Psalm 121 moves from questioning to proclaiming. For most of our distress-filled days, we also go back and forth between doubting and trusting. In this Psalm, God gives His people words to communicate both uncertainty and faith. This passage provides the freedom to acknowledge our struggles, but it also encourages us to have confidence in Him. 

What does distress sound like? Each of us expresses our anguish differently, but it frequently sounds like physical tossing and turning on our beds, pacing in the hallways, tears, and cries that pour out of our overwhelmed hearts.
While these are the instinctive ways we typically communicate the turmoil in our souls,  we sometimes neglect the most important way we can express our sorrow: to the Lord. If we do not call out to the Lord in our distress, we will feel distant from Him.
And yet, there are seasons when our sorrow is so great that we fail to find words. Our hearts are so broken, burdened, betrayed, and distressed that our words fail us. In these moments, we need help speaking to the Lord.
The Lord Gives Us Words
God, in His kindness, allows us to borrow His words when we struggle to know what to say to Him. Jesus did this in His agony. From the cross, He cried out to the Lord, expressing His anguish by quoting the words of Psalm 22:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?” (v. 1).
Jesus, using the words given to Him in Scripture, articulated how He felt abandoned in His moment of need.
Did you catch that? Even He who knew the glorious redemptive purpose of His suffering expressed deep anguish as He went through it. He shared His heart with His Father. This should encourage us to speak directly to our Father even when we feel He has abandoned us.
The Lord Invites Our Questions
Similar to Jesus’ prayer based on Psalm 22, Psalm 121 can help us speak to God in the midst of our distress. It is a song of ascent, which means that it was sung by Israelite sojourners embarking on a long, perilous journey to Mt. Zion. They needed courage for the climb ahead. They started out in a valley and had an arduous journey before them. They were aware they might encounter robbers and challenging terrain along the way. They anticipated trouble.
Like us, when we are in a difficult or dangerous place, the Israelites were filled with fear, wrestling with uncertainty. Nevertheless, they knew they needed to head towards Mt. Zion to reach their temple.
Read More
Related Posts:

For Perkins, the “substance” of these judicial laws that were given to the Jews binds not just “Jews but also Gentiles…” Contrary to the R2K consensus, these judicial laws are universally binding not because their foundational equity is to be equated with, and reduced to, natural law without remainder, but because these judicial laws expand and complete what is contained in natural law!

Recently, I received the following message through my blog from professor R. Scott Clark in response to an article of mine that recently appeared on The Aquila Report. After discussing the matter on the phone with this brother, I’ve decided to address a few things.
Your account of “R2K” seems like a caricature. Who defends the “R2K” view you describe?
Anyone who knows the 16th & 17th centuries knows that general equity = natural law (e.g., Wollebius & Perkins) and that is intended to be applied to civil issues such as kidnapping.
Ecclesiastically it applies to the church but that doesn’t exhaust it’s use.
My response will be limited to the professor’s use of William Perkins along with a corroborating footnote pertaining to Johannes Wollebius.
Here we can find a relevant quote from William Perkins, with an excerpt of that quote immediately below. (Bold and italicized emphases mine throughout article.)
Judicials of common equity are such as are made according to the law or instinct of nature common to all men and these in respect of their substance bind the consciences not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles for they were not given to the Jews as they were Jews, that is, a people received into the covenant above all other nations, brought from Egypt to the Land of Canaan, of whom the Messiah according to the flesh was to come; but they were given to them as they were mortal men subject to the order and laws of nature as other nations are. Again, judicial laws so far as they have in them the general or common equity of the law of nature are moral and therefore binding in conscience as the moral law.
It’s to misread Perkins to infer that in the civil realm it is just the law of nature that is binding upon all men. Instead, we should take Perkins to mean that it is the law of nature that makes the judicial laws of Israel suitably binding upon all men. To miss that point is to miss Perkins’ point. The law of nature establishes the foundation upon which civil laws can be applied to all nations.
Perkins distinguishes elsewhere particular judicial laws that were peculiar to Israel’s commonwealth that don’t have this same quality of nature, which further punctuates his point. Example: the brother should raise up seed to his brother. (Johannes Wollebius holds a similar view that distinguishes judicial laws that are grounded in natural law from those that are not.*)
The judicial laws in view were not themselves natural laws, for the judicial laws were both made and given to men under Moses “according to” what was already instinctive to them. Moreover, these judicial laws were given to the Jews not by virtue of their unique covenant standing before God but in their common created capacity of being “mortal men subject to the order and laws of nature as other nations.” So, the judicial laws are neither to be seen as fundamentally moral nor particular to a covenant nation but rather as having expansive moral import based upon something even more fundamentally primitive in nature, which makes way for their trans-nation application.
R2K wrongly takes the fundamental moral basis upon which judicial laws can be found universally applicable and turns that natural law foundation into the only feature that carries through to the nations. In doing so, R2K denies Perkins’ position, which couldn’t be clearer. It is the judicial laws themselves that have universal judicial application and not merely the instinctive properties of natural law contained within them: “Again, judicial laws… are moral and therefore binding.” Perkins also informs us of the reason why the judicial laws can be universally and morally binding, which is because “they have in them the general or common equity of the law of nature.”
WCF 19.4:
Apropos, for civil magistrates to govern according to the general equity of Israel’s judicial laws (WCF 19.4) is to govern strictly according to those civil laws that were rooted in the common equity of the moral law and not according to the judicial laws that pertained to the land promise or other non-moral aspects of Israel’s society. Yet R2Kers (like the referenced professor) offer an alternative paradigm of governance, which would limit civil magistrates to govern strictly according to natural law yet not according to Israel’s judicial laws that are rooted in natural law. Aside from departing from the nuance of Perkins and Wollebius on the binding moral relevance of Israel’s civil code, one need only consider the historically global results and degeneracy of such governance in order to appreciate the ineffectiveness of natural law in the civil realm. But that shouldn’t be surprising since natural law was never intended to be a model for wielding the sword! The civil laws were given for a reason, and in the minds of men like Perkins et alia the intrinsically moral civil laws are forever binding upon conscience because of their divinely inspired relation to natural law:
“Judicial laws so far as they have in them the general or common equity of the law of nature are moral and therefore binding in conscience as the moral law.” William Perkins
Read More
Related Posts:

Actions of massive significance call for significant accountability. Self-reflection is a good spiritual discipline, also for church leaders. Did we engage in spiritual abuse when we turned away faithful worshipers? Were we condescending toward mask-wearers seeking to protect vulnerable family members? Did we demand submission to civil government on matters better left to individual conscience? I for one am still bothered by the restrictions we did place on our own congregation. Couldn’t we have simply let sincere Christians make up their own minds on timing and masks and everything else? Did we lord it over the flock? Did we succumb to fear?

I am hopeful that enough time has passed that the church can calmly and methodically evaluate her COVID-19 decisions. We took actions of historical significance with profound consequences for the spiritual health of the church. These actions call for careful review and reconsideration—any competent organization reviews major decisions in pursuit of continuous improvement. Surely the church should lead by example.
Churches across America closed their doors in the spring of 2020. Time-delayed broadcast (nothing is truly “live”) of public worship was tacitly approved or openly embraced as a “spiritual equivalent” to gathered worship. Reopening, when it happened, was often accompanied by mask mandates and assembly limits. These restrictions were variously justified by arguments for submission to governing authorities or the importance of loving our neighbor.
Some church leaders openly criticized those who in good conscience disagreed with the limits of government power regarding public worship. People who suggested that scientific arguments for masks and distancing were inconclusive were silenced. And others, convinced of a duty to care for neighbor and live quietly under government were often harshly criticized and opposed.
What Was at Stake
We touched holy things.
The public assembly is a holy gathering, commanded by the LORD, and the pattern of the church since men began to call on the name of the Lord. The church gathered in Abraham’s house, at Sinai, at the tabernacle, at the temple, in the synagogue, and in the early churches scattered in the Mediterranean basin. Assembly is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.
When we limited gatherings, we limited the ekklesia of God. We limited what the church for four millennia has understood to be basic and vital. This requires sober reflection.
The holy supper of our Lord is to be kept until Jesus Christ comes again. We skipped observances of the Supper.
And then—when we resumed public worship and the Lord’s supper, we engaged in de facto excommunication of fellow Christians on account of questions that can hardly be called primary, secondary or even tertiary. Masks come to mind.
The means of grace were severely diminished by those with the responsibility to maintain and protect the same.
We touched holy things like Uzzah touched the ark. Should we assume that we did well because we are still alive, or take some time for sober reflection and repentance?
Church and State
A common argument presented for such restrictions was the following: The state requires compliance and we are to “fear God and honor the king.” But this basic argument, especially in Western constitutional democracies, needs to be re-examined.
First, our political tradition allows for peaceful protest. The First Amendment of the American constitution (and for our friends in Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) protects religious worship, peaceful protest, and the right to petition government. Such protest is not necessarily rebellion. Our Western tradition has made provision for such precisely because the same tradition recognizes that governments are prone to trample citizens by the untrammeled use of power. Paul was unashamed to appeal to his Roman rights, and Christians should wisely do the same—particularly in the face of growing hostility to Christianity. Peaceful protest (for example, the refusal to enforce mask mandates in worship services) has strong legal precedent in the Western tradition.
Second, our form of government does not give unlimited power to the executive. When Pastor John MacArthur resisted Governor Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 policies, some Christians thought him to be an embarrassment—perhaps some Anabaptist still secretly existed in the Baptist. But when Grace Community Church presented their case for non-compliance to a judge, that judge ruled that Gavin Newsom was the law-breaker. John MacArthur proved to be the one who feared God and honored the king; Gavin Newsom was the rebel.
We should thank the Lord for John MacArthur and those like him who were willing to challenge the limits of executive authority by appealing to the law. Precedents established in such cases may prove of great value to the worshiping church in coming years. If you were a public critic, it’s time for some public humble pie.
Incidentally it was no less than a Supreme Court Justice who remarked recently that “executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale…governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions, too.” Gorsuch expressed concern regarding government treatment of churches during the pandemic, noted that governments “surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social- distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct.”i
If a Supreme Court Justice is concerned about government overreach, could not a sincere Christian have shared the same concerns and acted accordingly? It seems the answer should be simple: Of course, yes.
Third, and by far most importantly: The church of the Lord Jesus Christ alone has the right to regulate her worship, and that regulation is solely by the Word of God. I heard good friends argue that since the governing powers were not touching what was preached, or the liturgy to be followed, all was well. This argument has some (limited) merits, but it is not one that I would be willing to press on the conscience of another believer in Jesus Christ. It seems wiser simply to state the following: When the state weighs in on any matter pertaining to public worship, the church will humbly listen and then make its own decisions concerning the public worship of God. This is not ground we should ever give over to the civil magistrate. To use the language of Reformed liturgy, the things beginning with the call to worship and ending with the benediction are holy things that belong to the Lord, the King and Head of the church.
It is here that I would argue for the urgency of COVID-19 reflection—to make use of sanctified hindsight. The governing authorities were wrong on almost everything; masks hardly work if at all,ii vaccinations are less useful than natural immunity,iii and despite all the restrictions and vaccinations nearly everybody I know has contracted COVID-19 at one time or another.iv And amongst my entire circle of friends and family, over forty-five years of life and service in Christ’s church in three different countries, not a single friend or relative that I know died of COVID-19. This is not what I was told to expect in the spring of 2020, and it surely is a reason to thank the Lord for his shielding mercies. (And yes, I aware many did lose loved ones in the same period, and this is also reason for humble prayer.)
But—if the governing authorities were wrong on almost everything (starting with “two weeks to slow the spread”), did their dubious use of emergency powers warrant restricting the life and worship of the church? Hindsight makes things clearer.
And if this question is answered in the negative, perhaps such reflection will lead those who preached strict compliance to think far better of those who disagreed, and even to commend their courage and constancy in the face of pressures from within and without the church. Both sides ought to listen to each other, very carefully.
Love Your Neighbor
The second and very common argument was that those in favor of restrictions, masks and vaccines were those who truly understood what it meant to love your neighbor.
Neighborly love motivated many Christians. Those who were prone to be upset with mask- wearers or a friend stayed away for a time out of concern for elderly family members ought to see love in those who took such extra care.
But the “love-your-neighbor” argument has also profound weaknesses when we attempt to apply it uniformly to the whole church.
First, those who used it often asked the church to make scientific rulings on disputed medical questions: “If we loved our neighbor, we would all wear masks.” I am a pastor, and I don’t give recommendations for vaccinations, masks, or appendectomies. To require unanimity on such questions to be part of the unity of the church or the criteria for attendance on the public worship of God or admittance to the Lord’s Supper seems to be an abuse of authority.
A second problem is perhaps the greater. The argument for restrictions on the regular life of the church was often an argument for the priority of physical health and safety over spiritual health and life. But if the whole world was indeed about to die, would not true love for our neighbor led us to throw open our doors to preach the only medicine the world had left— Jesus Christ and eternal life through Him?
Fear
We return again to Justice Gorsuch: “Many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces.”
Another category for reflection is fear. Did we acquiesce to restrictions or adopt policies out of fear (whether of governing authorities or fellow congregants)? This might be answered in the affirmative for those on both sides of various questions—masks come to mind again. Fear of man is a snare; it is sinful. Did we fear men?
Perhaps there is an ultimate question we need to ask: Was I afraid to die from COVID-19? Did this make me afraid to attend public worship? Did fear lead me to close the doors to my unbelieving neighbors? Christians are not to fear death.
When our session (elder board) decided to limit attendance at public worship on account of the early reports of the dangers of COVID-19, I received a Saturday night phone call from an elderly Presbyterian minister regarding the protocols for the following day’s services. He had a simple question: “What power granted to the elders of the church by Jesus Christ would permit you to turn me away from the public worship of God?”
I explained to him that the reports we were all receiving indicated that this virus had the capacity to rapidly spread dangerous illness. He replied that he wasn’t calling to discuss the timing of his death (which surely was coming but only the Lord knew when) but about the arrangements for the public worship of God in the morning.
This providential conversation moved me deeply, and I told him I would turn no one away.
Concluding Questions
Actions of massive significance call for significant accountability. Self-reflection is a good spiritual discipline, also for church leaders.
Did we engage in spiritual abuse when we turned away faithful worshipers? Were we condescending toward mask-wearers seeking to protect vulnerable family members? Did we demand submission to civil government on matters better left to individual conscience? I for one am still bothered by the restrictions we did place on our own congregation. Couldn’t we have simply let sincere Christians make up their own minds on timing and masks and everything else? Did we lord it over the flock? Did we succumb to fear?
We touched holy things, and this requires humble reflection. Maybe your next leadership meeting ought to include time for prayerful reflection on actions taken, followed by some honest communication with your congregation.
May God help us in this work of reflection, give us true repentance where needed, and by this renew our commitment to the public worship of His holy name.
Peter Van Doodewaard is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Covenant Community Church (OPC) in Taylors, SC.

i Peter Pinedo, “Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Blasts COVID Lockdowns, Closing of Churches”, National Catholic Register, May 23, 2023, https:// justice-gorsuch-blasts-covid-lockdowns-closing-of- churcheswww.ncregister.com/cna/supreme-court-
ii Tom Jefferson et al., “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses”, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002
/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full?s=08
iii Ralph Ellis, “COVID Infection Provides Immunity Equal to Vaccination: Study”, WebMD, February 17, 2023, https:// vaccine/news/20230217/covid-infection-provides- immunity-equal-to-vaccination-studywww.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-
iv Erika Edwards, “What people with ‘super immunity’ can teach us about Covid and other viruses”, NBC News, March 11, 2023 https:// immune-covid-science-trying-unravel-immunity- virus-rcna72885www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/are-
Related Posts: