You read that correctly, $20,000 is being spent per pupil to educate the little crumb crunchers in our district. The state government has awarded a grant (money taken from tax payers all over the state) of 4 million dollars to our local district based upon the fact that we are one of the most impoverished districts in the state. 100% of the students get free breakfast and lunch at school, because our district is so poor. However, the grant comes with strings. The district has to match the grant with at least 4 million dollars from the local taxpayers. (Remember how the state has already determined that we are one of the poorest districts in the state?)

Now, for $20,000 per pupil, I could take charge of the entire district and I would enroll every student at a private school 60 miles away, bus them to school every day, get yearly passes to the zoo and aquarium and science museum (and bus them there twice per year), and provide them with new clothing. That's right, I could arrange for a superior private education for EVERY student in this district for what is being spent to keep them in the local government school. 

So, even if taxation was not theft, which it is, it would still be the height of foolishness to spend one more cent on this over-spending district.

Let's suppose that a man in my town wanted to have relations (of the marital type) with a woman from this town who did not wish to relate to him. Now suppose he took her by force. Would that be rape? Of course it would be. 

Now, let us change the story a bit and say the man in question has the same desire as before, but instead of taking her by force he holds an election. In this election, a majority of town's people vote that the man MAY legally take the woman. The town's enforcers hold her down and the man has his way with her. Is that rape? Why or why not? If the majority of the people vote for the act to occur, does it change from a crime to a legal act? Does it go from being immoral to being moral? Why or why not?

We shall now change the crime from rape to theft. If a man in my town wants a percentage of the value of the property of another man, and he goes to the second man's house with a gun and demands the money, is it not robbery? What if he intends to use the money for a good cause?  Let us now say that the first man holds an election whereat the majority of the people vote that the property owner should turn over a percentage of his property value to the first man. Does it cease to be theft because of an election?

What other crime, besides theft, becomes a non-crime based upon the will of the majority? Murder? Arson?

My conclusion is that theft is theft is theft. My neighbors have no more right to vote on whether my money can be taken and used for a school than they can vote on whether to murder the man who has pink flamingos on his lawn.  

No King But Jesus

I don't know if Christians have always favored statism, or if modern American Christians are just a wonderful example of the success of government schooling. It is a subject I must study further, as I seem to remember reading about certain Christians in the past claiming "No King But King Jesus" and being persecuted for it. Perhaps a reader can enlighten me.

The overwhelming majority of believers with whom I speak and whose stuff I read on the internet and in books seem to think that God wants to rule us through an earthly intermediary, an earthly ruler. I have heard it said countless times that God created 3 institutions, the Church, the family and government. And yet I find no place in Scripture where God instituted government. Romans 13 is used as a proof text, and yet it fails to guide God's people up to the time Paul wrote his letter. Where in God's Law does he ordain governments? Where does He say that His Law is to be executed by governments? To whom was the Law of God given? To His people.

In fact, I see the exact opposite. God wanted to rule His people directly. The book of Judges demonstrates what I believe to be the closest look at how God intended to govern. The Law had been given to Moses, then Joshua led the people of God into the promised land. There is no evidence that they tried to establish a government over all of the land. There are places in Judges where we read of kings within the Israelite lands. These were likely tribal leaders or rulers of cities, but they were not set up to execute God's Laws. The cities also had elders, which is a natural sort of government, if you want to call it that. Elders would hear disputes, represent the city in negotiations with other cities, etc. But they didn't "rule" because the Law of God ruled.

In Judges 8 we see Gideon dealing with city elders who are violating God's command to help their brethren drive out the heathen. After Gideon takes care of that problem and saves Israel from the oppression of foreign kings the people cry out to Gideon to rule over them:

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou has delivered us from the hand of Midian. Judges 8:22

But Gideon, a type of Christ and a deliverer answers this way:

And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you. Judges 8:23

It isn't recorded that the people didn't understand what it meant for God to rule over them without a king. I guess it was clear to them. But we modern people just can't grasp it. We know that we won't go on a spree of murder, mayhem and robbery, but our neighbor might. I guess.  If an earthly government isn't controlling our every move and writing thousands upon thousands of laws we are going to destroy each other and the earth? When did we get such an idea? Not from the Bible. The Bible doesn't even hint that God's Law was a good start, but we really need to legislate every tiny detail. The pharisees did just that, and Jesus did not have kind words for them.

What does God say about a people that demand a king? Has God spoken? Is Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever? Did God intend to rule directly over His people by means of His Law? I say that He did and here is where God said the same:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah. And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in the thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.  1 Samuel 8:4-7

 Could it be that it pleases God if, when given the choice, we choose to govern ourselves with the Law of God only and reject an earthly government? Is God inadequate for the job? If not, then why subject ourselves to so much tyranny? We are worse than the fools at Galatia who wanted to earn their salvation by works according to the Law. We want to please God by obeying man's Law.

O foolish (Americans), who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  Galatians 3:1, my paraphrase

 American Christians will reject any notion that they should obey the Law of God, and those same Christians will assert that disobedience to any of the thousands of local, state and federal laws, plus incorporated laws of other nations is sin because God wants us to "obey every ordinance."

If the laws of man contradict or add to the Law of God, are we obligated to obey them while we ignore the commands of the living God? When we measure our righteousness by the standard of man's laws, are we not idolators?

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

 How does one know if he has a king?  The borders of a kingdom are determined by where the kingdom's laws are obeyed. All who obey the law of the king are his subjects. Subjecting oneself to the king means subjecting oneself to the law of the king. If his laws are not obeyed, then he is not the sovereign. Obeying the laws of another realm is evidence of loyalty to that realm.

No king but King Jesus!

The Law And The New Covenant

As it says at the top of my blog, I'm a theonomist. A practical definition of theonomy, which I will borrow from R.C. Sproul, Jr. is "the conviction that the civil law God gave to Israel in the Old Testament ought to be the law of the land in all nations everywhere." Either we have man's law, which is autonomy from God, or God's Law, which is theonomy. But the question always arises when one first hears of theonomy, "What? Are you saying we should be offering sacrifices and observing the feasts? Are you saying that we are obligated to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved?" No. I am saying, with David, that I love God's law and the answers to how we are to love God and love our neighbor are found within the Law. We ought to love God's law and obey His commands. Christ said the same thing in Matthew 5, blessed are those who do and teach them, for they shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

I'm not going to give a treatise on theonomy here, that is already spelled out elsewhere in thousands of pages. I recommend Rushdoony to any that wish to get a grasp on the subject. What I am doing here is trying to figure out or understand the contrast between the relationship of God's people and the Law under the Old Covenant and the relationship of God's people and the Law in the New Covenant, and in particular, the point being made in the Letter to the Hebrews. Under both Covenants, the Law of God is the Law of God. It is one and the same Law. But there is this mystical transference of the Law from tables of stone to residence in our hearts. What does this mean to the Christian? How is this manifested in her life?

My thoughts on this matter were provoked by an article from Every Thought Captive which was posted on facebook this week. The article was written in 2007, but the content is of the type that never becomes dated.The author, Mark Dewey, points out that great thinkers like Jonathan Edwards and John Calvin struggled with Hebrews 8: 6-13, so we shouldn't be surprised if the whole meaning isn't obvious to us. Dewey is attempting to explain the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New. But what really stood out to me in this passage, and throughout the entire context of chapters 8, 9 and 10, was how the Law was stored, so to speak, under the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant.

In verse 8 we are reminded of the prophecy of the coming New Covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

In the next verse we are told why God will make a new covenant, because of what happened with the old one:

... because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

As part of the old covenant, God had given them His Law, written on tablets of stone. But His plan for the new covenant is different, He isn't going to put the Law on tablets of stone:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people

It is just as Jesus said, He didn't come to abolish the Law or the prophets. Not only is God not going to abolish the Law within the New Covenant, He plans to establish it by writing it on our hearts! Should the Law have less relevance to us than it did to Moses, or more?  In verse 11 of Hebrews chapter 8 we are told that God writing His Law on our hearts and into our minds will result in all of his people knowing Him.

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

What a great and loving God! He wants us to know Him, so He facilitates that by writing His Law on our hearts and mind. Knowing God's Law is essential to knowing HIM. And if it wasn't clear enough already, by chapter 10 we are told that this new covenant that is to come is, in fact, HERE. That is, it was established with Jesus' sacrifice of himself on the cross and witnessed to by the Holy Ghost. (Hebrews 10:10-17)

The Cult of Statism

One of things that bothers me most about so many, many believers, at least in America, is the extent to which they worship the state without realizing they are doing it. Also, when I attempt to point out their idolatry, it is denied.

Rather than trying to explain what statism is, I'm just going to link to this video and ask you to watch it. Questions?  Let's talk about it.

Suicide is Sinful

I probably don't need to tell anyone that the Hollywood actor Robin Williams killed himself this week at the age of 63. We are told that he suffered from clinical depression. Many have rushed to announce that he is now "at peace" and "no longer in pain." I beg to differ.

In death he is not a celebrity. In death he stands in judgment, as we all will.

Depression does not cause suicide. Suicide is a choice. If he had killed another person (homicide) would we be blaming his "mental illness" and saying he couldn't help it? Of course not. The man who kills himself does not fear God. He does not fear the Law-giver who said, "Thou shalt not kill."

I do not pretend to know what Robin Williams is facing now, whether he is in paradise or whether he is burning in the fires of hell. But I do know this, his fate is not dependent upon his fame or wealth. His fate, like the rest of our fates, is entirely dependent upon whether his sins are covered by the blood of Christ.

My sympathies do not go to the murderer who took his own life. I'm sorry for the ones who suffer in the aftermath of his evil deed.

Foreskins For Sale

I am opposed to infant circumcision for a myriad of reasons. As a Christian, I don't believe there is a Biblical imperative to circumcise our sons. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant. See Galatians 5 and Colossians 2:11-12.

Even if you believe that God commands you to circumcise your son, modern medical circumcision is nothing like what was meant by the Hebrew word which we translate as "circumcise." If modern medical circumcision refers to any procedure different than what God commanded, then NO ONE is obligated to do that to his son, even if a man believes he is commanded to circumcise. Medical circumcision is a barbaric mutilation which changes the structure and function of the penis. It is no more "Biblical" than if the entire penis was removed. And when the medical community starts applying the word "circumcision" to a procedure which amputates the entire penis, will Christians still be paying doctors to do it to their sons? Honestly, if you are unfamiliar with how a circumcision is performed, don't bother getting into the discussion at all. You are unqualified to discuss it. Educate yourself before you start handing over your sons to people who don't care a wit about your faith or religious practice but are more than happy to take your money.

Speaking of money, did you ever wonder what happens to all of those foreskins? I didn't until a couple of days ago. I just assumed they were thrown out as medical waste. I am such a dupe! A commenter on another blog led me to this Google search result: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=neonatal+fibroblast&gws_rd=ssl  I did not know that foreskins are called "neonatal fibroblasts." Did you? I did not know that they are actually a commodity from which hospitals and medical technology corporations make money. While parents are forbidden by law from selling the foreskins of their sons, hospitals are not. These companies even have the audacity to refer to the baby boys as "donors." Seriously. This is disgusting.

What did I learn from going to some of the links listed in the above search results?  One company called ATCC will sell 1 ml of "fibroblasts" for $49. Life Technologies sells 1 vial of "Human Dermal Fibroblasts, neonatal" which is guaranteed to contain at least 500,000 cells for $371.00. Advanced BioMatrix sells a 1 ml vial for $295 and they guarantee 1.5 million viable cells per vial.  Life Map Discovery,  gave the following insight about the commercial use of human foreskins:

Human neonatal dermal fibroblasts are isolated from newborn foreskins (surgically discarded after circumcision). A single donor foreskin provides sufficient cells to produce 250,000 square feet of complete Dermagraft tissue.

Well, I'll be jiggered! A single "donor" foreskin contributes to 250,000 square feet of their product. The donors must be so proud... oh, wait, the "donors" had no idea they donated their body parts for someone else to sell.

Parents, please do not have your sons circumcised. If you believe they must be circumcised, do it yourself or have someone do it who is skilled with a knife. Don't let the medical establishment harvest body parts from your children. It is evil.

Sophie's Choice - Why Can't She Choose Her Own Husband?

I have been doing some more reading over at truelovedoesntwait.com. In this post, a young woman by the name of Sophie is arguing in the comments that she should not be prohibited from choosing her own husband. She claims that she isn't insisting on doing the choosing, but rather should simply have the veto if her father wants her to marry a man that she doesn't "like." In other words, as long as her father picks a man that she chooses, she will obey her father and marry him. That reminds me of a woman who obeys her husband in everything, as long as she agrees with him.

The heart of her issue, which she herself doesn't even realize, is that she is as solipsistic as the typical woman. She is the measure of all things. Absolutely no one, no man and not even God, are going to put any limits on her. They are not going to limit her sexuality, for sure. This is the essence of  feminism. A woman can do anything she pleases without limitation and without guidance and it is the duty of others, including her God-given authorities to embrace her choices and to finance them. I'm sure that Sophie would deny being a feminist, but she is believing and practicing the core principles of feminism, therefore she is a feminist, even if she would protest.

No one should miss this post over at Vox Day's Alpha Game Blog. It sums up the solipsism of women very concisely.  And why should women read this and understand it? Because if we don't understand the evil residing in our nature, we are bound to either excuse and dismiss it or outright embrace it. Don't be put off by the strong language. It won't hurt you.

What follows is my response to Sophie and the other commentors over at True Love Doesn't Wait. I wanted to save it here for future reference, you know, for that book I'm going to write someday. It deals with the arguments which say that betrothal is not a command or that any way of getting a wife is ok. On the contrary, I believe that betrothal or an outright purchase are the only ways of getting a wife that conform to what is taught about marriage in the Scriptures. I also wanted to point out that while I agree with much of  what Vaughn Ohlman (the writer/owner of True Love Doesn't Wait) says about betrothal, I also have very serious differences of opinion with him. I do not accept his definitions of either betrothal or marriage, for example, which are pretty big differences.  Ok, my comment follows:

I don't think that Sophie really does have (or that she should have) choices. I think the Bible shows us that a woman does not have the authority over her own sexuality. Her father is the guardian of it until she marries, and he decides to whom and when she will be given in marriage. Once she is married the authority and control over her sexuality passes to her husband.

While there is no single passage of Scripture where this is explained and set forth, it is revealed all throughout the Scriptures. Obviously Vaughn has already written two books on the subject, and even in those he wasn't able to cover every verse where these principles are either mentioned or implied. When we say "show me the verse....!" we are demanding something we don't demand of other principles. For example, where is the verse in the law of God which commands parents to feed and clothe their children? What? There is no such command? But we see parents doing it. Is that just cultural?

In the case of betrothal, we not only see that it is implied as the natural and normal way of doing things, we also see that God, in his law, gives remedies to fathers and husbands when other men, or even the daughter/wife herself decide to exercise their sexuality outside their authority. We see a law wherein a man who suspects his wife of being adulterous can have the priest test her for it. If she is guilty, either by admission or by failing the test, she ends up dead. There is no such test for husbands. A husband's sexuality is not under the control or authority of his wife. He has a duty to her sexually, but it is not exclusive to her. God calls this "just". Is that cultural?

But the real convincer for me came after I became reformed. When I came to understand that the grace of God is irresistible to me. The father chose me for Christ and neither Christ nor I have any choice in the matter. God, Himself, uses betrothal for His Son. And then He created the institution of marriage as a picture of the marriage of Christ and His bride. Every aspect of the marriage, including the betrothal is pictured in how men take wives. The way we do this speaks the gospel. When we ignore betrothal we lie. We are hiding the gospel. When Christians let women choose or not choose their husbands we are using a picture of marriage that lies about the gospel.

There is nothing about marriage from its institution in the Garden until today that is cultural. It was created for the purpose of illustrating the gospel. Not the other way around. God didn't look around the earth and try to find some earthly thing that would help him explain what He is doing, instead, He invented marriage and gave us marriage as an aid to our understanding. When we accept the analogy as created we see that election is from the beginning, we see that betrothal is from the beginning. It is a vital part of the message of the gospel and therefore should not be excluded from the manner in which God's people express marriage.

Perhaps Sophie believes that she chose Christ? Or that she at least had the option to reject Him if she didn't like him? The Scriptures don't teach this. We are to love the God who first loved us, not just say "no" if He doesn't get our motor running. In the same way, we are to love our husbands and if we don't, the older women can teach us how. We don't "marry the one we love", we "love the one we marry". Huge difference. We have no business loving men who are not our husbands.

Red Herring

As I began this post, I realized that I do not know the origin of the term "red herring". I shall detour to wikipedia, then return to finish this.

Ok. I'm better informed now and may continue without distraction. The subject of my writing today is PORN. By that I mean primarily images of nude women or images of people engaging in sex. There are pornographic magazines and, of course, the now ever ubiquitous internet porn.

It is my assertion (although I didn't come up with this on my own, my genius husband pointed it out to me)that someone, perhaps Satan, is using the issue of men (primarily, although not exclusively)viewing pornography to throw us off the trail of identifying other harmful and sinful habits and practices within the church.

For example, instead of focusing on the lusting going on within the congregation, and instead of being concerned about women clothed immodestly, we will just harp on pornography every week so we can sit smugly in our pews and say, "Well, at least I'm not doing that!"

In the American church today, a person would be tempted to think, based on the number of websites dedicated to eradicating it, that "viewing pornography" was the worst sin mentioned in the Bible, instead of one of many. Oh wait, it isn't mentioned at all.

What do we mean, anyway, when we say that a man is using porn or has a problem with porn? What is he actually DOING? Basically he is looking at naked women to whom he is not married. Is that sin? Is it always a sin to look at a nude woman who is not one's wife? What about doctors and other medical personnel? Don't they do the same act?

For a moment, let us turn our attention to Scripture. Matthew 5:28 says,

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

That is the verse most frequently given for why men should not view pornographic images. What I noticed about the verse is that it does not say anything about a nude woman. As a matter of fact, it is likely that Jesus was referring to a woman who was fully clothed. But it really doesn't matter, because the sin is not in the looking, it is in the lusting. It is a sin that happens within the heart of the man doing the looking. It is not what he sees or whom he sees that makes him a sinner, it is what he thinks about what he is seeing.

So, we don't condemn the doctor for looking at the nude woman because we assume he isn't lusting. Of course, we don't know his heart. And we don't condemn the man who uses the internet for reading the news, because we assume that he isn't looking at the female newscasters in order to lust after them. Again, we don't know his heart. But when a man is viewing pornographic images, we assume that he is looking at them in order to lust after them because there is really no other reason to be viewing them. Yes, yes, I know, some men read Playboy magazine for the articles.

To return to my original point, why do we focus so much on the object of a man's lust, rather than on the sin itself? Why is it so hideous for a man to lust after a nude woman and not such a big deal for him to lust after the youth pastor's wife? Of course they are both equally sinful. Although, in reality, lusting after women that are in one's acquaintance is much more likely to result in adultery, the destruction of marriages and the destruction of churches. Lusting after a woman whom one does not know and with whom one has no contact is not likely to evolve past lusting.

Again, why then the focus on porn? Simply because it reveals the sin. The man was a lustful sort before he dialed up those images. But we didn't know it because he can lust secretly. Thus, the devil would have us pour out our wrath on the man caught in his lust so that he (the devil) can continue his evil work in the lives of the women and men who don't have their sinful hearts on display.

All the psycho-babble about viewing pornography leading to more and more debauchery and to serious crimes like murder is just another means Satan uses to steer us away from much that is evil in ourselves. We do what God does not, which is to make one sin, like lusting, worse than all others. Or to say that lusting after nudes is more wicked than lusting after the clothed, which the Bible also does not say.

I don't condone viewing pornographic images. I'll come right out and say that I think men shouldn't do it. But I won't say things about it that the Bible doesn't say and then try to attach some superior holiness to my condemnation.

Daughters of Disappointment

There are some vocal elements of the now adult home educated daughters that are a huge disappointment.  Knowing full well that their children won't be perfect, home educating parents nevertheless are hopeful that their children will face challenges and address problems in a manner that rises above the more common shrill rhetoric of mainstream feminism and for Christians, in a manner that follows the teachings of the Holy Bible. Alas, in that respect, many have failed.

In places like quiveringdaughters and recoveringgrace we see young women complaining that their parents and others involved in the home school movement misused the Scriptures which resulted in these women suffering unhappiness or worse. Some are claiming "abuse" with varying definitions, when they bother using definitions. The irony is, that at the same time they are decrying the misuse of the Scriptures, these women are ignoring them altogether in response to the alleged wrongs. They also blame their own moral failings, their own sin, on others. While calling for others to repent, they ignore or excuse their own sin.

Especially amusing, or perhaps sad, are the ones boldly proclaiming that everything taught by Bill Gothard is nonsense at the same time that they demonstrate their violations of the "principles" resulting in their own misery and, dare I say it, "youth conflict". Can you say "root of bitterness?" How about "balancing guilt with blame?" Do any "take up the offense of another?" Is a lack of gratitude contributing to mental instability?

If they wish to take the moral and Scriptural high ground, it would behoove them to bring their accusations from Scripture. It would be appropriate for them to follow the procedures taught in Scripture for confronting offenders. Otherwise, all of their pointing fingers should be pointing right back at themselves.

In spite of their bitterness, lack of witnesses, inability to describe how they were sinned against, for the sake of argument let us agree that some egregious wrongs have been committed against them. What then? How does that make them so very different from every other young woman who has ever been raised on this planet full of sinners? What makes them believe that every woman who is not making a global case of her dysfunctional childhood has had some sort of perfect or charmed upbringing? What really sets these women apart is their response -- their belief that they are somehow special, or different, or entitled. This is where their home schooling parents have failed them. Somehow this is a generation with an unreasonable number of entitled-minded children. A generation who had their every triumph, from peeing in the potty chair to graduating kindergarten recorded and perhaps even uploaded to the internet. They were taught that everything about them was special and different. And they believed that.

"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" was transformed in the minds of these youths to "You alone matter in the world, and everyone else should order their life in such a way that you are recognized and pampered to the fullest." If their parents held opinions or made decisions with which these women disagreed, the parents are now labeled as "abusers" and "legalists." The parents couldn't possibly have been trying to protect them, but were simply trying to make them miserable and prevent them from having fun. It is all so obvious to them now, and thank goodness there are other women out there who recognize and will acknowledge their mutual pain.

If any of these women truly desire to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, if they truly want to do what is right, I hope they will consult the Scriptures. I hope they will seek out God's plan for people with hurts. I hope they will follow his commands for confronting a brother who sins. I hope they will uphold the law of God above the law of their own feelings. Because there is so much more at stake than their hurt feelings. There are homes and families that could well be damaged or destroyed by their selfishness. Their attempts to get others on their side rather than to do what is right will cause division in families and churches.

Proverbs 14:1 Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.

If it is foolish to pluck down one's own house, it is downright evil to pluck down the homes of others. This would include the ministry of others. Those who do no trust God, but believe they are the arbiters of what shall stand are dangerous. The desire to destroy rather than to reconcile is an evil desire. To gloat and cheer over the fall of a brother is evil. It is not righteous. To break up relationships between parents and their children for the sake of gaining victory is evil. Do not do it. I will not end well for you. God is not on your side.

Exodus 20:12 Honor thy father and they mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and thy mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

It is one of the big 10. Honor your parents. Paul extends that with "obey" your parents. It could be understood from these verses that when a person doesn't honor his father and mother that it might NOT go well with him and he might not live long on the earth, couldn't it? To whom was this command given? To those with perfect parents only? No, to everyone with parents. That includes parents that aren't so great. This command used to be taken pretty seriously. Even when a man had pretty rotten parents, and that man was given some sort of forum like a book or a newspaper, it is rare to see a man dishonoring his parents in words. At least until pretty recently in history, when it has become vogue to do so, almost required.  You would think that some Christians believe they have some sort of DUTY to dishonor their parents instead of honoring them. Perhaps God won't know their parents were bad parents unless these women expose them? God says not to do that. God says to honor them. Let God judge. He sees. Ladies, for your own good, don't do it. Obey God rather than Oprah.

Matthew 18:15-17   Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Dear lady, if you believe you have had a trespass committed against you while you lived at home with your parents, and your parents are believers, then it falls upon you to go to them and see if they will hear you. If you have not done this, then YOU are the one in sin. Note also, that this is for sin. Your parents are entitled to believe differently from you about how to raise a daughter.  Just because you didn't like the household rules does not make them sinful.  Search the Scriptures and see if they have violated the law of God concerning you.

Here is the advise that your friends are not going to give you. Move on. If you have left the home of your parents, if you are married, if you  are a mother, take this opportunity to become the great mother that you think your mother was not. Using the Scriptures as your guide, form your own family standards, direct the upbringing of your own children in the best way you can. Stop blaming your unhappiness or your lack of achievement or, God forbid, your sin on your parents and others. That is a cop out and it doesn't bring healing, no matter what you may hear from psychology or your friends.

Take responsibility for all of your own behaviors. Find your own happiness.  Be a grown up and stop acting like a toddler.

Judge Not Thy God

Have you ever wondered if you have the mind of Christ? Do you believe that God's thoughts are actually higher than yours? Do we agree with God? In all things? Has God ever said something at which you took offense? Does the Bible actually teach the things that you have been taught by your parents, your Sunday school teachers and your pastor? If you were to be shown that God does not endorse your morality, would you change what you believe to align yourself with what God has said?

During worship this past Lord's Day, the pastor reminded us that we are to be renewing our minds. He stated further that what we read in the Bible should be changing us. I just had to shake my head as he just had a woman get up front and "lead" us in lighting the advent candle. She spoke for a full five minutes. So much for women "keeping silence" in the church. I took that opportunity to let my mind wander a bit and to question whether I am currently harboring any wrong thinking that directly contradicts what God has revealed about Himself and his requirements for me. I couldn't think of anything but I'm sure there is something.

In the recent past, within the last 5 or 10 years, I have had to completely revamp my understanding of marriage and the regulation, by God, of sexual relations between humans. Why, I even had to change my definition of adultery to make it line up with the Bible! Yes, I just said that my definition of adultery was not the same as what is described as adultery in the Bible. How could that be? Don't be so surprised, because yours is probably wrong, too. Words mean things. Ideas have consequences. Take care to get it right.

How does the Bible define adultery? It doesn't have a verse that says "Adultery is...." But, we can find several verses which show us what adultery is and, equally important, what it ISN'T.  When a woman who is married or betrothed has intercourse with a man other than her husband (or betrothed) both the woman and her paramour are committing adultery. Adultery always, always, always involves a married woman. If sexual intercourse occurs between a man an unmarried woman, it is never adultery. I don't mean that it isn't some other sin, but it is most definitely not adultery. Likewise, a man having sexual intercourse with a woman to whom he is married (assuming the woman is not already the wife of another) is never adultery, regardless of whether he has one wife or 20. A man may have more than one wife, and this is not adultery. A woman, however, may only have one husband at a time and if she has sexual intercourse with another man, or marries another man while she is married, she commits adultery.

I don't know about you, but when I first discovered this, I was quite shocked. A married man, who has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman is not committing adultery. You can't swap the words around in the Bible and make it the same for husbands and wives. Men and woman are not the same. When a marriage takes place, the man and woman are not doing the same thing and assuming equal positions in the relationship. A man takes a wife. A woman is taken "to wife" by a man. She is pledged exclusively to him. He is not bound by exclusivity.

Rather than take my word for it, and I hope you won't, please check the Scripture and study it for yourself.  Here are a few examples where the concept is covered:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10

There is no corresponding verse about the woman who commits adultery with a neighbor's husband. The marital status of the man in an adulterous relationship is never mentioned in the Scripture. If the woman is married and her sexual partner is not her husband, both of them are guilty of adultery, regardless of the man's marital status. In the same way, regardless of the marital status of the man, if he has sex with an unmarried woman, it is not adultery for either party.

In Numbers chapter 5, verses 12 - 31 we are given a  program to be followed when a husband has a "spirit of jealousy" and believes his wife is committing adultery. He brings her to the priest and makes an accusation against her, she drinks a special drink after swearing her innocence. If she is innocent, she will conceive, if she is guilty, her thigh rots and she becomes cursed in their neighborhood. She isn't put to death because this would fail the required "two or three witness test" for putting people to death. There is no corresponding law for a wife who thinks her husband is sleeping around. Is this an accident or oversight on the part of God? I can say with much confidence, "No."

What of a man who keeps marrying women after he already has a wife? Is this adultery? Is the modern crime of bigamy prohibited by God? Clearly not. There is no command not to do it and there is no mention that God is even displeased with it. Unlike adultery, which God has claimed is evil. Consider King David. He had plenty of wives. I was able to find the following list in less than 5 minutes of searching:  Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah. He took these wives, sometimes two at a time, such as Abigail and Ahinoam, and they barely get mentioned. But when he committed adultery with Bathsheba, God noticed. This was not just another wife. This was the wife of another man, one Uriah the Hittite. Even after Uriah was killed in battle, God continued to refer to Bathsheba as "the wife of Uriah." There is a clear difference between adultery and a man taking more than one wife.

The New Testament is a grand commentary on the Old Testament. No new law. No destruction of the law, just a better explanation. Paul sums up the law concerning adultery in Romans 7:3 "So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." This was not so for a man, in that while is wife lives, he MAY marry another as long as he doesn't  put away his first wife to do so. (See Matthew 5:31-32) That would cause his first wife to commit adultery and he, himself, commits adultery by putting away his wife according to Matthew 19:9.

Now, back to the original point of this post. If I accuse God of being wrong or unjust or unfair for not calling it adultery if my husband should have sex with some other woman, then I am judging God. If I think in my heart that God is evil for putting different requirements on men and woman, then I need to be rebuked and I need to renew my mind and conform my thinking to God's. Not the other way around. After all, where was I when God caused the doe to give birth in the forest? (paraphrasing what God answered Job)

Why, oh why does any of this matter? It matters because it is the first step in admitting that the standards for righteousness don't come from us, or from our wicked hearts or our puny brains. They come from an almighty God whose thoughts are actually higher than ours. After coming to grips with that understanding, we will be less shocked and more willing to yield to God when we see that his definitions for other things that we imagine are one way, are actually not that way at all. We won't attempt to set ourselves up as more holy than God when we see, for example, that there is no such thing as "rape" as we currently define it, in the Bible. Our indignation and desire to put "rapists" to death does not come from God. We aren't exercising a "godly anger" when we wish castration upon so-called "child molesters." Those ideas come from somewhere, but they don't come from God or what He has revealed to us about Himself. And really, all we know about God is what He has revealed. We have no other way to know Him. No one has special knowledge, apart from the Bible, about God's opinion of forced sexual intercourse and how it should be handled. Can we trust God to make the proper judgment? Or is He in his heaven wringing his hands because we are obeying Him and what he commands rather than going our own way? Can you imagine God saying, "I know I told you that if a man forces himself on a virgin that he must marry her, but what I really meant was that he should be put to death!"?

What is Marriage?

Returning to the subject which constituted the impetus behind this entire blog, the following question is posed:

What is Marriage?

Here are the two fundamental elements of every marriage:

1. The Declaration - One having the authority to do so declares that the woman is given in marriage to the particular man.

2. The Taking - The man takes the woman to wife by consummating the marriage with her, becoming "one flesh" in a physical manner.

When these two events occur, in that order, a man and woman become husband and wife. Absolutely nothing else is needed. While a marriage may be surrounded with many other customs and rituals, none of those will make two people any MORE married, and the absence of superfluous customs or rituals does not make two people any less married.

These two essential elements apply to every earthly marriage as well as to the marriage of Christ to his bride, the Church.

Perhaps there can be endless debate over who qualifies as an "authority" for the first element, and whether a universal definition can be established for certain is a valid question. But it IS a certainty that without a declaration by an authority there is no marriage. Likewise, without the consummation, no marriage is established.

Exclusivity

Does the Bible call for men and women to reserve intimate relations exclusively for their spouse? What Scriptures command or allude to such an idea? Are the requirements the same for women as they are for men? Why or why not?

Is harlotry (whether paid or unpaid) forbidden under God's law?



What of polygamy?

I discovered a fascinating website wherein the author attempts to answer these questions and many more. I wish I could say that I wrote it, but I didn't!

Biblical Polygyny, part 1