https://theaquilareport.com/198152-2/
Justice is getting what you deserve and giving others what they deserve. And the standard for what is just is God’s righteousness. This is what Francis Schaeffer argued forty years ago, and it is something we need to recover today.
Where do human rights come from?
Are these five alleged “human rights” actually right?
1. LGBT justice
2. Reproductive justice
3. Distributive justice
4. Racial justice
5. Social justice
It depends on how you define them. But back to that in a moment. before we do this, consider three parallel contrasts:
First, It is wholesome for kids to play in a secure treehouse. But it is foolish to cut a tall tree branch that you are sitting on when the saw is between you and the tree’s trunk.
Second, It is responsible for a carpenter to pay for a truck so that he can better fulfill his vocation. But it is reckless and immoral for a thief to steal that carpenter’s truck to take it on a high-speed joy ride through a neighborhood.
Third and similarly, it is wholesome and responsible to defend human rights. But it is foolish to defend human rights without the foundation that human rights come from the Creator. Further, it is reckless and immoral to claim to defend human rights when you are actually defending injustice.
Now back to those five alleged human rights. If you define them as follows, then they are examples of folly, recklessness, and immorality:
- LGBT justice. Everyone must affirm and celebrate the ideology of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people—and any sexual orientations or gender identities that do not correspond to heterosexual norms.
- Reproductive justice. Pregnant people (that’s the new term—not women but pregnant people since “men” can get pregnant, too) have a human right to have personal bodily autonomy—to choose to keep or to kill the unborn baby in one’s womb.
- Distributive justice. Society must distribute (or allocate) power and resources so that there are equal outcomes. (This is different from arguing that God-ordained authorities must impartially punish lawbreaking and right wrongs.)
- Racial justice. Society must remove systemic racial disparities in areas such as wealth, income, education, and employment. Justice is equal outcomes, and a failure to have equal outcomes is racism. (This is different from arguing that society must treat all ethnicities impartially.)
- Social justice. In order to understand what social justice typically means in our culture today, you have to understand what Critical Theory is. In a nutshell Critical Theory affirms four beliefs (I’m paraphrasing Neil Shenvi): (1) Society is divided into two groups: oppressors and oppressed. The oppressors have power, and they are evil bullies; the oppressed do not have power, and they are innocent victims. (2) Oppressors (the dominant group) maintain their power by imposing their ideology on everyone. (3) Lived experience gives oppressed people special access to truths about their oppression. (4) Society needs social justice—that is, society needs to pursue equal outcomes by deconstructing and eliminating all forms of social oppression. Social oppression includes not just disparities regarding race and ethnicity but also gender, sexual orientation, religion, physical ability, mental ability, and economic class. The term wokeness refers to the state of being consciously aware of and “awake” to this social injustice. (This is different from arguing that God-ordained authorities must oppose partiality in civic life by impartially punishing unjust perpetrators and righting wrongs.)
-
Words as Weapons: Why We Must Stand Our Ground over Pronouns
In the autumn of 2016, trans activists targeted Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, at the time a relatively obscure psychologist based at the University of Toronto. Peterson had released a video explaining why he opposed proposed Canadian legislation, Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act regulating speech regarding gender identity. Due to his decades-long study of totalitarianism, Peterson stated in no uncertain terms that in the fight for civilization, language was always one of the first battlefields—and was thus the hill to die on. We all know how that fight went. Instead of getting cancelled, Peterson got rich and famous.
After the fact, many wondered: why was Peterson so willing to sacrifice his career over the issue of transgender pronouns? He is now one of the world’s most well-known intellectuals, but at the time there was every likelihood that his story would end the way most of these incidents do—with a quiet firing, a 24-hour news story, and another victory for the dudes in drag. I heard a student ask Peterson this question at one of his early lectures in 2017, before he launched his global tours marked by the presence of security and prohibitive speaking fees.
His response was simple: why not? Usually, he pointed out, there are few compelling reasons to die for any particular patch of soil. But in order to fight, one has to draw a line. For Peterson, that line was language. He would not say what the trans activists and their government enforcers told him he must say, because he refused to cede the right to choose his words to the state.
It is cliché to mention George Orwell these days—everyone does it. But when it comes to explaining how totalitarians of all stripes manipulate language for ideological ends, it is difficult to beat 1984. “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” Syme, of the Ministry of Truth, tells Winston Smith. “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
When the range of available terminology is narrowed, so are the boundaries of the debate. When you accept the confines placed on language—or, in the case of ‘preferred pronouns’, use the compelled speech demanded of you—you accept ground chosen by your ideological opponents and agree to put aside the most potent weapons you have for making your case: words. -
All Over-Realized Eschatologies Are Attempts to Change the Rules of the Game
Written by R. Scott Clark |
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
We are to be what we are: mere Christians redeemed and sanctified by grace alone, through faith alone, and seeking to live according to God’s moral law, in union with Christ, out of gratitude for God’s free favor in Christ—not in order to be justified and saved but because we have been justified and saved.Some years ago, while explaining Heidelberg Catechism 114, on the moral law, I wrote, “Paul was not a Gnostic, a Valentinian, an Anabaptist, a Familist, nor an Antinomian. He was a sinner saved and justified freely through faith alone, a Christian living in union and communion with Christ, seeking to bring his life into conformity to all of God’s holy moral law.”
A reader wrote to ask what this paragraph means. It is a loaded with historical references that would take some time to explain but each of these represents some kind of over-realized eschatology. By that I mean someone who thinks that he has or can have heaven on earth right now. In order to have it each of these groups changed the rules of the game. In one way or another they got rid of God’s moral law, God’s grace, or God’s church.
The Gnostics (including the Valentinians) did by getting rid of God himself and by making themselves into gods. This is probably the dominant theology of our age. The Anabaptists certainly had an over-realized eschatology. They were not content to be mere Christians. They wanted to make themselves into apostles and fancied that they were super-spiritual—perhaps they were the Super Apostles of the sixteenth century?—who both mastered the law and were free from it. They did not need justification and salvation by grace alone, through faith alone and the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ alone—the first generation of the Anabaptists rejected the Reformation solas. They fancied that they had the apostolic gifts and powers including tongues, being slain in the Spirit, and continuing revelation. They were the true precursors of American evangelicalism from 1800 to today. The Familists was a movement founded in the 1540s, in Emden. They were precursors to the early Pietist movement of Jakob Boehme (1575–1624). They were radical subjectivists who rejected the sacraments. Their views were adopted by the Quakers. Again, this is a manifestation of an over-realized eschatology.
Read More -
Why Did Jesus Compare God’s Kingdom to a Mustard Seed and Leaven?
When the Lord ushered his people from Egypt to the promised land in the Old Testament, he did so by doing glorious things. Likewise, in Luke 13:10-17, Jesus freed a woman from a disability on the Sabbath, and the congregation that observed this healing recognized that Jesus was performing an “exodus” salvation. Jesus then told the parable of the Mustard Seed and the parable of the Leaven to help the people who had just witnessed this miracle (and us) better understand the true nature of the kingdom of God.
The Mustard Seed and the Kingdom of God
He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.” (Luke 13:18-19)
Jesus anticipated the misconceptions people would have about the kind of redemption and the type of kingdom he was bringing upon them. What is the kingdom of God like? It is glorious, full of wonders, pomp and power, right? Jesus says, “No, it is more like a mustard seed.”
A mustard seed is not very impressive. It is a very mundane and insignificant comparison to the glorious kingdom. Mustard was a common agricultural product that grew quite prolifically. The variety of mustard grown in Palestine was quite like the mustard weed that now grows all around Southern California.
This is the first odd thing about this comparison. A man plants this mustard seed, and it grows into a tree. But mustard seeds don’t grow into trees; they may become tall weeds, but they are not tree-like at all. Thus, Jesus is using hyperbole to make a point—this “tree” is other-worldly.
Indeed, it is a cosmic tree, for all the birds of the heaven dwell in its branches! Jesus takes this line from two passages in the Old Testament, Daniel 4:10-12 and Ezekiel 31:6. The cosmic tree of these Old Testament verses was the one tree whose roots reach down deep into the earth, and its top most branches extend to heaven.
This tree was the link between heaven and earth, and it was a house for every bird, beast, and human. It was the life-giving tree and a picture of the kingdom that encompassed the world and mediated that heavenly life to all things. It was an ideal picture of kingdom life with God.
So Jesus is telling us that this is what his kingdom will become. The tree signifies the new heavens and new earth. The cosmic tree points to the resurrected life of the age to come. This is what Jesus’ kingdom is like, perfectly portrayed by him granting life and liberty from Satan’s power on the Sabbath (Luke 13:10-17).
The people rejoice, saying, “He is doing glorious things.” Jesus says, “You are right, for my kingdom shall grow into the cosmic tree—the new creation of resurrection.” But this is where irony and mystery come in. It starts off as a mustard seed—a puny seed that sprouts into a weed—how is this the kingdom? This humble, unimpressive beginning is contrasted with the glorious and universal end—God’s new creation.
