justice Archives - Kuyperian Commentary

On October 30, 2020 By Joseph Bailey In Culture, Politics, Wisdom 1

Our Founding Father

For he [Abraham] was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.
Hebrews 11:10 ESV

Much has already been said about this upcoming presidential election, probably too much. All sides of the political carousel assert the importance, urgency, and historic consequences of choosing the right man for such a time as this. There will undoubtedly be more to say in the coming week as the results come in and we know, or think we know, the direction of our nation for the next four years. Even in a society inundated with words, public discourse is still a crucial element for growth and health as a people. I am thankful for the free exchange of ideas. But the ideas themselves are not free. They are always rooted to something that gives those ideas veracity and potency. As we consider the next president of the United States, we must maintain a clear vision of the nature of the presidency itself and the true foundation of a just and good society if we are to speak and respond appropriately to this election.

The founders, at least as much as I understand them, never intended the presidency to ascend to such great heights of power and influence. They were very aware of the dangers, as well as the blessings, of monarchical rule. A good king can do much more good for his people than a good president. But that same principle applies to bad kings as well. Therefore, these men set in place certain restraints and protections. There were really two dangers through which they had to navigate. They had the danger of overt tyranny on the one hand and mob rule on the other. The tyrant says that the king is law. The mob says that the majority is king. The Christian must say that there is a King of all kings and a Law of all laws; and They cannot be disregarded or reinterpreted without consequences. Or as the Scottish presbyterian, Samuel Rutherford, argued so beautifully in his great work, Lex Rex, “the Law is King.” Once you separate justice or lawfulness from a Divine Lawgiver, you will always be drifting toward tyranny- either a tyranny of the few or the many.

One of the reasons, though certainly not the only one, that we have a 200 year history of a transfer of power through free elections without violent revolution or the shedding of blood is because of the relatively limited power which transfers hands every two or four years. Things tend to go badly in the end for royal lines and dictators. Elections should not generally be the catalyst for broad change. The right and privilege to vote should rarely become the urgency to vote. Rather, elections ought to be smooth transitions without the need for much anxiety from either side because most of the power would rest at the local levels. Most of the reform would have to happen from the bottom up not the top down.

We have experienced something much different in recent history. The power at the top is great. The President is considered by many as “the most powerful man in the world.” The Supreme Court just may be even more powerful behind the scenes. Recent headlines provide examples of both. First, listen to the questions and concerns directed at Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. The underlying expectation driving all of the objections is judicial legislation. They fully expect her to use her authority as judge to legislate from the bench. They almost seem not to have a category for a judge who would do otherwise- despite Judge Barrett’s words or record to the contrary. In their minds it is not a question of if but how.

Second, listen to the criticisms leveled at the president concerning his handling of Covid-19. Implied within their comments is the expectation that the president should exercise a tremendous amount of authority. It’s not the overuse of power that they lament but its restraint. One would be tempted to think that there are no such things as duly elected governors to make decisions for their own states or duly elected mayors to make decisions for their own cities. To permit such diversity of rule concerning the pandemic is inexcusable in their eyes. One ring to rule them all.

There is no doubt that this election is a crucial point in our country’s history. One of the things I hope will continue to change after the dust settles is a move back to the center of what a good federal government should look like. It is the rule of law subservient to its Foundations that makes a just society. Untethered from this authority, government inevitably becomes a rule of the few, a rule of the majority, or a rule of the oppressed and marginalized. America indeed has a King and no amount of campaigning or voting or court rulings can change that. As He himself definitively proclaimed, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” ^a

All this leads me back to the issue of public discourse. The Church must lead the way if there is any hope of true liberty and justice for all. During such times, Christians would do well to take an internal poll of their own motives and desires. How do our opinions and concerns line up against the clear and indisputable authority of Scripture to govern all of life? Do our visions of justice, mercy, authority, and submission have their roots in the deep, rich soil of Truth or the shallow, hard dirt of modernity? One vision will sprout up quickly and look impressive for the Instagram post; the other will bear fruit for generations to come. A sense of urgency will always invite compromise.

This election is important. There are real implications in the choice we make for our next president. But the president is not our savior; he is not our sovereign. We must venture clear-minded and patient-hearted into the public square. Whatever the outcome of this election, we know that “when the tempest passes, the wicked is no more, but the righteous is established forever.” ^b

There lies within us a divine longing to see goodness flourish and love abound in society, but we must advocate for these things as Christians. The good of society cannot grow apart from the Supreme Good of the universe. A common weal ^c is built most surely upon the summum bonum. ^d Whether that means preserving certain founding principles or progressing beyond others, our Founding Father must be the beginning and end of it all. His supreme Good rightly orders our common good, starting with self-government and working outward. Christians who desire social justice must first seek to rightly order their own lives. ^e Again Augustine is helpful here. He argued that a true love for someone is the desire for their greatest good and fullest happiness. Since God alone is the source and object of this goodness and joy, then to truly love your neighbor is to speak and act in a way that seeks to bring them closer in conformity and communion with God. Anything less is not love. Period. Only with this truth firmly in view should a brother or sister venture into the realm of politics. Social media would never be the same. And neither would we the people.

Matthew 28:18 (back)
Proverbs 10:25 ESV (back)
Lit. “the common good that binds a multitude of people by a mutual recognition of rights. Famously put forth by Cicero and later taken up with great insight by Augustine, the question becomes, “What is the common good that builds a society from a crowd or mob into a just society of men?” (back)
Lit. “the supreme good.” Augustine argued that Rome was never a just society because the “will”of the people is never a sufficient foundation for the “weal” of the people. (back)
“If a man who takes away a farm from its purchaser and delivers it to another man who has no claim upon it is unjust, how can a man who removes himself from the overlordship of the God who made him and goes into the service of wicked spirits be just?” – Augustine, City of God, XIX. 21 (back)

On September 20, 2018 By Kuyperian In Podcast Like

Episode 35, KC Podcast on the Social Justice Statement with Lisa Robinson and Dustin Messer

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 29:08 — 43.9MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

In this double dose of KC podcast,^a Pastor Uri Brito interviews Lisa Robinson^b and Dustin Messer^c on the recent Social Justice Statement.

Lisa Robinson observes that the whole counsel of Scripture portrays a creation that does not separate God’s salvation from His acts in and through Jesus Christ. Lisa observes:

Jesus was addressing the physical concerns of the people…and the social justice statement seems to set up a dichotomy of either you are for the gospel or you are for social justice as if those who can readily proclaim the Christian Gospel could not also be engaged and concerned for issues of social justice.”

For further study, Lisa recommends Al Mohler’s recent Q&A where he addresses directly the definition of social justice and Kevin DeYoung’s article.

Dustin Messer also joined the podcast to talk about the recent statement. Dustin affirms that though he agrees with many of the points in the statement, the statement ultimately offered enough false dichotomies to make it unhelpful. Dustin asserts that flattening out God’s justice may actually lead to greater danger in how the Christian views his role in society. Further, he affirms that the main problem with the parishioner in the pew is not the danger of a subtle Marxist ideology, but sheer apathy.

On January 20, 2018 By Kuyperian In Culture, Family and Children, Politics, Scribblings, Theology, Wisdom, Worship 18

Why I No Longer Participate in Racial Reconciliation Services

Guest post by Rev Sam Murrell of Little Rock, AR

Sam is an Anglican Priest in the Anglican Church in North America. He holds a Bachelors in Music from Covenant College and an MDiv from Covenant Seminary. He is currently a Biblical Worldview Teacher at Little Rock Christian Academy. He and his wife Susan have eleven children and twenty-one grandchildren.

Nothing that I am about state should be construed as my advocating for people of different ethnicity to worship separately. Nothing I say here should be understood as an advocating of what is commonly referred to as ‘racism’. The Body of Christ is one, and the Church should visually reflect the reality of that ‘oneness’ to the degree that the world yearns for what they observe that we are enjoying. It is unfortunate that, for far too long, the Church has followed the lead of the world when it comes to recognizing and addressing hatred amongst the various tongues, tribes and nations.

Years ago, I participated in my first ‘racial reconciliation’ worship service. It was a well-integrated gathering of black and white folk. The service, while very moving, left me feeling very awkward as white strangers approached me to confess their racism toward me and “my kind”. It wasn’t that I had never experienced unfairness or injustices because of the tone of my skin. On the contrary, the issue was that the confessions came from people who had never done any wrong towards me in particular. So, I was left not knowing what I should do for them in response to their confessions; I was young and so chalked my discomfort up to my inexperience. Since that gathering, I recall participating in at least two other instances of worship services that were focused primarily on racial reconciliation. And I have actually worked for a church where “intentional racial reconciliation” was part of the mission statement. Over the years, I have come to a greater sense of clarity regarding my uneasiness with such event. Here, in no particular order, are the few reasons that I no longer take part in “racial reconciliation” services:

Too often, the premise of the worship service is that Whites are guilty because they are White. This is evident in the fact that the white people present at such events are expected, even pressured, to confess the sin of racism even if they cannot recall any specific instances of racist action that they have perpetrated. The assumption is that because you are white then you must have knowingly, or unknowingly, caused offense towards Blacks (and maybe other ethnic minorities too). An example of this guilt-by-association is that, although you may be unable to find any instance of slave ownership in your genealogy, you are held accountable for the history of slavery in the United States of America. The black person stands as representative of the innocent victim of so-called racism and thus serves a priestly role for the white confessor who is guilty because of a lack of melanin in the epidermis. The white person’s pigmentation carries with it a privilege, and that is enough to require repentance.

In contemporary parlance, the word ‘privilege’ is employed by the offended group as a weapon against the other. Once someone is labeled as ‘privileged’ he is supposed to realize his rightful place in the ‘race’ conversation is as the silent observer whose liberty to speak has been revoked. The accused and the accuser are no longer equals. Recently, a major Reformed Seminary hosts a conference on ‘race’ and actually advertised that they were inviting Whites to come and to listen but not to speak or interact. Such is not biblical reconciliation but rather a warped form of penance and one that cannot be paid fully, thus being reconciled, as the person of whom the penance is required can never cease to be as God created them: white or black. He can never undo the fact of slavery or systemic hatred in America and, therefore, he must embrace a life of spiritual self-flagellation as a result of the unwarranted whiteness that has allowed him to live such a life of comparative ease. What is most disturbing is not that the world would think this way but that such thought has been embraced by the Church.

Words Matter. As people of the Word, language is important and I believe it is time the Church gave up the common use of the word ‘race’ and all of its cognates. They only help to perpetuate an untruth about the nature of mankind. In the anthropology of Scripture, race is an alien concept. Scripture does not speak of ‘the races’ as subsets of humanity, but it does speak of ‘tongues (which can be translated as religions), tribes and nation’. As long as the Church concedes to the terminology of a Darwinian worldview we will never get closer to modeling the oneness of the Body of Christ for the world that is spoken of in Scripture. The Church must not capitulate to the secular world on this matter and put words into our mouths, and in doing so perpetuate a false reality. God’s Word has this right; there is one ‘race’ and many scattered tongues, tribes and nations. Many anthropologists agree that the 19th-century idea of many ‘races’ is not a biological reality but rather a myth. My point here is not to argue the science but to emphasize worldview. When discussing biblical anthropology we should insist on biblical language, and there is no Scriptural basis for diving mankind among the so-called ‘races’. The illusion of racism is not where the discussion should lie, and as long as the Church discusses issues of pre-Christian tribal and ethnic allegiances from the perspective of so-called racism then we will not see any real progress as we are led by the nose by every new social-justice group that comes along to claim their place as the new prophetic voice of a downtrodden minority.

Identity madness is a current hot topic. People question their identity as man rebels against the boundaries of a biblical anthropology they seek in vain to invent their own explanation. This radical subjectivity results in daily re-definitions. God’s people need to understand their true identity. As a Christian, what is my preeminent identity? Am I a Black Christian, or a Christian who is black? We must not give priority to tribal or ethnic loyalties in place of fidelity to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have found nothing in scripture that affirms that I am allowed to believe that old tribal devotions neither can nor should take precedence over my identity as a member of the Body of Christ, the nation of the New Israel come down from heaven. We give lip-service to this reality, but do we walk in this truth consistently? The only way is to manifest the truth of the Gospel of King Jesus. The Church cannot continue to trail along behind the world attempting to sprinkle ‘holy water’ on the latest iteration of Marxism and call it ‘social justice’.

Racial reconciliation services are founded upon a lie from Satan. The whole motivation behind them is a false anthropology. Allow me to nuance my previous point. These worship services focus on corporate confessions by the white section of the congregation. And once the service has ended it is expected that the white brother will now go forth and sin against his black brother no longer. Recall here that for many they are expected to repent of being made white which is not a sin. If the white brother does eventually cause offense against black brother, and he will and vice versa, his former repentance, based upon a false premise, will then be viewed as being disingenuous. How is that justice? The line of thought is that, had his confession been genuine, then his offense would be unrepeatable. The offended Black then may accuse the White of ‘racial insensitivity’, latent racism, ‘racial privilege’ and a host of other insults. But rarely is the individual treated as a fallen human being, struggling with a fallen nature, who is wholly incapable of living up to God’s expectation of loving his neighbor as himself. If the person were to be treated fairly, we would seek to follow Jesus’ mandate that, if you offend me, I am to forgive you. Period.

“He said to His disciples, ‘It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.’
” ‘Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive
him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I
repent,’ forgive him.’” Luke 17:1-5

The message is clear that the offended brother must forgive if so asked. This is repeated several times in the Gospels, for example, Matthew 6 wherein the Lord instructs His followers to pray to God asking that we are judged as we judge others, to be forgiven just as we forgive. We can all relate to the apostles’ response, “…increase our faith!” In own of strength, we cannot possibly hope to be the people that God has called for us to be, nor can we love the way that Jesus says to love. So, when my brother sins against me in prioritizing his ethnic, social, political and economic tribes over mine I am to forgive him. It is not my place to accuse him and therefore all who look like him of being hopelessly lost, nonredeemable and less than me because of some new ‘Mark of Cain’ in his skin that looks different than mine. I pray for him. I talk with him. I seek to help him grow beyond the limitations of his tribe, ethnic or otherwise.

In Summation

The Church of Jesus Christ should stop attempting to address the mythical issue of so-called ‘race’ as to do so would be to spend time and energy chasing after an imaginary dragon. There simply is no such thing and the Bible offers our proof. Biblically speaking, mankind is of one human race. We are all saved the same way, we will all be judged by the Christ according to the same standard of righteousness that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and not one has been tested and found in the right in His eyes.

The call of the Church is to love one another. This means that I must deal with you personally when you sin against me personally. I cannot hold you accountable for sins committed by past generations, nor can I regard you as a pariah because I perceive that God has blessed you differently than He has me.

No ethnic group has the market cornered on any particular sin. The Church does mankind a disservice when she disciplines them to believe the lie that skin color makes them immune from the accusations of hating or discriminating against others of a different tribe. Many blacks have been sold the lie that their identity as an oppressed minority renders them exempt from being found guilty of tribalism. In the Marxist worldview, such may be lauded as a foundational truth, but when life is seen from a biblical perspective that simply does not pass the smell test. Christ has commanded us to love one another. That call can only be fulfilled on His terms.

On July 7, 2016 By Kuyperian In Culture, Politics, Pro-Life Like

Reconciliation and Bearing God’s Image

Guest Post by Al Stout

At Providence Church in Pensacola, Fl,[1] we have a regular Vespers’ service on the first Wednesday of each month. We sing the majority of the service, we read three lessons from Scripture– an Old Covenant, New Covenant and Gospel passage–followed by a short homily. This week we read Genesis 1:26-31; 2 Corinthians 5:16-21; and John 3:1-8 and I delivered the homily.

Reading the news of the day, there were a couple stories about men being shot and killed while being arrested or detained by police. I saw some of the responses to those shootings. I began to contemplate what it is that gives men and women, no matter their level of sin or righteousness, dignity. This is what I asked those who were at Vespers…

—–

What is it that gives man dignity? What moves the Church to advocate for the unborn child and the prisoner? What compels us to give honor to the most innocent and the guiltiest, that they should be treated with dignity?

In Genesis 1 God declares that we are created in the image of God. Man was created in goodness and while still pure commanded to take the image of God to the rest of creation. They were to reflect the image of the Creator to His creation that did not bear that image. This is part of the subduing of creation mandated by Holy Spirit. By carrying the authority of God by way of His image, we would participate in Creation, its management, and husbandry. Even without sin man took the image of God to the world.

The fall did not undo this. Man is still to take the image of God out to the world, but with the fall came a haze over our eyes. Blindness is a type of death[2]. We could no longer see properly; not just creation, but we could no longer see God himself in those He created. So, when Cain kills Abel and he is confronted with his sin, he cannot see the value of his brother, his inherent dignity. He slanders him by declaring to God that Abel is not worthy to be watched over, cared for, ministered to… “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:8-9).

This cloudiness of eyesight can affect us as well. It is hard for us to see the image of God in an unborn child or in the man guilty of murder. If we forget that they are both image bearers we can trash them both. We can literally put the most innocent into the garbage, but we can also forget the prisoner; leaving him or her to physical assault and even rape. Turning such humiliation into a joke, we laugh with the world as fellow prisoners or guards strip men and women MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD of their dignity, or sounding support with glib comments like “Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime[3].”

When we forget that even the guilty bear the image of God, we can quickly find ourselves supporting or even participating in evil far greater than the crimes perpetrated by these guilty persons. (more…)

On September 22, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

The Case for Prison Reform: How and Why

The United States’ rate of incarceration is the highest in the world, higher by 50% than that of the second highest: Russia. The nation and the states are heavily in debt, and prisons are a part of the cost. Prison reform has got to be a part of the conversation, not only because it is expensive, but also because the question of justice has to be answered.

The prison system has become a means by which vengeance is executed, not justice. In many cases, the victims are convinced they cannot have closure until they have “justice,” by which they mean vengeance. In other cases, the government executes “justice” in order to exact vengeance itself, without regard for what the victims may actually want or need. In fact, the actual victim has been replaced by the government, who sees itself as the victim in need of vengeance. Some crimes, for example, are defined in a way that the victim cannot refuse to press charges because the government will do so anyway. While in other cases, the victim has the right to refuse to press charges.

(more…)