The Aquila Report

Political Theology in Genesis 1–3

We see in the opening chapters of Genesis a wealth of material related to political theology. We witness a God whose rule includes the act of creation. We see the importance of creative words as introducing the rule of law. We encounter a creation mandate that reveals man to be a rational, fruitful, working being created to rule over the world. Finally, we observe the Fall into sin and death requiring new laws to respond appropriately to  the onset of evil, as well as the new (and necessary) tool of coercion to offset humanity’s depraved recalcitrance.

“In the beginning”
So opens Holy Scripture, telling of God’s creation of the world from nothing. When discussing political theology, we must consider the proper place to begin. A Protestant political theology should start with Scripture, particularly Genesis 1-3 and the creation of the world.
God exists, Genesis 1:1 tells us, “[i]n the beginning.” He alone stands without beginning and thus unmade. His first recorded action in Genesis is that He, “created the heavens and the earth.” We must consider the relationship between creator and creature in the political context. We revere our Founders. In this we do not differ from many other political communities who also revere the men or gods who founded their city, whether it be  Solon or Athena. To create involves exercising rule over the created. The creator’s rule stems from a certain right over the creature. The created owes something to his endower as a matter of justice. In addition, the creator rules by defining his creation in its development. This definition involves a fundamental kind of lawmaking—establishing the nature, and thus the end or telos, of the creature. Thus, God calls on animals to reproduce “according to” their “kind” (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25). Their “kind” entails a set nature for each, a pattern to follow. Put another way, the laws of nature and of reason, as Richard Hooker referred to them in his Lawes, stem from what God made.
God speaking creation into existence (“Let there be”) teaches  a political lesson as well. People talk with reverence regarding the “rule of law.” Such governance requires words; one must communicate the law’s content. It demands that we subject ourselves to its prescription precisely as spoken. God could have created by some other, physical action. His “hands” might have formed the earth, his “fingers” fashioning animals. He did not. He spoke into existence. God’s spoken creation is an act of lawmaking, thus in God’s words we find the supremacy  of law. Rulers can employ power in other, more physical fashions. But the spoken and later written word is primary; physical force secondary and supportive. As primary, verbal governance reveals a rational God, rationally creating the universe, meant to be understood and obeyed by any other rational beings to which He gives existence.
Thus, from the start, God did not intend humans to be ruled like rocks or even like cattle. They were meant to observe, to hear, and to know God’s laws and respond, knowingly and willingly, in obedience. This role for man, implied in God’s very speaking creation into existence, sets him apart. We see rule established in other forms by God’s creative speech. The sun and moon both exist to “rule” (Genesis 1:16) over day and night. The sun and moon order time, including seasons and years. Though both sun and moon are irrational entities “ruling” over irrational entities, the rule found in the natural world reveals a political principle:  even inanimate objects require ordering and some entity to do the ordering. Moreover, we as rational beings must respond to these rulers and to their subjects. These orderings set rhythms for which human laws must account. They help to define our experience in a manner to which governments must conform.
At the end of each day, the good God pronounces His creation “good,” going on to say, “very good” of the creation as a whole. This concept of goodness also directly affects political life. God creates in conformity with His own nature. Politics seeks the good. Thus, it must know the good to rightly pursue its end. Genesis tells us that politics, to know the good on earth, must know the creating One who is good first and foremost. As all other goods stem from His, and pale in comparison to His, the student of politics must also be a student of theology proper. To know God is to understand the ends of political life—the righteousness and justice political power acts to achieve.
This task helps us to consider man as created in God’s image. John Calvin locates the substantive portion of this image in our own righteousness and holiness. Politically speaking, we show the image of God in us when we think, feel, and act justly. Good politics, therefore, reinforces this divine image, so tarnished by the events of Genesis 3.  Just political action falls far short of regeneration and sanctification. But it does push us to act as we ought, making a small recovery of our unfallen nature.
The Creation Mandate
We next turn to the laws God gives human beings. Yes, creating man with a fixed nature establishes laws for him. But God gives explicit commands to Adam, rules that help explain his nature and thus his purpose. First, God commands mankind, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” In tandem with this command, God finds no suitable helper for Adam until He creates Eve. This requirement addresses an important starting point for considering the human beings who will inhabit political communities. Some political philosophers start from the perspective of the individual, especially Early Moderns like John Locke. Others begin from the communal view, with ancients like Aristotle and Plato leading the way. Early moderns certainly saw a role for human community, and ancients did not ignore the individual. However, which perspective  you start with makes a big difference. The command to be fruitful and multiply means human communities from the start involve families, not merely individuals. Politics, then, will spring from and have concern for humans as they exist in community. We are naturally social beings, an insight that is as biblical as it is Aristotelian. Even pre-Fall, Adam would have made human laws to regulate these interactions. These laws would not have involved coercive restraint, but cultivation and education. Along similar lines, pre-Fall politics must concern itself with families. It must encourage and facilitate fruitfulness. It also must regulate the interaction between families so as to assure the proper ordering of family life.
The creation mandate continues that man should “subdue” the earth and “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Rule—we could even say politics does not arise as a punishment for the Fall. It originates as part of man’s rule over the earth and all that is in it. Calvin saw a small bit of God’s image in this mandate. Man will subdue the earth and the animals in accordance with certain rules for their cultivation. In other words, man will make and enforce laws. These laws would conform to those already established by  God  at creation. Adam must know. Then he must regulate according to that knowledge. Thus, the relationship between natural law and human law existed prior to the Fall, wherein the latter applies the former.
The Fall
The world and the humans inhabiting it do not stay perfect, of course. Genesis 3 recounts humans’ Fall, through Adam, into a state of sin and death. The Fall holds political importance both in how it happens and in what it means for humanity going forward.
Regarding how, we must begin with the spoken law God gave to Adam and Eve. They might eat of any tree in the Garden of Eden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Read More
Related Posts:

Then Who Can Be Saved? | Mark 10:17-31

Such is the kingdom of God. It is for the little children and all who would become like them. It is for those who hold their possessions as if they had none, who do not trust in the fleeting hope of riches, who know that if the Lord has given He may also take away and His name will still be blessed. As we come to the Table of our King, may we come like poor and needy children to our good and loving Father. Let us forsake any self-righteousness within our souls, and cling only to Christ, for grace, for mercy, for compassion, for comfort, for discipline. Let us hold only to our Savior, knowing that we cannot be saved apart from Him and that in His arms we are held fast as dearly loved children.

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Mark 10:17-31 ESV

“Have you noticed,” asks Tim Keller, “that some of Jesus’s sayings are like hard candy? They’re not like chocolate, which you can let melt in your mouth, swallow, and it’s gone–a momentary pleasure. With a hard candy, if you try to take it in too fast, you’re likely headed for the dentist’s chair or the Heimlich Maneuver. Many of Jesus’s sayings are like that. You work on them, you work into them, and you work through them, and only then are you rewarded with layer after layer of increasing sweetness.”[1]
In the passage before us, we encounter a number of such sayings from Jesus, sayings that challenge our default presuppositions. Here we are challenged to rethink how we understand goodness, righteousness, wealth, and salvation. May the Spirit give light to the eyes of our heart as we study this text.
You Lack One Thing// Verses 17-22
The verses before us can easily be divided into two main sections: Jesus’ encounter with the rich, young ruler and Jesus’ lesson for His disciples. The man whom we often call the rich, young ruler (from the paralleling accounts of Matthew and Luke) ran up to Jesus as He was setting out for His journey. The reverence that this man had for Jesus is immediately displayed, first, through his willingness to run, which was considered undignified at that time, and by his kneeling before Jesus. Right from the beginning, then, we know that this is not one of the antagonistic encounters that will become so normal for us to read in chapters 11-12. Here is a man with a genuine desire to speak with Jesus.
“Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Here is the question that has been haunting the young man’s mind. We might rephrase it today as, “What must I do to be saved?” We can easily imagine him being in the spiritual place that so many are today in the West, living lives of relative comfort and success yet feeling the constant pull toward something more, something eternal. Believing themselves to be good and moral people, yet still lacking something.
Jesus’ response would fail a seminary class on evangelism because even though a sincere seeker of eternal life had literally run to Him and knelt down before Him asking how to be saved, He did not give the man a presentation of the gospel. Instead, Jesus pushed back against the man’s basic understanding of what goodness is: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”
This response, of course, has been highjacked by secular scholars as evidence that Jesus did not consider Himself to be divine. Yet we would do well to notice that Jesus did not say that the man was wrong to call Him good. Indeed, the man was much more correct than he knew. Rather, Jesus was giving a subtle prod at the man’s broken notion of goodness. The man did not think that Jesus was God, only a spiritual guru, a miracle man. Thus, the man thought that goodness could be achieved, that men could become good, just as Jesus Himself had apparently done.
R. C. Sproul notes that such a definition of goodness is inherently relative; it is goodness in comparison to everyone else.[2] Biblically, however, goodness is an attribute of God, meaning that it is not some ethereal force that God meets. No, God Himself is goodness, its standard and source. Therefore, only God truly is good, and whatever we might call good is only properly good in relation to Him.
Yet knowing that the man considers himself to be good, Jesus gave him an answer similar to what he likely expected to hear: “You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And sure enough the man answered as expected, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.”
Here again I believe that we should read the man’s answer with the utmost sincerity. We know from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount that he has not, in fact, kept them. He certainly never murdered anyone, but we can be sure that he did so in his heart because we all have done likewise. Even from the Old Testament, the man should have known that outward obedience is not enough to please the holiness of God. Notice, of course, that Jesus cited Commandments 5-9, not mentioning those that govern our worship of God nor the 10th Commandment, which is explicitly a heart-level law.
Yet the man had not been taught the true ways of God. Here is fruit of the Pharisees’ legalism: a man who both thought he had done enough to merit God’s favor and knew at same time that righteousness eluded him.
In verse 21, we read that Jesus loved this man. He had compassion on him, for he was truly lost, a sheep without a shepherd. This love led Jesus to issue a remarkable challenge to the man: “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Let us pause to note that while our world considers affirmation to be highest form of love Jesus displayed His love for the man precisely by not affirming him. Jesus offered no pat on the back to assuage the man’s lingering sense of insufficiency. He did not say, “I can clearly see that you are trying your best, and that’s what God really looks at. Go in peace.” Such a word would have doomed the man. It would have been as comforting as a doctor neglecting to tell a patient about their cancer, heart defect, or other such life-threatening condition.
Instead, Jesus confirmed what the young man always knew deep in his heart. The perpetual question of the legalist is: “Have I done enough?” And the answer is ever and always: “No.” The nagging voice that haunted him at night was affirmed. After all of his religious obedience something was still missing. He lacked one thing. And true love does not shy away from pointing out such lack. True love does not heal a wound lightly, as Jeremiah accused the false prophets of his day of doing.
Of course, we see this today with the transgender ideologues, whose answer to a hurting person who feels like the opposite sex is to sign on the dotted line, start taking some hormones, and get a plastic surgery scheduled to make them look somewhat like how they feel.
Read More
Related Posts:

Not a Lack of Food, But a Lack of Hunger

We see many withering and perishing around us, many diminishing and dying. Those who fall away and are lost can not possibly be said to have died from a lack of food, for there is an unending bounty spread before us. They can only be said to have died from a lack of appetite—from a simple failure to take what is offered, what can feed them, what can strengthen and equip them for a lifetime of serving God and an eternity of enjoying him. It is not a lack of food that threatens any of us, but only a lack of hunger.

I was once told of a woman who lived in a cold-weather climate. She suffered from poor health and this in a part of the world where she could not easily get the nutrition she needed. Doctors suggested she travel to the tropics where the setting might be more conducive to a recovery. A few weeks after her departure she wrote to a friend to say, “This is a wonderful spot where I have access to all the good and nutritious food I could ever need. If only I could find my appetite I’d be well in no time.” But within weeks she was gone. In the end, it wasn’t a lack of food that took her life, but a lack of hunger.
And in much the same way, we have before us all the spiritual food we could ever need—enough to fill and sustain us for a lifetime, enough to carry us through the most difficult trials we can ever face, enough to fit us for life on this earth and an eternity of heaven. The question is whether we will take and eat—whether we will satisfy ourselves with the bounty spread out before us.
Do you attend the worship services of your local church? It is here that you will be fed good food.
Read More
Related Posts:

Why We Rejoice Over the Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision

We praise God for ordaining government and for providentially establishing the government of the United States as a constitutional republic. We further praise Him that the highest court in the judicial branch of our government properly exercised their authority in making a righteous ruling by overturning the wicked ruling of Roe v. Wade. While this does not mean that unborn babies will now be afforded equal protection under the law, it is a step in the right direction.

In the providence of God, the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was handed down five days after I began an exposition of Romans 13:1-7. My first sermon on that passage (which came during an ongoing study of the whole letter) involved an overview of it, outlining the argument that Paul makes and the way that he makes it. I also explained the nature of authority and the jurisdictional realms in which God has delegated His authority in His world, namely the home, the church, and the state.
My sermon after that decision focused on verse 1, which states the thesis for the whole paragraph: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Because God has instituted civil governments, everyone is obligated to be submissive to them. The idea of government and governmental authorities comes from God. This is a fundamental truth that all Christians must remember as we work out our public, and especially our political, theology. We are submissive to governmental authorities because we are subject to Jesus Christ, who possesses “all authority” (Matthew 28:18).
We must remember this as we think about the Supreme Court’s recent decision (in Dobbs) to overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. Because God has even the heart of kings in His hands (Proverbs 21:1) we know that, ultimately, that decision is His work. Since it is a work that offers some legal protection to unborn children, everyone who loves mercy and justice should unashamedly rejoice. By its ruling the current justices determined that Roe v. Wade was an unjust decision—a mistake made by an earlier iteration of the court.
No one can legitimately doubt the accuracy of this ruling. In 1973 the right to abortion was invented out of thin air and attributed to the fourteenth amendment. But any honest reader will study in vain to find the right to kill unborn babies in that amendment. Certainly, those who adopted the amendment in 1868 had no thought of it being used to justify abortion.
So, praise God that on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed an unrighteous decision by overturning Roe v. Wade.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Abortion Pill Regimen is a Chemical Coat Hanger

As the Biden administration and pro-abortionists around the country continue to promote the mailing of the chemical coat hanger to women who have not even seen a doctor, the number of unreported complications from chemical abortion will rise, leaving countless dead children and maimed women in its wake. 

Since the landmark Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration has been scrambling to find new ways of ensuring laws cannot protect unborn children. At the top of their list is chemical abortion — a pill regimen of mifepristone (distributed under the brand name Mifeprex®) and misoprostol.
Chemical abortion is carried out through the use of drugs often sent through the mail. It poses significant safety concerns for the mother. However, President Biden doesn’t seem to care, as the White House’s response to the Dobbs ruling stated, “In the face of threats from state officials saying they will try to ban or severely restrict access to medication for reproductive health care, the president directed the secretary of Health and Human Services to identify all ways to ensure that mifepristone is as widely accessible as possible in light of the FDA’s determination that the drug is safe and effective — including when prescribed through telehealth and sent by mail.”
The Department of Justice, (DOJ) issued a concurrent statement indicating that, “States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”
The Biden administration has once again proven its commitment to the abortion industry over the safety of women.
Although the Biden administration wants women to believe chemical abortion is some sort of magical wand that simply dissolves pregnancy, it is important to know what chemical abortion drugs do. Mifepristone starves the child. Misoprostol causes the woman’s body to expel the unborn child. In other words, misoprostol is the chemical coat hanger. And like a metal coat hanger, it is dangerous.
Women undergoing chemical abortion are four times more likely to suffer severe complications as those who had undergone surgical abortions — 20 percent compared to 5.6 percent. The two side effects more prevalent during chemical abortions than surgical abortions are hemorrhage and incomplete abortion.
For the vast majority of women, it is impossible to tell the difference between life-threatening complications of chemical abortion and signs that “the treatment is working.”
Read More
Related Posts:

We Rest to Prepare Us for Heaven

Written by Guy M. Richard |
Friday, July 8, 2022
We ought to look at rest for what it is: a blessing from God to fit us for heaven. We need to remember this whenever we may be tempted to bristle at the idea of resting. God is preparing us for an eternity with Him in His presence, one in which we will be perfectly resting and perfectly working at the same time forevermore.

I find it fascinating that all of the blessings Jesus secured for the believer in and through His mediatorial work—including, most especially, heaven itself—are frequently depicted in the Bible in terms of rest. This is overwhelmingly the case in Hebrews 4, for instance, when the apostle speaks of heaven in terms of “entering [God’s] rest” (v. 1) and then exhorts Christians in his own day to “strive to enter that rest” (v. 11) by believing in the Lord rather than disobeying Him and, thus, “failing to reach it” (v. 1). The apostle’s ongoing reference to Psalm 95 (Heb. 3:7-11; 4:3, 5, 7) and his explicit mention of both Moses (3:16) and Joshua (4:8) indicate that this rest was foreshadowed and typified in the land of Canaan (see especially 4:8-9). But it was also foreshadowed and typified in the system of “sabbaths” that God instituted beginning with His own resting after He had finished the work of creation. Thus heaven is also referred to as a “Sabbath rest for the people of God,” one in which we rest from our works in the same way “as God did from his” (4:9-10).
In referring to heaven as rest that is typified in the land of Canaan, the apostle is teaching us that the promised land was designed to point God’s people to and prepare them for heaven. It was never intended as an end in itself. That much is obvious in the fact that we are told Moses and Joshua were unable to give God’s people permanent rest on earth (Heb. 4:8). They could only provide a temporary respite, because it was only in the heavenly “promised land”—of which Canaan was a type—that the people could receive lasting rest. So while the rest provided by the earthly promised land was not an end in itself for the people of Israel, it was, nevertheless, intended as a means to prepare them for their ultimate end, which was heaven. The rest they enjoyed in Canaan whet their appetites for more, for better, and for more extensive rest in heaven. It gave them a sample taste, an hors d’ouvre if you will, that set the stage for the main course.
In referring to heaven as a “Sabbath rest” that is typified in the system of sabbaths given to Israel, the apostle is teaching us that the purpose for the sabbath principle was to prepare God’s people for a rest that will be permanent and lasting. The system of sabbaths called them to live eschatologically, with their eyes on the last day. Each week they were reminded that they were heading toward an eternal and superior rest in the presence of the Lord.
Read More
Related Posts:

Don’t be Discouraged by Pride Month

Pride Month can’t compete with Jesus. Jesus is not merely celebrated once a year on Christmas or even twice a year if we include Easter. Jesus is celebrated every Sunday—the Lord’s Day—as Christians worldwide worship Christ and commemorate his resurrection.

Scripture says that pride comes before a fall (Prov. 16:18). In America, pride comes before July—for an entire month. I don’t know how your June was, but mine was permeated with a steady stream of multi-colored imagery. It’s the time of year when companies, sports teams, and politicians change their branding to incorporate the new religious icon of our time, the rainbow.
I know this month-long celebration of sin can be discouraging for you. It discourages me. It’s sad to watch our culture glorify the rejection of God’s design for human sexuality and for human flourishing. On top of that, it’s so in your face. Even going to the grocery store requires maneuvering a minefield of rainbow propaganda.
Staying discouraged won’t help us. What we need instead is clear thinking from a biblical perspective to help us move away from discouragement and toward compassion. Here are three observations that might help.
First, Pride Month confirms Romans 1. Paul gives us a compact explanation of what happens when societies reject God. They become futile in their thinking, they become foolish in their hearts, and they exchange worship of God for worship of idols. Then God gives them over to homosexual sin (Rom. 1:21–27). Sound familiar?
Humans are worshipers. It’s a trait inherent in all of us. We cannot help but worship. But who or what will we worship? According to Romans 1, there are only two options: the Creator or the creation. When people reject the Creator, then something in his creation fills the void.
Sex is one of the most popular idols of all time. Our culture is obsessed with it. Pride Month is not merely the worship of sex, though. June has become a month-long celebration of sexual identities completely contrary to God’s design. All hail the idol of LGBTQIA2S+. Futile, foolish, idol worship—Romans 1 proven true again.
Read More
Related Posts:

A Wife No Man Would Want

If Hosea and Gomer teach us anything about marriage, though, it’s that the love of God shines brightest through us when marriage is hardest. Can you bear to believe that? Happy, flourishing marriages may sing the gospel in big, bright major chords, but the minor chords of difficult and devoted marriages are often all the more arresting. Their beauty is haunting for being so much harder to explain.

If there was a wedding, it had to be one of the most awkward ones in history.
Plenty of marriages begin blissfully and then crash into misery years in (maybe even months), but this was different. This marriage wasn’t destined for disaster; it was a tragedy before the dress touched the aisle. The whole town knew what kind of girl she was. Many of the men knew firsthand. As the groom said his vows, “I take you for better or worse . . .” the idea of worse, even at the altar, seemed like some dreadful understatement. And the idea of better, like some naive fantasy.
As he stood there, he knew exactly what he was getting into. He knew tears were waiting to be shed. He knew how many long nights he might sleep alone, wondering where she could be, whether she was safe, what man might be holding her in his arms. He knew the excruciating conversations he might have to have with their children. He knew — and yet he married her anyway. He took her to be his. Why?
The Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim. (Hosea 1:2–3)
Bitter Paradox
We don’t know whether Hosea and Gomer had a typical Hebrew ceremony, but their marriage would have received lots of attention. It was meant to. As the two became one, God was seizing the wandering eyes of his unfaithful people.
When God told Hosea to take this loose woman as his lawfully wedded wife, he was making a statement — a loud and offensive statement. “Why her, Lord?” Hosea might have rightly asked. “Because the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” Their love toward me has grown cold and complacent, they take my grain and wine and protection for granted, and they’ve crawled into bed, again and again, with the gods of this world. Not just whoredom, but great whoredom. They worship passionately at the altars of carnal pleasure, of plenty, of comfort, of pride, and then dare to come home and offer me whatever little they have left.
And God had warned them. But they would not listen, so he painted them a picture instead — a dark, shameful, and painful picture. He planned a wedding no one would want to attend. He held up a mirror and made them want to look away. He sent Hosea to love and cherish Gomer, “a wife of whoredom.” A bride who could not be trusted. A bitter paradox.
The Kind of Whore He Loved
What made Gomer such a whore? We’re not told much, but we meet her through the adultery of God’s people.
Wayward Israel shows us that Gomer was the kind of woman who says, “I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (Hosea 2:5). In other words, I’m not getting what I want at home, so I’ll look for a man who will give me what I want. She was the kind of woman who took what her husband provided and used it to attract and please other men (Hosea 2:8; see James 4:3). She was the kind of woman who gave other men credit for all her husband had done for her (Hosea 2:12). She was the kind of woman unworthy of a good man.
And yet he loved her. Hosea chose her, sought her, bought her, and loved her. “So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley. And I said to her, ‘You must dwell as mine for many days. You shall not play the whore, or belong to another man; so will I also be to you’” (Hosea 3:2–3). Can you hear the sermon God had prepared?
Read More
Related Posts:

A Review of SJC Case 2021-13, Dudt v. Northwest Georgia Presbytery

Written by Terry L. Johnson |
Thursday, July 7, 2022
We all know that process can be manipulated. The Pharisees were masters of external conformity combined with internal corruption. Somehow the work of the SJC must take into account the destruction that can be wrought in the life of a church by a determined minority circularizing the congregation with defamatory information while misusing and manipulating the judicial process.

In reviewing the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) handling of case 2021-13, Dudt v. Northwest Georgia Presbytery, I was dismayed with the way the SJC handled the case. In its decision, the SJC reversed the unanimous decision of Northwest Georgia Presbytery which had rejected all forty allegations of error in the complaint, and behind that a majority decision of the Session of Midway Presbyterian Church. To its credit, the SJC did deny twenty-six of the forty alleged errors, but failed to deny all forty. I have carefully read the SJC decision and my dismay has deepened. My disappointment falls into four categories.
First, I wonder if the SJC is capable of recognizing the larger context within which this complaint was made. The SJC decision seems to have been made in a contextual vacuum. Was the SJC aware of how long the contentious minority that had filed the complaint had been battling with the will of the majority? Was the SJC aware of the damage that has been done to the ministry of the church as the majority must contend with the public attacks of the minority? What may seem like a premature decision by the majority seems to have been preceded by destructive behavior by the minority with whom the said elder is associated, patiently tolerated by the majority for months. Not every detail may be found in the ROC requiring that the SJC pay more attention by further investigation to the larger context.
Second, the SJC made important appeals to the lack of evidence in the Record of the Case (ROC) (e.g., p. 2169, line 6, line 8, line 30). Arguments from silence are indulged in specifications 4, 5, 6, 14, and 24. As with the previous point, additional investigation should follow when the majority affirms that which the SJC thinks it ought to see in the ROC. The benefit of the doubt, or shall we say, the presumption of innocence, should be given to the majority in the local lower courts.
Third, technical errors of process (specifications 23, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34) should not be given undue weight, particularly in light of the larger context. The “weightier matters” of church unity and peace trump minor details of process.
Fourth, the SJC failed to deal adequately with the problem of officers and members circularizing the congregation. The concurring decision recognizes this problem and explicitly raises it twice:
It would be unfortunate for anyone to conclude, that because this Appeal was sustained, it is appropriate for a Session member to email his congregation expressing disagreement with a Session decision. Such conduct would rarely be wise or appropriate (p. 2182, lines 16-18). There are few things that disturb the peace and unity of a church more than individual elders bringing to public attention their disagreements with Session decisions (p. 2182, lines 46-47).
This is the heart of the issue. The church has a process by which minority opinions can be voiced. An elder has the right to submit a minority report from the session to the congregation. He does not have the right to send private communication without the knowledge of the session, especially one which contradicts, and in the contradiction denigrates the session. I fear that the SJC has unleased the furies of division and conflict throughout the PCA by its failure to deal with the bigger picture of the factionalism and schism that appeared to be on the Midway session.
Moreover, the SJC decision has seriously injured the ministry of a veteran, faithful and devout minister. He has sustained constant, false, and destructive attacks, from an organized and determined minority. At the foundation of their bitter opposition was an orderly process whereby the session voted to nominate assistant minsters to serve as associate ministers, and the congregation voted to concur with the recommendation to call the assistant ministers as associates. The minority did not like the decisions or the processes, though both were in order. They simply refused to submit to the majority. Among this hostile minority are those who have published online “The Midway Guardian,” continually attacking the minister, session, and members of Midway.
We all know that process can be manipulated. The Pharisees were masters of external conformity combined with internal corruption. Somehow the work of the SJC must take into account the destruction that can be wrought in the life of a church by a determined minority circularizing the congregation with defamatory information while misusing and manipulating the judicial process.
Terry Johnson is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Ga.
Related Posts:

Creating American Nationalists: Presbyterians and the War for Independence

The War for American Independence was a significant turning point for the Presbyterian Church. As the church re-imagined America’s role in God’s plan, they came to wrestle with national sins that threatened that future, specifically slavery and the continued division in Christ’s kingdom. Repenting these sins, they knew, was the only real safeguard for both American independence and the country’s new transformative role in the world. Although slavery would, by the war’s end, take a back seat to spiritual schism, it was not forgotten and would be addressed specifically in 1787. Independence meant that the process of rebuilding lay ahead and the Presbyterian leadership was primarily concerned with uniting Christians for this purpose. However, when the Presbyterians restored Christian unity to its place of priority, it was not as it had been before the war. A nationalist spirit had been joined to their cooperative hopes and it was expected that this interdenominational nationalism would help to transform the newly independent states into an idyllic Christian republic that would benefit and expand the kingdom of Christ. 

There was no turning back after the morning of April nineteenth.[1] When the militiamen under Captain John Parker defended themselves against the British regulars at Lexington, they signaled a transition in the imperial crisis. What was still primarily a war of words before the sun broke the horizon that morning in 1775 had intensified into an armed conflict by the falling of that evening’s shadows. Meeting in Philadelphia shortly after this bellwether moment, the ruling body of the Presbyterian church, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, wrestled alongside their fellow colonists with the repercussions. In the course of their annual meeting the synod decided to write a pastoral letter to the congregations under their care and throughout the colonies.[2]
This letter set out four things very clearly. First, God was still sovereign in all things, and that “affliction springeth not out of the dust,” meaning, in other words, it was time to examine themselves and repent. Second, the synod insisted that they were still, and should be, loyal British subjects who hoped for reconciliation and peace. “Let it appear,” they wrote, “that you only desire the preservation and security of those rights which belong to you as freemen and Britons, and that reconciliation upon these terms is your most ardent desire.” Third, they affirmed that the elusive theory of justifiable rebellion was well within reach. If “the British ministry shall continue to enforce their claims by violence,” then Presbyterians should fight, alongside the rest of the colonists.[3] Fourth, the synod noted that while the conflict lasted its members needed to maintain colonial unity by both supporting the Continental Congress and promoting “a spirit of candour, charity, and mutual esteem … towards those of different religious denominations.”[4] Wearing their orthodoxy and loyalty on their sleeves, the Presbyterians demonstrated that they saw no separation of the spiritual and the secular and that they would strive in this time of crisis to build and preserve unions within and for these blended realms.
It would be a mistake, however, to see these union efforts by the Presbyterians in May 1775 as occurring in a vacuum. Seventeen years earlier the Presbyterians had embarked on a mission that made union building a priority for the church. This effort of 1758 was prompted by the schism that had rent the church since 1741. The reunion of 1758 was not intended to be a private affair. The Presbyterians had very publicly split and so they decided to very publicly reunite. In this spirit, they published an account that combined their reunion efforts as well as four promises for the colonial reading world. They first promised to “study the Things that make for Peace;” second, to lead exemplary lives, both in word and deed; third, to ensure that their doctrines were orthodox and evangelical; and fourth, to commend “ourselves to every Man’s Conscience in the Sight of God.” There is no doubt that these efforts were first intended to heal the divisions within the church but this should not obscure the Presbyterians’ intentions towards their fellow colonists in other churches. The synod made this point clearly when it wrote that the ultimate “Design of our Union is the Advancement of the Mediator’s Kingdom.”[5]
Thus, 1758 was the year the Presbyterians formally began an effort to heal the various divisions within the Body of Christ. This was no small undertaking, even if the initial scope was limited to colonial North America. Still, the church did find some success, as can be seen in their coordinated mission work with the Congregationalists among the Native Americans—including the ordination of the first Native American minister, Samson Occom—and their cooperative efforts with the Anglicans in Virginia to create an orderly and peaceful co-existence among the growing number of Protestant churches in the colony. Yet, for all of their notable success in the years that followed, the Presbyterians were still a long way from achieving their goal when British Prime Minister George Grenville introduced the Stamp Act resolutions, which helped spark the American Revolution. As the British Constitutional Crisis developed over the real and perceived challenges to colonial religious and civil liberties, some Presbyterians saw unions with other Christians as an ideal way not only to protect their liberties but also to strengthen the kingdom of Christ. As is evident in the synod’s pastoral letter in the wake of Lexington and Concord, this blending of spiritual and temporal objectives would continue throughout the crisis, all the while altering their original cooperative vision established in 1758.
When Presbyterians throughout the colonies responded to the synod’s four-fold charge in May 1775, most embraced rather than rejected the ruling body’s petition. They joined with their fellow Americans and served as soldiers, chaplains, congressmen, and home support. One example is found in the minister and congregation of Philadelphia’s Third Presbyterian Church, often simply referred to as the “Pine Street” church.[6] Third Presbyterian’s reputation as the “Church of the Patriots” was well earned and a March 1776 worship service led by Rev. George Duffield—future chaplain to the Continental Congress—illustrates this point well. While Duffield supported the synod’s four points in his sermon he also touched on a new idea that was becoming increasingly popular—God had chosen America for a special purpose; it was to be a safe haven for liberty. Duffield reassured his congregation that although through their violent measures the British leadership was actively opposing this plan, God would not be thwarted.[7] “Can it be supposed,” he asked, “that God who made man free … should forbid freedom, already exiled from Asia and Africa, and under sentence of banishment from Europe—that he should FORBID her to erect her banners HERE, and constrain her to abandon the earth?”[8] No, he said, America was to be the new standard-bearer for liberty and would continue as such “until herself shall play the tyrant, forget her destiny, disgrace her freedom, and provoke her God.” Giving their approval of the minister and the message, as one church historian has noted, the congregation let fly with shouts of “To arms! to arms!”[9]
The number of Presbyterians like Duffield borrowing the Puritan’s elect nation ideology increased following the Declaration of Independence. In their various capacities as ministers and laymen, Jacob Green, William McKay Tennent, John Murray, and Abraham Keteltas, to name but a few, drew on the idea.[10] Yes, Great Britain had once been the defender of civil and religious liberty in the world, but they had let that mantle slip. Were Americans worthy, then God would bless them with that honor and “this land of liberty will be glorious on many accounts: Population will abundantly increase, agriculture will be promoted, trade will flourish, religion unrestrained by human laws, will have free course to run and prevail, and America [will] be an asylum for all noble spirits and sons of liberty from all parts of the world.”[11] In this view America had tremendous potential, but as the Presbyterians warned, this glorious future was dependent on Americans humbling themselves through repentance before a holy God. To be sure there were some notable Presbyterian loyalists who resisted the break with the empire, such as William Smith, Jr and William Allen, but on the whole, the Presbyterians were remarkable for rallying around the cause of an independent America that God had set apart for a special purpose.[12]
While the American colonists were not strangers to war, the scope and scale of the Revolutionary War was unprecedented in the history of the British North American colonies. The realities of war’s death and devastation raised difficulties for Presbyterians looking forward to the glorious state they believed God meant for them. The American cause, they still believed, was holy, yes, but something had to be wrong for them to suffer as they had. While many Americans endured devastating losses, a number of Presbyterians believed that the British were singling them out for special punishment as both their institutions and ministers frequently found themselves targeted. For example, following the battle of Long Island at the end of August 1776, the minister of the Presbyterian Church there, Ebenezer Prime, fled for safety. Although Prime escaped capture, his church did not. The British destroyed the minister’s library and they repurposed the sanctuary as a depot and barracks. The redcoats leveled the church cemetery to create a common and the gravestones were used to construct the troops’ ovens.

Read More
Related Posts:

Scroll to top