The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Three)
Regulative Principle of Worship
Over a period of time, professing Christians formulated from scripture what was termed, “the regulative principle of worship.” I believe in that. This took awhile in the history of Christianity to develop. I believe it because it is scriptural and, therefore, I want to follow it. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 expresses it:
The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
One example of the seriousness of regulating worship by scripture is that of Nadab and Abihu, when they offered strange fire to the Lord (Leviticus 10). Offering strange fire meant changing the recipe for the incense for the altar of incense in the holy place. Silence was not permission for them to offer a different recipe.
God prescribed a specific recipe, spelling out percentages of the ingredients. Scripture regulated the recipe. That was an element of Old Testament worship. Since God spelled it out, that’s all you could do. Nadab and Abihu changed it. God killed them for that. This indicates the seriousness of it.
What changes with observing Christ’s birth around December 25th? Next year Sunday is actually December 28. Emphasizing Christ’s birth changes nothing that God prescribed. It’s not like changing the recipe for the altar of incense. I contend it does not violate the regulative principle of worship.
Application of the Regulative Principle
Canon of Dort
Like one Reformation group, the Puritans, another, the Dutch Reformed Church, whom like the Puritans I’m not endorsing, committed to the Regulative Principle of Worship. In 1618-19, that group held their Second Synod of Dort, the Dutch term for the town of Dordrecht. This council explained its decisions in a document, The Canons of Dort. In Article 67 of the Canon, the council says:
The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others.
Earlier in Article 63, it writes:
The Lordly Supper shall be administered once every two months, wherever possible, and it will be edifying that it take place at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas where the circumstances of the Church permit. However, in those places where the Church has not yet been instituted, first of all Elders and Deacons shall be provided.
Helvetic Confession of 1564
Another Reformation group in Switzerland wrote Helvetic Confessions in 1536 and 1564. The second of these writes:
THE FESTIVALS OF CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone.
Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all.
Variations of Applications
All of these varied groups, including the Puritans, claimed the Bible as their final authority. They disagreed on the application of the regulative principle. Some said “no” on the organ. Certain ones said only psalms and no hymns. Groups differed on a liturgical calendar. They had their unique reasons for all of these variations, but all believed and practiced the regulative principle of worship.
Puritans sprinkled infants. How many infants do we see baptized in scripture, let alone sprinkled? Sure, Pilgrims and Baptists separated from the Church of England. Many Puritans, however, saw no problem with a state church as seen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Puritans heavily involved and led the English Civil War. Most Puritans would not use musical instruments and sang only Psalms (total Psalmody).
Word Meanings
“Christmas” derives from “Christ’s Mass.” “Sunday” derives from “Day of the Sun” and Hellenistic astrology. If I called you “gay” in the not too distant past, that was considered a compliment. Not anymore. The word “mass” comes from the Latin missa, which means “to send or dismiss.” You could argue that “Christmas” literally means “Christ sent,” like John 17:18, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”
If I say, “Merry Christmas” to you, I’m not saying, “Go have a merry time at Roman Catholic Mass.” No. This is a joyous time, like when the ark returns to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. This symbolizes God’s presence back in Jerusalem and David celebrates with all his might. Christmas means “Christ’s birth” to most. Be gone the idea that every word must revert to its original etymology. It’s one reason we revise our dictionaries — words change in meaning based on usage. Here’s a definition you might read: “the annual commemoration by Christians of the birth of Jesus Christ on Dec 25.”
Special Occasions
Philadelphia Confession
A liturgical calendar acknowledges special occasions. The Philadelphia Confession of 1742 says:
The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to Him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgiving, upon special occasions, ought to be used in a holy and religious manner.
Jesus and the Feast of Dedication
I call to your attention the words, “special occasions.” Churches advocated for special occasions. Regarding this, Stephen Doe writes concerning the regulative principle of worship:
God commands us to worship him once weekly in a corporate manner, but allows us to apply biblical principles to worship him at other times. The church under the new covenant does not have less liberty than the church under the old covenant; we are not the underage church, but the church which has been baptized in the Spirit of Christ. If we were to apply the regulative principle without clearly understanding these things, then we would have to condemn the apostolic church for meeting daily, since God had never commanded such meetings. Instead, they understood that what God was commanding was for them to worship him acceptably (cf. John 4:24; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 10:25; 13:15).
This balance is seen in the example of our Savior, who exercised his liberty of conscience, while not violating the regulative principle, when he attended the Feast of Dedication (that is, Hanukkah; cf. John 10:22). That was an extra-biblical feast not commanded by God in Scripture, but begun by the Jews to commemorate the rededication of the temple after the close of the Old Testament. Jesus was free to go up to Jerusalem or not to go up. God commands us to worship, and Jesus was using that occasion to obey the command of God.
The events on a liturgical calendar are not special occasions because a church sets them apart for observation. No, they are special because they are events in the life of Jesus Christ. If a church adds Thanksgiving, Mothers Day, and Fathers Day, those are justifiable. These do not violate a regulative principle.
Keeping Holy
The term holiday has diminished in its meaning. If I say, Happy Holiday, today, I might mean something akin to a Hallmark card greeting. It probably is the opposite of holy, the meaning of “Holy Day” or “holiday.” When we observe it, set apart for special emphasis, then it is holy, like the ground around the burning bush with Moses.
Exodus 20:8 says, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” I could say, “Remember the birth of Christ, to keep it holy.” “Remember the resurrection of Christ, to keep it holy.” If we can keep something holy, then we can sanctify something. We can set something apart to keep it holy, rather than just being a worldly item during the year. Churches can and should do that. This is the value aspect, I’m advocating, for a liturgical calendar.
(More to Come)
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Two)
The Suggestion of a Church Calendar
Perhaps as you read, I don’t have to argue for Christmas and Easter. You accept that already for your church calendar. Churches should acknowledge and honor the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They include the birth and resurrection in the prayers, singing, and preaching of their corporate worship.
I suggest that a church have a calendar with events for the worship of the Lord. Scripture does not require the special days, but a church should acknowledge the truth of them. They can do that by putting them on the calendar, very much like inserting them into an order of service.
The Requirement of Order
The belief, teaching, and practice of scripture requires order. You see order all over the Bible. This is the nature of God. Romans 8:29-30 reveal an order of salvation:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Here’s the order: (1) foreknowledge, (2) predestination to conform to the image of the Son, (3) call, (4) justification, and (5) glorification. Other examples of order exist. Consider Matthew 5:23-24:
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Here’s the order: (1) Decide to bring a gift to the altar, (2) remember brother has ought against you, (3) Leave the gift before the altar, (4) go, (5) be reconciled to the brother, (6) come back to the altar, (7) offer your gift at the altar.
The Truth of Order
God is a God of order. God requires order. “Order” translates the Greek, taxis. According to BDAG, it means: “an arrangement of things in sequence,” “a state of good order,” and “an arrangement in which someone or something functions.” Here are two usages of the word by the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Colossians 2:5, “For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”
Very often the priesthood, like that of Zacharias in Luke 1:8, is called an “order.” The worship of Israel required order. If you think about the tabernacle, it started with an outer court, then an inner court, the altar of burnt offering followed by the laver, and then into the holy place. It ended in the holy of holies. God prescribed order in the worship.
Worship, Order, and a Church Calendar
When one reads the account of the Lord’s Table in the New Testament one sees a particular order of observance. This is seen in Matthew 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:17-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Someone takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it, explains it, partakes of it, remembers, and then in the same manner takes the cup. He takes the bread first and then the cup. One could say that the order makes sense as it will always.
True worship requires order. A calendar puts the events of Jesus’ life in an order and observes them according to that plan. It treats them like they occurred. They happened at a time of the year.
One does not have to put events on a calendar to give them acknowledgement and honor. Doing so, however, fulfills a principle of order, which is in the nature of God. That obeys doing things in order. It ensures the church will think on these events, meditate on them, emphasize them, and include them in prayer, singing, and preaching.
(More to Come)
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar
You Might Have a Liturgical Calendar
If you have Easter and Christmas on your calendar, you have a liturgical calendar. You might not call it one, but it still is. Should you though? Is it permissible or maybe even of value for a church to keep a liturgical calendar every year?
Let’s say that you mark Easter and Christmas at their traditional and maybe historical times. That means every year you acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a virgin in Bethlehem about nine months apart. You do more than that. You make those a major emphasis in every aspect of the service on those days. That is liturgy.
The Liturgical Calendar, Per Se, Not in Bible, But…
Regulative Principle
Scripture doesn’t teach a New Testament, Christian, or church calendar of any kind. Based on that, I understand a rejection of these special days under a regulative principle of worship. The Bible does not regulate a Christian calendar. Is that end of discussion? I don’t think so.
I would still argue for a liturgical calendar, even if you don’t want to call it a liturgical calendar. The Bible does not require it either by precept, principle, or example. It also does not require using hymn books, offering plates, even the construction of church buildings for worship.
You can plan worship days on a calendar around the events of Jesus’ life, but the Bible doesn’t tell you to do that. Prayers, preaching, and singing in a true church should on a continual basis emphasize especially certain events in Jesus’ life. Biblical events really occurred. Churches should treat them like they did. It is right to do that.
Circumstances of Worship
Our church celebrated Christmas this year on December 24th. We went out and caroled on December 21st at the houses of seven different people or families. I did a three part Christmas series with sermons on December 10, 17, and 24. I would call that liturgy.
Even though a liturgical calendar, I contend, is not an element of worship, it does fall under a sub-category of a circumstance for worship. Every theme of a liturgical calendar fits within the elements of worship. As an example, for Christmas a church can bring Jesus’ birth into prayer, preaching, and singing. That is still regulating the service based on scripture.
I would further contend that the order of a calendar gives more necessary order to the worship of God. Order is in the nature of God. Worship in truth should reflect the truth about God. Liturgy itself is an order of service. Service should be orderly.
The Use of the Term “Liturgy”
Most Baptists do not use and have not used the term, “liturgy.” Professing Christians define liturgy as the standard order of events in a gathering of worship. When people attend church, they do things. They might start with prayer, sing a psalm, then sing a hymn, take up an offering, read scripture, pray again, preach a sermon, and then end in prayer. This order of events, planning out what the church will do in worship, is liturgy.
“Liturgy” is the transliteration of a Greek word in the New Testament, leitourgia. BDAG, the foremost New Testament lexicon says the word primarily means: “service of a public or formal type.” In certain instances, the word “minister” is the translation of leitourgos, another form of the word. This is “one engaged in administrative service.”
Here are three usages of leitourgia as “service of a public or formal type,” translated “ministration,” “service,” or “ministry”:
Luke 1:23, “And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Philippians 2:17, “Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.”
Hebrews 8:6, “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
All three of the usages relate to worship of God. They are service of a public or formal type.
Roman Catholic Liturgy?
Some oppose liturgy, because Roman Catholics use the word. Some would say liturgy originated out of Roman Catholicism. In the most fundamental way, liturgy is order of service. If you plan an order of service with prayer, singing, reading, and preaching, you prepared liturgy. If you plan that out further in a general way for your year, that’s a liturgical calendar.
Historical evidence exists for pre Roman Catholic liturgy. Of course, this isn’t the English word “liturgy” from the first three centuries, because English didn’t exist. However, liturgy in its most fundamental understanding existed in the first few centuries. Scripture also reveals the liturgical aspects of a worship service.
Liturgy of American Consumerism?
After preparing with many thoughts on this subject of liturgy, I read these paragraphs by Scott Aniol:
I always find it ironic when I hear Christians in America state with conviction—and a little bit of piety—that they won’t be tied down by “Catholic” traditions like the Church Calendar, and yet through their actual practices they prove to be constrained by a liturgical calendar of another sort—The Liturgical Calendar of American Consumerism.
They insist that they won’t celebrate Epiphany, the Baptism of Christ, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, Advent, or the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas.
And yet instead, their churches celebrate New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, Easter Bunny Day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and a Christmas season stretching from Thanksgiving to Christmas Day—days with customs rooted not in biblical events or Christian tradition, but in the tradition of American commercialism.
His article and a few to which he linked argues for liturgy in churches. A church could opt to plan out the traditions of American commercialism and plan into the calendar the events of Jesus’ life.
(More to Come)
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones (Part Three)
Jesus Is Scriptural
Everything that Jesus said in His sermon from Matthew 5:1 to 5:16 was a scriptural concept. Nothing Jesus taught contradicted God’s Word. Jesus is God. On the other hand, the religious leaders in Israel were “making the word of God of none effect through [their] tradition” (Mark 7:13). If anyone was destroying the belief and practice of the Old Testament, that is, the fulfilling of the Old Testament, it was them, not Jesus.
Believing and practicing the Old Testament was letting light shine before men. Jesus did that and He called upon kingdom citizens of His to do the same. Proof that He didn’t arrive to earth to destroy the scripture He inspired, Jesus promised perfect preservation of every letter of it.
If Jesus would preserve every letter of written scripture, surely He also expected His people to do all of it too. His teachers would also teach men to do everything scripture said. One could say at this point: in other words, you’ve got to be better than the Pharisees. The righteousness of the Pharisees is not saving righteousness. It is their own version of righteousness that comes from human effort. They couldn’t produce the righteousness that would get them into heaven. That righteousness comes from above.
Righteousness and Saving Faith
Righteousness, which is from above and by the grace of the Lord, exceeds the faux righteousness arising only from man’s works. It doesn’t rank scripture into majors and minors, because it can’t keep everything that He said. Like Jesus, it fulfills written scripture. James in his epistle later says the same. True believers are both hearers and doers of what God said.
Saving faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Someone is begotten by the Word of Truth. It would follow that He would also be a keeper of scripture, like Jesus said. That supernatural righteousness of God produces obedience to scripture. You can detect the unrighteous servant of unrighteousness by His diminishing of scripture.
Here is a professing teacher of God. Someone disobeys scripture. He doesn’t want to offend that person by saying something. He lets it go. This is not doing the least of the commandments and teaching men so.
Ranking Doctrines or the Triage Approach
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day ranked doctrines. Their unity revolved around a triage approach. Instead of following the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, they pervert into just the opposite of what He taught. Unity on the least commandments, what they call, non-essentials or minors. These teachings are not a “hill you want to die on.”
Left-Winged Legalism
Professing Christians especially today practice a left-winged legalism more often than the more commonly highlighted right-winged type. The left wing calls its legalism, “grace.” It is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Since you can’t keep everything scripture says on your own, reduce its teachings to what you can keep. This is left-winged legalism.
Those practicing left-winged legalism relish pointing out more consistent practice of scripture than theirs as legalism. They do it all the time. How you know they aren’t legalists in their estimation is by their inconsistent practice of scripture. People who try to follow everything like Jesus taught and teach others to do likewise, they aren’t the greatest in the kingdom to left-winged legalists. Instead, they’re “legalists.” Again, it’s in reality just the opposite.
As Jesus moves on in His illustrations in chapter five, you can see how much a truly righteous person strives to love God and His neighbor. It’s not the get-by-ism of the Pharisees and modern evangelicalism, so they can keep their crowds. They’ve dumbed down scripture so that it is unrecognizable as Christianity. This follows the same tack of the Pharisees. There is nothing new under the sun.
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones (Part Two)
Jesus came to elevate scripture, not overthrow it. The scribes and Pharisees had devalued actual scripture for their own traditions. The religious leaders thereby made themselves the standard of righteousness. They were not God’s light, glorifying Him by shining in a dark world.
Heaven and Earth Passing Away and Not His Words
Not only did Jesus not destroy the law, but He promised, first, not one letter of the Old Testament text would pass away until He fulfilled it. Second, He promised to fulfill all of the Old Testament. The audience of Matthew 5:17-18 could count on the perfect preservation of the text of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of its teachings. Matthew gets started providing the account of that occurrence and its continuation in the future in His writing of Jesus’ words and works.
The Lord Jesus refers to heaven and earth passing away in verse 18, an event He states again in His Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:35:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Jesus uses the Greek word for “pass” or “pass away” several times in Matthew and then the other Gospels. BDAG says this most common usage means, “come to an end and so no longer be there.” That premier lexicon includes these very usages as examples of that meaning. Regarding the text of scripture, being “there” means being available.
A Written, Hebrew Text
The reference of the jot and tittle by Jesus underscores the written text of the Old Testament. The written text of scripture would not pass away. It also emphasizes the responsibility to perform all of it to the very letter.
Jesus says heaven and earth are going to pass. They will come to end and so no longer be there. On the other hand, the jots and tittles of the Old Testament will not come to an end and so no longer be there. He uses the same Greek verb in the negative to contrast the two occurrences, one happening and the other not.
Jots and tittle are also Hebrew. God breathed Hebrew letters and words. The original language text would not pass away. This doesn’t apply to the preservation of a translation, English or otherwise. Translation is great, but the promise of Jesus goes to the original language text. Preservation of scripture is the preservation of the words originally written down.
Scripture Never Obsolete
The teaching of Jesus was not time-sensitive. It applies still, because heaven and earth are both still here. Men can count on this promise of Jesus for all time. All of scripture is permanently important. It will never become outdated, obsolete, or too archaic to keep.
The passing of heaven and earth is not metaphorical. It is a real future event. Where people very often put their greatest investment of time and energy will not survive. Second Temple Judaism was turning its audience away from scripture through its traditions. As a teacher, Jesus was doing the opposite.
Matthew 5:19
Jesus said in Matthew 5:19:
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
“Therefore” looks back to the previous two verses. Jesus committed Himself to the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. Unlike the preservation of heaven and earth, He guaranteed the perfect preservation of the written text of scripture. These two statements stressed the conclusion that the greatest in His kingdom would both do and then teach everything in and from scripture.
Earlier Jesus quoted to Satan in the Wilderness of Temptation (Matthew 4:4):
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
While Satan would tempt men not to live every word of scripture, Jesus expected the opposite. Elevation in His kingdom meant living by every Word.
Debunking Ranking Doctrines, Not Endorsing
The tradition of the Pharisees ranked scripture by importance. Since they were not keeping all of it, partly because they couldn’t, they opted for classifying God’s Word from the least to the greatest commandments. This is why they often asked (Matthew 22:36), “What is the greatest commandment?” Rather than keep all of it, they argued over what was important. Someone might keep everything if everything was only what they deemed important, an increasingly shorter list.
The Pharisees would add their traditions, but they would also minimize or diminish actual scripture to what they could keep. They sorted teachings into essentials and non-essentials. Since they so depended on their own labor, this became their chief form of legalism.
Modern interpreters buy into the Pharisaical tradition of ranking doctrines by using this text to advocate for lesser and greater commandments. The whole point of mentioning jots and tittles was to propose the belief and practice of everything in scripture, down to the smallest details.
Hyperbole? No
No doubt men today will use the expression “jot and tittle” as a way to express the exactness of something in an hyperbolic way. Nothing in the text gives us a reason to say that Jesus used those words as a type of hyperbole.
In response to those who say the words jot and tittle are hyperbolic, Paul Feinberg writes: “I see no such proof” (Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980] 284.). He explains the great caution needed for labeling any portion of scripture as hyperbolic, reserving it only for instances where the literal meaning brings an unjustifiable meaning to the text.
Matthew ends his Gospel with a Great Commission text in which Jesus says (Matthew 28:20), “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Is that hyperbole? No. Jesus intended His followers to keep everything He taught, every jot and tittle. This is what the Apostle Paul called, “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).
More to Come
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones
Defend or Support the Textus Receptus?
Recently I read someone who started his essay on Matthew 5:17-20, and he called it ‘quoted to defend an understanding of preservation that supports the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic.’ Nope, that’s not how it works with passages. I’ve preached through the whole book of Matthew. I’ve begun again, and I’m right now in Matthew 5:17-20, spending two weeks on that text so far.
In its place in Jesus’ sermon there on the north slope of the Sea of Galilee, Matthew 5:17-20 has several applications. It’s not a matter of finding passages to defend the Received Text of scripture. No, as one of its applications, even its interpretation, it teaches the perfect preservation of scripture. This teaching in Matthew 5:17-20, as well as other places in the Bible, supports the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic. That’s not all it teaches, but it does at least that.
Those who deny God’s perfect, providential preservation of scripture are the ones who seem to go to these passages with purposeful elimination of that interpretation and application. They must not see perfect preservation of scripture and its general availability and accessibility anywhere in the Bible. It becomes a scorched earth activity, as if Jesus really said, “I am actually come to ensure the destruction of the law or the prophets.”
Matthew 5:17-20
Here is Matthew 5:17-20:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Let’s get started. Religious leaders in Israel expected the Messiah to destroy the law or the prophets. As part of His fulfillment of the new covenant, He would abolish the old. Jesus said, “Think not that.” They were obviously thinking that.
How does this section fit into the previous context of this sermon? The light that shines before men from those who inherit the kingdom of heaven is not something arbitrary (cf. Matthew 5:1-16). It is scripture. The light shines through the keeping of scripture. Jesus elaborates on this. First, he debunks this misnomer that the Messiah would do away with “the law or the prophets.”
The Law or the Prophets
First, what is the law or the prophets? This is crucial for understanding what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-20. The article I read by the aggressive non-preservationist, who myopically attacks the doctrine of perfect preservation, says:
The aspect of this purpose most relevant to our discussion is the fact that Matthew intends to address the major issue of how Jesus and his teaching relate to the Law of Moses.
That interpretation is false, but it is also typical of those who cannot, must not, see the doctrine of preservation in Matthew 5:17-20. He continues:
Since Gentile inclusion in the Great Commission forms the climax of the Gospel, explaining the specifics of Jew/Gentile relations is a major part of what Matthew intends to do.
Is that what Jesus is doing? Dealing with Gentile inclusion in the Great Commission? I would call that eisegesis. You do not see that in Jesus’ sermon.
Not Just the Law of Moses
“The law or the prophets” is not isolated to the law of Moses. That expression refers to the entire Old Testament text, what was all of written scripture at that time.
God couples law and prophets ten other times in the New Testament (Matthew 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; and Romans 3:21). The joining of these two refer to all of the Old Testament scripture. Sure, “the law” refers to the first five books, but “the prophets” refers then to the rest of the Old Testament.
In the next verse (verse 18), Jesus says, “the law,” without “the prophets.” That doesn’t mean He is referring to just the law. Actually, He must continue meaning all of the Old Testament. The Greek conjunction gar (“for”) at the beginning of verse 18 connects “the law” in verse 18 to “the law or the prophets” in verse 17. The fulfilling in verse 17 is not distinct from it in verse 18. They’re identical. The conjunction starting verse 18 require “the law or the prophets” and “the law” to be the same.
Fulfill?
“Fulfill” also points to the whole Old Testament with an emphasis on Jesus’ Messianic fulfillment of the Old Testament. In the sermon, Jesus made a statement about the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. Luke 24:44 is especially a clue about this, a parallel passage:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
The Mosaic law-only view is very difficult to prove in this context. I would say, impossible.
“These commandments,” whether least or greatest, must reflect the meaning of the previous two verses. Jesus says, “therefore.” In other words, based on what I just said. Based on what Jesus just said, He makes the conclusion of verse 19.
The Gospel
All written scripture is the light that shines before men through those receiving the rule of King Jesus in their lives. Those who acquiesce to Him as King will live a life according to scripture, all of it, not just the so-called “least” of it. This does debunk the Pharisees and also relates to the gospel. The gospel changes someone’s life so He can live what God says, all of it. This isn’t legalism. This is what Jesus taught. Matthew Henry writes on this:
The rule which Christ came to establish exactly agreed with the scriptures of the Old Testament, here called the law and the prophets. The prophets were commentators upon the law, and both together made up that rule of faith and practice which Christ found upon the throne in the Jewish church, and here he keeps it on the throne.
More to Come
A True View of the World: Inside or Outside?
Anthony Kennedy and Casey
In the Supreme Court decision “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Robert P. Casey” in 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Is that statement by a Supreme Court justice true? Can someone define his own concept of existence, of meaning? Everyone defines his own meaning? I say “no” to that, but it relates to how anyone obtains an accurate understanding of the world.
Anthony Kennedy wrote that personal preference, which originates from a person’s feelings or opinions, arising from the inside and not the outside, would override objective meaning. Therefore, objective truth contradicted freedom and essentially then America itself. Something is true as long as it corresponds to someone’s desires.
Authenticity and Relativism
Even more so, when truth is your truth, then it’s also authentic. Count that for goodness and beauty too. Stephen Presser writes about Kennedy’s line:
It undoubtedly owes a lot to Freudian psychology, to Rousseau’s notion that civilization places us in chains, and, most of all, to the concept usually associated with Abraham Maslow, “self-actualization.” The core of this philosophy seems to be that each of us has an authentic “self,” and the goal of life ought to be to maximize individual opportunities to express and develop it.
I read someone, who called the statement, “the epitome of relativistic thought.” Obviously, when applied to abortion, to which the Casey law was written, a baby is anything the person feels it to be, who wants the abortion. It is an invader of the mother or just a clump of cells or cancer.
Outside, Not the Inside
Before the 19th century in the United States, almost everyone saw truth as received from the outside, not the inside. God was separate from His creation. Truth, goodness, and beauty, which came from Him, outside of His creation, were transcendent. Hence, people called them the transcendentals.
On the outside was evidence. Revelation is the declaration of God. This is premodernism. Everything starts with God. But even modernism said evidence on the outside was necessary. As Ben Shapiro very often says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Man’s observation falls below revelation though. Modernism assumed that absolutes existed, but their testing came through man’s reasoning.
Predmodern, Modern, Romanticism, Postmodern
Between Christ and the 19th century, this very long period is premodern. Sure, 1500 to 1800 is an early modern period. I don’t want to get into when modernism started. It depends on how you define it. Theological modernism started in the 19th century. That’s the time of the worldview shift reflected also in the Romantic Movement of the 19th century.
Modernism connected truth to man’s experience, his observation. Romanticism moved modernism all the way to the inside, where truth, goodness, and beauty were not longer transcendent, but completely immanent. New religions exploded in the 19th century. Truth lost objectivity. People’s opinion, their feelings, increasingly become more important to decide truth, goodness, and beauty. The movement toward truth is your truth is postmodernism.
God’s Word is the final arbiter of truth, but it isn’t the only one. 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the church the pillar and ground for the truth. Still, however, that’s outside of your opinion, your thinking, and your feelings.
Even modernism depends on man’s thinking or reasoning. This continues to influence even conservatism in the world. Modernists confirm God’s revelation to man’s thinking, what one could call, rationalism. Scripture stands above man’s reasoning, what Peter calls the pure mother’s milk (1 Pet 2:2). It circumvents man’s observation and reasoning, coming directly from God, that is, from the outside. What it says is true, good, and beautiful.
Douglas Wilson: “I Am Not A Separatist”
The Moscow Mood
One landscape of the evangelical internet blew up recently when evangelical reformed (Presbyterian?) Kevin DeYoung, leader in The Gospel Coalition, wrote a scathing article against Douglas Wilson and his Christian enterprise in Moscow, Idaho. He entitled it: “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood.” Now Wilson has answered him with an article at his blog: “My Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung.” Many already have written posts on this highly visible skirmish.
I’m not going to give my assessment on this public conflict. I have a leaning in this intramural fracas, but I choose to center my attention on Wilson, because of something he wrote in his article:
I am a fundamentalist, in that I believe the fundamentals with all my heart. But I am not a cultural fundamentalist, and I am not a schismatic or separatist.
Wilson says, “I am not a . . . separatist.” Historically, fundamentalists are at least separatists, unless someone wants to redefine fundamentalism. Usually in the technical aspects of designation or labelling, removing separation makes Wilson maybe a “conservative evangelical.” Some would argue with even that because of the Federal Vision issue for Wilson. To put the doctrine of Federal Vision (FV) in shorthand, someone wrote last week:
The FV holds that all who are baptized are objectively part of the covenant of grace.
Federal Vision and Wilson
It’s thick, but you might read the article in which that sentence occurred to try to understand the issue. The authors entitled the article: “On Justification, Doug Wilson, And The Moscow Doctrine.” The same post reads in the conclusion:
As we witness and lament the waning of Christianity’s influence in American public life, Doug Wilson’s rhetoric has galvanized conservative and Reformed-minded Christians who, at the very least, are hungry for a vision of the future that has a strong Christian influence on the culture. Some have left faithful and orthodox churches for churches more aligned with “the Moscow mood,” while failing to discern the real danger of “the Moscow doctrine,” especially with respect to FV and its erroneous doctrine of justification.
People should ask what the Wilson doctrine of salvation is. Is it confused? Are paedobaptists such as Wilson preaching a true gospel? In a google supplied definition of the belief of paedobaptism, I can’t say WIlson would disagree:
Inherent in this view is the thinking that baptism is only rightly given to those who are regenerate, but that in light of God’s covenant promises, children of Christian parents may be presumed to be regenerate from birth, and thereby worthy recipients of the sign of the covenant.
Wilson says he is a fundamentalist and defines it as believing “the fundamentals,” whatever those may be. What are “the fundamentals” for someone associating with Federal Vision? Perhaps Wilson read an accusation of fundamentalism in DeYoung’s post. The words “fundamentalist” or “separatist” or even “schismatic” do not occur in DeYoung’s article anywhere.
Fundamentalism and Separation
I am pinpointing the language of Wilson, “I am not a . . . separatist,” perhaps Wilson equaling “schismatic” to “separatist.” True churches, which are true New Testament churches, are separatist. All true churches are separatist churches. Yet, Wilson proclaims, he is not a separatist. Even though he is a fundamentalist, he says, he carves off “cultural fundamentalist.” These are loaded words that Wilson does not define. What does it take to be a “cultural fundamentalist.” Wouldn’t someone be a “cultural fundamentalist” today if he opposed same sex marriage and supported delineated male and female roles.
Wilson argues for the patriarchy even greater or more strict than complementarianism. This is cultural. He criticizes complementarians as too soft or squishy. He defends “toxic masculinity.” He wrote last month:
God has determined that men should occupy the positions of leadership in each of the basic governments that He has established among men. These governments would be those of our civic life (Is. 3:12), our life together in the church (1 Tim. 2:12), and in the family (1 Cor. 11:3). In the first place, He appointed men to take glad and sacrificial responsibility in these areas, and by men, I mean males. In addition to that, He required the males that He placed in these positions of authority and responsibility to act like men, and not simply males.
The distinction, it seems now, between complementarianism and patriarchy is that the former applies only to marriage and the latter to every institution in the world, as represented by Wilson in the above paragraph. If Wilson is a fundamentalist, he’s also a cultural fundamentalist.
Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism
Wilson can’t be a fundamentalist, because separation is a sine qua non of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists separate over belief and practice. They separate over fundamentals, whether doctrinal or cultural. A historian of fundamentalism, Kevin Bauder, covers this in his article: “The Idea of Fundamentalism.” You aren’t a fundamentalist unless you separate over your fundamentals.
Fundamentalism is a movement that began in early twentieth century United States with institutional separation. The Britannica entry on “Christian fundamentalism,” describing Carl McIntyre, says:
He argued that fundamentalists must not only denounce modernist deviations from traditional Christian beliefs but also separate themselves from all heresy and apostasy. This position entailed the condemnation of conservatives who chose to remain in fellowship with more liberal members of their denominations.
Later the article on Christian Fundamentalism restates this foundational characteristic of fundamentalism:
By the 1980s fundamentalists had rebuilt all the institutional structures that had been lost when they separated from the older denominations.
The Bible Requires Separatism
Be Ye Holy
The Bible teaches separatism all the way through. God separated Adam and Eve from the Garden. He separated Noah and his family from the rest of the world. He separated the nation Israel from all the surrounding nations. Separation verses abound all over the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). God by nature is holy and holiness is separation. God says to His people, “Be ye holy as I am holy.” He is saying, “Be ye separate as I am separate.”
Wilson defines separatists as both “schismatics” and “cultural fundamentalists,” differentiating from himself. He gives no explanation for that, apparently thinking everyone reading “just knows already.” Of the unscriptural belief and practice of Wilson and his institutions in Moscow, Idaho, I reject his lack of separatism, both from the world and from false doctrine and practice. To explain the catholicity of Douglas Wilson, he advocated for this statement on such:
On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.
Catholic or Not Catholic
When he says he is not a separatist, ecclesiastically he means he is catholic. He doesn’t like what he sees going on, but he’s not going to separate over it. He’ll sit behind the keyboard and fire away, but that won’t stop him from staying together in a spirit of ecumenism with false doctrine and practice.
I thought Wilson’s statement on fundamentalism and separation to be a good teaching moment. As many readers know, I do not consider myself a “fundamentalist.” I without apology say, “I am a separatist.” God requires separation. Those who obey scriptural teaching on separation are separatists. Wilson says, ‘I am not one of those.’
Salvation and Separation
2 Corinthians 6:17-18 say:
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Jesus said in John 8:44, “Ye are of your Father the devil.” Someone must leave the one family, Satan’s, to join the new family, something shown in Galatians 3 and 4. The Lord says, “I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you,” and who does He say this is for? Those who come out from among them and be ye separate. Wilson says, “I am not a separatist.” Okay. According to scripture, what does that mean for the ultimate outcome for Wilson?
The Capitulation on the Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible suddenly change its meaning? When God speaks on a certain subject in His Word, do we take what He says as the truth or do we conform it to naturalistic or humanistic presuppositions? I ask these question especially here about the biblical doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture.
Master’s Seminary and John MacArthur
I was watching an interview of the leaders of the Master’s Seminary about its founding, including John MacArthur, and I came to a crucial, foundational section of the interview. A little after the 15 minute mark, MacArthur said:
Obviously I have a very strong commitment to the Word of God and to its accurate interpretation and to sound doctrine. . . . [We needed] to come up with our own exhaustive doctrinal statement. . . . [A] seminary has to have a unified doctrinal statement. . . . We didn’t have any wiggle room. It was sound doctrine or nothing, and we were going to fight for that at all costs. . . . We tightened everything we could tighten with a very detailed doctrine that to this day is still our statement with some more refinement.
Even now we’re doing some refinement, having it right. It was in order to maintain sound doctrine and have a solid, unified set of convictions all the way from theology proper and bibliology down to ecclesiology and even eschatology, the whole thing. And that’s what’s been defining for us. And here we’ve been doing this since 1986 and nothing has moved.
Bibliology Statement at Master’s Seminary
When I heard MacArthur say this over a week ago, I wondered about the bibliology statement in the seminary doctrinal statement, so I looked it up. Here’s the fundamental part of what it says, the first four paragraphs:
We teach that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed.
We teach the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 31:17), describe the special creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-25), and define marriage as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). Scripture elsewhere dictates that any sexual activity outside of marriage is an abomination before the Lord (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:13; Matthew 5:27-32; 19:1-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 6:9-10; 1 Thessalonians. 4:1-7).
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12-13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
As you read that, maybe you think it’s a boilerplate, typical orthodox, scriptural, and historical statement of bibliology. In a statement on bibliology, in the first four paragraphs Master’s Seminary gave a gigantic chunk of space to interpretational philosophy, emphasizing a young earth interpretation and biblical definition of marriage. I’m fine with including that, but how do you include that and say nothing about the preservation of scripture?
The Bible and the Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible teach its own preservation? Does it say anything about that? Did you notice in the second paragraph on inspiration, it applies verbal inspiration and inerrancy and infallibility to the “original manuscripts”? After a third paragraph on interpretation, a fourth paragraph then says “the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” According to the statement, the Bible itself is not infallible, except in the original manuscripts, yet it still constitutes an infallible rule of faith and practice. These types of conclusions do not follow the premises for them.
The physical original manuscripts (autographa) do not exist. No one can look at them to get a rule of faith and practice. People can look only at copies of copies (apographa) of the original manuscripts. Without a doctrine of preservation, one cannot conclude an infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there no doctrine of preservation of scripture in the Bible?
MacArthur states in the interview that he obviously has a very strong commitment to the Word of God. Does he have a strong commitment to the Bible’s teaching on the preservation of scripture? He commits to six day creation based on his scriptural presuppositions. MacArthur commits to a biblical definition of marriage. The statement includes nothing about preservation of scripture. Is he committed to the teaching of the Word of God on its own preservation? I don’t see it.
Legacy Standard Bible
The same Master’s Seminary faculty took the project of the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Upon its completion in 2021, the editors of the LSB wrote in its preface:
The Legacy Standard Bible has the benefit of a number of critical Greek texts in determining the best variant reading to translate. The 27th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, supplemented by the 28th edition in the General Epistles, serve as the base text. On every variant reading the Society of Biblical Literature GNT as well as the Tyndale House GNT were also consulted. In the end, each decision was based upon the current available manuscript evidence.
This statement alone reveals a rejection of perfect preservation. Instead of God preserving His Words perfectly as scripture teaches, it reflects a failed attempt at restoration of the original text God inspired. This helps explain the doctrinal statement leaving out a doctrine of preservation. What does the Bible teach about a believers expectations between AD100 and the present regarding the preservation of scripture?
Even if the evidence of modern science says the world is a billion years old, a believer accepts the revelation of the first chapter of Genesis. He explains the science according to scripture, because scripture is truth. Even if the evidence of modern science says that there are errors in present printed editions of the original language Bible, a believer accepts the doctrine of the preservation passages. It also says that men alone have the task of preserving scripture like any other book. Everyone either begins with a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic presupposition, and no one is neutral.
Preaching on Preservation
When exposing the text in front of him, MacArthur has said the following, first on Matthew 24:35:
Finally, Jesus said this: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words” – what? – “shall not pass away.” That is an unchanging authority. And He closes the parable with an unchanging authority. “My Word shall not pass away.” In Luke 16:17, He said heaven and earth will pass away and it’s easier for them to do that than for one tittle out of the law to pass away. He said not one jot or one tittle in Matthew 5:18 will pass away until all is fulfilled. In John 10:35, He said Scripture cannot be broken. And so if we believe the Word of God, we believe this is going to happen – it’s going to happen.
So in a sermon to people, who sit there thinking that Almighty God will preserve His Words, it sounds like he preaches perfect preservation. But no, ‘we really don’t believe that.’ ‘We just say that in the texts that say that.’
Master’s Seminary has no statement on preservation of scripture, because it does not believe in the preservation of scripture. It does not believe that someone can prove the preservation of scripture on exegetical grounds. It says God inspired every word on exegetical grounds, but it doesn’t say on exegetical grounds that God then preserved every one of those words. The seminary says that God nowhere in scripture promised that He would preserve His Word. Historic Christianity writes doctrinal statements that say something different.
Historical Bibliology on Preservation of Scripture
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Dutch Theologian Herman Bavink (1854-1921) wrote in The Sacrifice of Praise (p. 21):
All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power.
In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925), Eldred Vanderlaan wrote:
Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle or the yod shall perish.
In a Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725), Benjamin Marshall wrote:
And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could one jot, or tittle of the latter pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle, much less could one word. . . . pass away. . . , without its actual completion, and full accomplishment in the express letter of it.
Believing God’s Promise of Preservation
A multitude of passages in scripture teach in their context the perfect preservation of scripture (see our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, here and here). God promised He would preserve every one of His written Words unto every generation of believer. It’s interesting to me what men, who have been in the same orbit as MacArthur, say about the sovereignty of God. R. C. Sproul famously wrote and said:
If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination, then ladies and gentlemen, there is not the slightest confidence that you can have that any promise that God has ever made about the future will come to pass.
It amazes me that they can believe that every molecule functions under the control of God, but God would not and did not fulfill His promises of perfect preservation of scripture.
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel (part four)
What Is the Greatest Danger?
A good question to ask when evaluating United States domestic and foreign policy is “what is the greatest danger to the country?” When I grew up during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a monumental threat to the security of the United States. If you are close to my age, maybe you remember the power of the Soviet military.
I remember hearing the idea that the Soviets would fly the hammer and sickle over the U. S. capital in 1976. At that time, almost half of the world’s land mass was communist. It was an amazing time when the government changed in Eastern bloc countries and they opened up in the late 1980s. With the fall of the iron curtain, suddenly the United States became the sole superpower. Communist dictators were everywhere all over the world from the moment of my birth in 1962 to the tearing down of the Berlin wall on November 9, 1989. Putin and Xi are barely dictators today compared to those in the Cold War.
Terrorism
A transition began in the 1980s from international communism to Islamic terrorism. Terrorists would not defeat and take over the United States, but they would cause terror and chaos to free countries. My earliest inkling was the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, the bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983,then the bomb under the World Trade center in 1993, and finally the culmination with terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Terrorist attacks are still a threat, especially as long as someone could deliver a nuclear device into a major U. S. city. Conventional deterrence will not stop nuclear attack motivated by jihad, like the stalemate of mutually assured destruction. One of these random nuclear attacks still poses great danger, especially crossing the Southern border. From a sheer military risk, I still see this as the single greatest, immediate peril to national security.
China
Besides another major terrorist attack, I don’t see any great danger to the United States from a foreign country. China is the biggest threat, but in my opinion China shows no short term aspirations to invade our shores. The biggest danger by far isn’t foreign, but domestic. Every failing foreign policy relates to the internal corruption of the United States. I’m not saying Putin is better than the Democrat Party, but the latter is far worse for the United States than him.
In my childhood, Democrats supported Communists in Latin America. Bernie Sanders took his honeymoon in Cuba. They still lean socialist, even as seen in their support of the Palestinians and leftists in Israel.
The Left, the Democrat Party, and “Democracy”
In 2008 California passed Proposition 8, changing the California constitution on marriage, defining it between a man and a woman. Immediately upon it becoming law, San Francisco mayor (now governor) Gavin Newsome ramped up same sex marriage in city hall. No one said anything about democracy. No Democrat says anything about democracy with violations of immigration law and sanctuary cities. When they challenge elections, they say nothing about threats to democracy. Much more could be said about who really opposes democracy and freedom in the United States.
I don’t support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I believe, however, that Russia saw the expansion of NATO as an existential threat. This was part of its agreement at the end of the Cold War. Will funding Ukraine end the war against Russia and will it turn Russia into a kind of long term partner, no longer a threat to American security? American meddling all over the world looks like it does more to hurt than help. The present government opposes truly democratic movements, such as what we have seen in Argentina, the Netherlands, and Italy most recently. Meanwhile, the United States is spread so thin that it hurts the American economy and security at home.
Changes are occurring elsewhere, difficult to interpret. They are framed by the establishment, mainstream media in the United States as anti-democratic. This is in the same spirit that antifa is anti-fascist, and antiracism is anti-racism. These are propaganda tools, it seems. Changes have occurred in Poland and Hungary that are called anti-democratic. California would call Florida, “anti-democratic,” because of decreasing abortion and banning pornography in the schools. The present administration pressures African countries to legalize same sex marriage.
Our Own House In Order
A stronger, more cohesive alliance with Russia, China, and Iran also supports an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian coalition in the Middle East. This hearkens to possible future events in fulfillment of prophecy unlike what I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Many Americans do not trust the Democrat apparatchiks at work in Ukraine or in Israel. These are the same characters who supported billions of dollars to Iran. The Biden family also received millions of dollars for peddling influence in Ukraine. The United States needs to get its own house in order. Then it will be better prepared to exert itself elsewhere.
Recent Comments