A Critique of “On Killing” by Lt. Col. D. Grossman, USA (Ret.)

Introduction:

The late great, theologian/philosopher Cornelius Van Til observed that, “There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones.” Modern research on the psychology of learning supports him; our brains are not organic computers that add “this fact” to that “fact” to arrive at a logical conclusion but rather we process information within “paradigms” or “worldviews.” A worldview is built upon the presuppositions we accept, and the ones we reject. Furthermore, our worldview tends to make us see what we expect to see and believe what we already assume to be “believable.” In fact, worldview determines whether a particular “fact” is even regarded as a “fact!” For example, research has shown that we all tend to accept as “facts” that which supports our worldview, but misinterpret, under-value or even reject those “facts” that would over-turn them.

When a culture shares the same basic presuppositions, there can be (and often is) much meaningful discussion about the best way to extrapolate from those presuppositions; but when the culture has multiple presuppositions vying for acceptance, people tend to talk past each other. For example, is there such a thing as “man-made global warming?” For those on the “yeah” side, such a question itself is ridiculous; “Everyone” KNOWS that carbon dioxide is warming the planet!” For those on the “nay” side, the “Warmists” refuse to acknowledge that not all glaciers are shrinking (some are actually growing), polar bear numbers are not diminishing, but actually increasing, and that any actual warming is a part of a natural cycle of climate change. They then point out that global temperatures have actually lessened over the past decade (besides which, after the coldest winter in decades, why can’t those “Warmists” see that solar output is the real factor in any global temperature variance?). The “Warmists” insists that the “Deniers” are misinterpreting the data; that all these “facts” are simply aberrations, and that a temporary cool down is simply to be expected before the next great, global temperature spike! After all, we all KNOW that man has been destroying the environment!

There can be no meaningful discussion between the two camps because both begin with different presuppositions, interpret the “data” consistently with those basic assumptions, while placing high value on evidence that supports their position and rejecting any evidence that would undermine them. However, the consequences of both presuppositions are severe; if man-made global warming is happening, it will cause environmental devastation. To prevent it will require drastic changes to our economic, political and social systems; which in turn means that governments are demanding unprecedented power to deal with the “threat.” If on the other hand, man-made global warming is not happening, then the State accruing such power (and handicapping our industrial base) is likely to destroy the economic and political foundation of all industrialized societies.

Our God is the true God; therefore, by necessary implication, any paradigm that denies Him must end in futility, confusion or error; “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” Yet, the Proverbs also say, “Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes.” At least one modern application would be to identify the underlying presuppositions of those outside the faith, and then, using their own arguments, demonstrate that their conclusions are contradictory, arbitrary and ultimately self-defeating. Remember, the unregenerate man “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rms 1:18ff) and creates intellectual, rational justifications for his rebellion against God. The first step in evangelism and apologetics is to “blow away the smoke screen” by which sinful men attempt to hide from the truth of God’s word. Only God can grant repentance to such a man (2 Tim 2:22ff); our job is to always be “ready to give a defense of the hope” that is within us (1 Peter 3:16).

In light of the above, let us examine how presuppositions color our evaluation of the world by looking at Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book, “On Killing;” a serious, academic examination of how to transform “peace-loving” civilians into soldiers willing to take human life. This is not a review of his entire book (which honestly, reads more like a Master’s thesis and deserves better treatment than we can give it here) but rather a critique of his underlying presuppositions and how those basic assumptions color his interpretation and extrapolation of various “facts.” Because his premises are wrong, his conclusions are invalid and must inevitably lead to dangerous infringements of our rights. A Biblical explanation will then be offered for why people kill and the morality behind it.

The Humanist Premise: People are NOT “Natural Born Killers”

First, some background; Lt. Col. Grossman is attempting to fuse his own military service, with his academic education in psychology and history to address very important issues. However, several problems quickly become apparent. First, he admits upfront that he was personally never under fire during his military career, which means he really knows nothing more about the subject than any other academic. Granted, he talked with many combat veterans, but he lacks the personal experience that would give him the necessary framework to evaluate his theory. While in many areas of study a lack of personal experience may not be necessary for an objective evaluation (and may actually hinder the assessment), here Grossman is dealing with what is happening inside the human psyche during warfare. There used to be a term for a combat veteran; someone who had “seen the elephant” meaning only a man who had actually experienced combat could really understand it. Grossman is thus in the position of a virgin talking about sex or a childless person giving parenting advice; it is not that he cannot have a valid opinion, but that any opinion is based only on a theoretical understanding. Real life experience can and most likely will change his perception and evaluation

Secondly his education in psychology leads him to interpret the data through the lens of such discredited “experts” as Freud and Kubler-Ross; one a brilliant charlatan, the other morphed into a practicing medium, talking to the “dead.” In what purports to be a serious, scientific study of the psychology of killing, he chooses presuppositions from two people with literally no scientific credibility. Science earns its right to be heard because it is based on certain methods of observation validated by statistical analysis. Freud and Ross were not scientists but philosophers; they interpreted what they observed without any empirical evidence to assess whether their observations were correct. A “scientist” without statistics is just another form of witch-doctor scampering around a fire. Is the shaman really invoking the supernatural, or is he is just uttering gibberish to scare the gullible?  Without statistical verification, nobody really knows – and Freud and Ross did not have that verification.

Colonel Grossman then begins his study with the assumption that man is simply another evolved animal; and since same-species killing is rare amongst most animals, therefore humans killing other humans must be an aberration. He insists that we have a basic, hard-wired biological inhibition against killing each other that must be overcome before the average person can take human life. He must then interpret all the “data” available in light of this basic humanist, evolutionary presupposition.

For example, one of his main lines of reasoning comes from studies of how many soldiers actually fired their weapons in historic engagements; i.e., studies have been done since WWII indicating that less than 25% of soldiers actually fired their weapons in combat. Furthermore, in the days of massed infantry units firing single shot, black-powder weapons (when the two sides faced each other in open terrain and traded volleys), far fewer people died in these encounters than one would expect, based upon the technology and the tactics of the time. His research shows that most of the bullets must have missed; otherwise, the sheer number fired would literally have decimated both sides within minutes. Instead, the combatants sometimes traded volleys for considerable amounts of time, with the casualties being dramatically less than what one would normally expect from such exchanges; unless, he concludes, both sides were intentionally missing.

And that is the crux of his argument; everything else is based on the presupposition that humans have a natural inhibition against killing members of their own species and that this inhibition must be overcome by a variety of training techniques. Successful armies in the past supposedly learned these techniques through hard won experience as generation, after generation went to war with their enemies; perhaps a type of “natural selection” process where armies that developed them did better than armies that did not. Modern armies can develop and improve these same techniques by using studies in psychology, conditioning and social pressure; but there are severe consequences of doing so. He then winds up by criticizing “action” movies and arcade video games as potentially training civilians to overcome this natural instinct, as well as opining that the private ownership of firearms makes killing more likely.

Problems in Interpretation of the Data

The first problem with Grossman’s thesis does not require a Ph.D. in psychology or history to appreciate; people have been killing each other from the very beginning of human history. In fact, rather than needing to be taught to kill, the opposite would seem to be true; children need to be civilized not to kill each other; as illustrated in “Lord of the Flies” (which is just as credible a source as Freud or Ross, not to mention, far more entertaining). Hobbes, trying to defend the divine right of kings, said that man’s life in his “natural estate” is nasty, brutish and short. This folk wisdom has been widely accepted by Western culture all the way back to antiquity; but with the advent of Humanism, modern humanist psychology accepts as a basic presupposition that Man is innately “good” but “corrupted” by early learning experiences (Freud), poor socialization (Rogers) or inadequate reward systems (Skinner).

In the same way, Grossman’s acceptance of humanist and evolutionary presuppositions cloud his argument; he presupposes that we are simply another type of animal, and since animals rarely intentionally kill their own species (unless being specifically bred for it like Pit Bulls), then therefore humans killing their own species must not be “natural.” However, is there any evidence of this anywhere in the last five thousand years of recorded human history? To the contrary, the evidence strongly supports that killing seems to be “natural” to every culture in competition with others for scare resources; cultures that are more pacifistic, tend to get conquered, enslaved, or exterminated (or in rare cases, marginalized into geographical areas where there is little to no competition for resources).

If one “answers a fool according to his folly,” one could argue from an evolutionary perspective that natural selection practically demands that humans willing to kill would tend to survive and pass on their genes while those unwilling to do so would tend to die out, and not pass on their genes. For example, in many species of cats, both large and small, a male will, if given the opportunity, often devour new born kittens; the loss of the kittens then puts the mother back into heat so that the male can breed with her and so pass on his genes. Hence, “natural selection” tends to encourage the adoption of those genes that make male cats eat the babies of their own species and eliminate the genes of those males that do not.

Thus, in the case of humans learning to kill each other, it could be argued that “hundreds of thousands” of years ago, one proto-human developed a random mutation that gave him the ability to kill other members of his own species rather than just drive them off in ritualistic displays as is common amongst certain species of apes. Would this “abnormality” not give his descendants an advantage over every other proto-human who let his competitors survive to possibly spread their genes some place else?

Now, the Christian worldview rejects this explanation for the origin of killing behavior; however it is mentioned to show how the presuppositions of evolutionary theory and modern humanist psychology are self-contradictory; that Man is both an evolved animal and at the same time “naturally” good until his social environment makes him into a “killer.” And the inevitable implication of Grossman’s presupposition is that we can eliminate violence and killing if we change the environment. Of course, that desirable condition can only be achieved if men are willing to be controlled, to be “conditioned” by some all powerful group with a benevolent agenda; Brave New World, here we come!

The second problem with Grossman’s main presupposition is that his conclusion does not match up with the data we do have for people who are not conditioned by the military but nevertheless learn to kill; who is most likely to become a violent thug in any Western society? Grossman makes a fundamental error in logic by correlating playing violent video games with those who commit violent crimes. However, “correlation does not imply causation;” simply because two pieces of data are associated does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. To know if there is a causative relationship, one would have to demonstrate that a significant percentage of all children who play violent video games, regardless of other factors, become killers. However, crime reports over the past fifty years demonstrate that the person most likely to become a violent criminal is someone from a broken home, with no strong, caring father figure. Granted, murders can happen in any social class; for example, an otherwise “normal” person can feel betrayed by their spouse and in a fit of rage, lash out and murder them. The murderer did not have to undergo any specific psychological techniques to enable them to kill another human being; their rage was sufficient motivation. So called “normal” people can kill others because of any number of perceived advantages they might receive. However, these murders, though more rare than television police dramas would have us believe, are of less concern to most people than the fear of the criminal class of predators.

America’s extraordinary murder rates are almost always concentrated in certain social classes; the ones where the father is usually absent from the home. It is not a racial issue, but a family one; for example when black and white crime rates are compared and the existence of intact two parent families is factored in, the rates are very similar. Therefore, it is no stretch to conclude that the high incidence of crime amongst certain minority groups in America is a result of the loss of the two-parent family; the higher the illegitimacy rate, the more likely that children will tend to commit crimes; including violent ones.

Thus, there is something about the intact family that is necessary to teach children how to be civilized, how to resolve their conflicts, develop their gifts and become responsible, contributing members of society; and consequently, not prey on others. If that social training is not done by the parents (and the evidence does not support that day care, public schools and churches are reasonable substitutes), then that “natural” inclination is not inhibited, and individuals (almost always males) are more likely to be involved in violent crime. Every culture, every social class will still have some murders (i.e., unlawful taking of another life) but with intact, two parent families, the overall incidence will be greatly lowered. Even from a humanist, evolutionary perspective this view ought to be self-evident; after all, the “traditional” human family supposedly evolved over tens of thousands of years! However, because of industrialization and urbanization, as well as the “new” morality that encourages recreational fornication and removes any social stigma from illegitimacy or divorce, families have been breaking apart for the past fifty years. We are now witnessing the enormous social damage that comes from a fractured family; a family system that “evolved” to socialize us so that we could live and cooperate together to create a civilization!

The third problem in Grossman’s analysis is his assertion that historical firing rates in battle supports his main thesis that humans do not “naturally” kill; and in fact will even, albeit “unconsciously,” conspire with the enemy NOT to kill each other. However, there are other, more plausible explanations for why either so few soldiers actually used their weapons in a battle, or missed otherwise “unmissable” targets (i.e., mass firing at enemy soldiers less than fifty paces away).

The simplest explanation is that there is a great deal of difference between firing muskets at a clay embankment (which Grossman reports one Prussian general doing to determine the accuracy of firing by volley) and shooting at an enemy when he is shooting back at you. Grossman’s lack of personal experience under fire may be leading him to underestimate just how terrifying combat actually is. Therefore he does not appreciate just how likely that even though a soldier might have gone through all the properly practiced motions, he may be simply unaware of where he was aiming when pulling the trigger (surviving journals demonstrate that many soldiers actually closed their eyes when firing their weapons). Guns are not magic; the projectile goes in the direction where the barrel is pointed. And if soldiers flinch at the recoil, or pull the trigger too briskly, then the barrel may be pointed someplace other than he intended.

In a like manner, when fired, black powder weapons give off a huge smoke cloud, a tremendous “bang” and have considerable recoil. Historical records demonstrate that the British army achieved remarkably high kill ratios compared to other armies of the time because they were one of the few nations wealthy enough to train their soldiers with live ammunition; hence the soldiers grew accustomed to the noise, smoke and recoil associated with firing a weapon. Surely, that had some effect on their accuracy under fire, especially compared with other armies that could not afford to practice with live ammunition?

Grossman gives another example from the battle of Gettysburg where the muskets of the dead were collected. An amazing number of these single shot, muzzle loaded rifles were found with multiple bullets loaded into the barrel; which shows that the soldier loaded his weapon, but failed to actually discharge it. Grossman concludes that the loaded, but unfired weapons support his case that the average soldier of the War Between the States had a natural inhibition against killing! The soldier might have gone through the complicated procedure of loading his weapon and pointing it in the general direction of the enemy (because otherwise, according to Grossman, he would risk the social displeasure of his peers and superiors) but refused to actually fire it because inside, he did not want to take another human life.

Yet, there is another plausible explanation of the same phenomenon; battles are terrifying and confusing. One of the first things lost in a highly stressful situation is fine muscle control. To fire those muzzle loading weapons, a percussion cap had to be fitted on a nipple. When the trigger was pulled, the hammer came down on the cap which then ignited the powder in the barrel, firing the weapon. However, that percussion cap is small and “fiddly;” I have tried to fit them while at the relative stress-free local shooting range; and in an embarrassingly number of times, fumbled the cap and dropped it. So, is it really any wonder that during all the noise, confusion and danger of a 19^th century battlefield, a lot of soldiers would go through the gross mechanical process of loading their single shot weapons, and then fumble, drop or even forget to put the percussion cap on the firing nipple? Yet, Grossman asserts that these men would willingly expose themselves to cannon and rifle fire in a battle line, even charging enemy positions, but would not actually fire their weapons because of some instinctual inhibition against killing. However, if their motivation was not to kill, why not fire their weapon over the heads of their enemies as Grossman insists their smooth bore musket predecessors did?

Or is it more likely that when men actually pulled the trigger on their loaded weapons, the percussion cap was either missing, or ineffective, (after all, manufacturing standards during that time were often suspect) or in the terror of the moment, forgot to actually pull the trigger? The soldiers themselves might never have known that anything was wrong? After all, battlefields during the black powder era were not only filled with smoke, the explosions of rifle and cannon fire, but also the scream of wounded horses and the cries of shattered comrades. Is it not unreasonable that a significant number of men, confused, frightened or just over stimulated by the general stress of combat, might make such a simple mistake? We know, from the letters and journals of the time, that this was a well recognized, even common phenomenon; that many soldiers knew that under the stress of combat, some of their peers (especially new troops) would load their weapons but fail to fire them, even though the soldiers themselves were often convinced they had done so! However, Grossman ignores or undervalues the interpretation of events made by the men who actually fought in those battles because it conflicts with his presupposition about what must have “really” been going on.

This stress factor also holds true for firing rates in the two world wars and Korea; only about 25% of men were observed to fire their weapons in any given battle. However, is the best explanation that the men were “naturally hesitant” to kill the enemy, especially when their own lives, or the lives of their comrades was in imminent danger? The vast majority of soldiers who actually served during those wars would vehemently deny this was their motivation. The real reason is more likely to be found in that to fire at the enemy, one had to expose one’s self to the enemy’s fire in return.

In earlier wars, soldiers on both sides were formed into dense formations and traded volleys with each other at fairly close distances. However, with the widespread adoption of rifling and new, more accurate bullets, combat ranges were greatly extended; literally, from fifty paces to hundreds of yards. At the beginning of the American War Between the States, both sides still used the older tactics of fighting in densely packed formations; until they discovered that the greater range and accuracy of the new firearms technology was causing unprecedented casualties. It was eventually recognized that soldiers behind some sort of cover were able to engage the enemy effectively, while exposing their own side to fewer casualties (e.g., which the Union learned at Fredericksburg and the Confederacy at Gettysburg). The problem though was that the process of loading the weapon was cumbersome and difficult when crouching behind cover. By the end of the war, modern industrial technology was already creating new, faster firing weapons such as machine guns and multiple shot rifles.

Thus, modern wars have a lot more bullets flying around the battlefield; and if a target can be seen, it can be killed. This technical change has had a direct effect on infantry tactics; soldiers in the modern era need to find cover behind some sort of bullet proof barrier, revetment or barricade to be protected from the massive number of enemy bullets fired at them. However, to effectively return fire at the enemy, the soldier has to rise above that protection, visually scan the area, locate the enemy’s position, aim their weapon, fire their weapon and then retreat back behind protection. Every time he attempts to fire at the enemy, the enemy not only has the opportunity to fire back at him personally, but the soldier is also at risk of the thousands of random rounds being fired in his general direction (not to mention all the shell fragments from mortars, grenades and artillery). Battlefields are so dangerous, that entire units have been known to throw themselves down at the first few shots fired at them by the enemy; and without effective leadership will stay there. Is it any wonder then, that so few soldiers are able to fire their weapons in any particular engagement? It may be not so much that soldiers were unwilling to kill the enemy, but that it was simply too dangerous, given the tactical situation they were facing. It is possible that (1) only a few men out of an entire unit were in a position to actually spot the enemy and return effective fire at any one time, and (2) only the most aggressive soldiers will risk injury or death to return fire.

Furthermore, Grossman does not seem to deal fairly with the reality that most casualties in modern warfare come from crew served weapons such as artillery. He thinks that men can operate such weapons effectively because of the team work involved, as well as the emotional distance from the enemy as another human being. However, again, there may be other, better explanations. With the advent of industrialization and better technology, the killing power on the battlefield no longer depends on the individual soldier firing his weapon as many times as possible, but in accurately directing the firepower of artillery and machine guns; (something like 80% of all causalities on the modern battlefield result from artillery and machine guns). The Germans in World War II (widely, recognized as having fielded the most effective infantry on either side) deliberately built their infantry tactics around their machine guns, which had many times the firepower as the rest of the entire squad put together (750-1000 rounds of machine gun fire per minute vs. a few individual soldiers firing bolt-action, limited internal magazine rifles; magazines that then had to be manually refilled before they could be fired again). All modern armies today have essentially copied the German approach with the riflemen there to find and fix the enemy, protect the machine gunner, spot targets and carry extra ammunition – until the officer calls in the artillery to finish off the job.

Therefore, is it not just as likely that most soldiers in modern wars before Vietnam knew that their individual shooting was not the critical factor in the battle; that exposing themselves would just get them killed, while some were simply scared? Furthermore, the American battle rifle of both world wars and Korea used the 30.06 round that demands proper rifle placement on the body because the “kick” is significant. Getting into the right shooting position to handle the recoil is not always possible on the average battlefield. If you cannot get into that position (and to do so requires exposing yourself to enemy machine guns and artillery), you cannot fire your weapon; let along fire it accurately.

Grossman then compares earlier wars in the twentieth century with Vietnam where the firing rate went up to something like 90%. He attributes this to better training methods developed by the Army; and therefore indirectly, how civilians if trained properly, can overcome this “natural resistance” and become effective “killers” on the battlefield. The practice of earlier generations had troops learning basic marksmanship by firing at bull’s eye targets at set ranges. During the lead-up and involvement in Vietnam, soldiers were trained to fire at “pop-up” human shaped targets at various distances that more closely simulates the sight picture of enemy soldiers on real battlefields. This more “realistic” training may well have facilitated better situational awareness and firing by soldiers, but for what it is worth, it is likely that Grossman does not give enough weight to the change in technology. American soldiers since Vietnam have been equipped with the M-16 rifle and its variants. It shoots a .223 (5.56mm) cartridge with significantly less noticeable recoil (and far less lethality – but that is another discussion for another time). Therefore, it is far easier to shoot the M-16 than its M-1 predecessor; in fact, combat footage from Vietnam shows many soldiers routinely firing their weapons, one handed, over their cover, without ever exposing themselves.

This might also explain why so many thousands upon thousands of rounds were fired, for every one that actually hit an enemy soldier; a ratio that has increased almost geometrically in every war as technology has improved. The average soldier during the single shot, muzzle loading era carried 40 rounds into battle; the average soldier today carries HUNDREDS of rounds; with the experienced soldier carrying four times the “recommended” combat load.  However, rather than improved firing rates being the result of a more effective “killer training program” it could be that weapons are just easier to fire; after all, LESS people are being killed by bullets compared with artillery and bombs than ever before. The main point of infantry weapons seems to be to spray enough rounds at the enemy to force him to keep his head down, until your artillery or machine guns can finish the job.

Anecdotal stories from the Vietnam era demonstrate that a large number of incoming soldiers were woefully ignorant of basic marksmanship skills. In some units, when asked to fire at a 55 gallon drum at fifty yards away, most new troops would fire their M-16s, from the hip, on full auto; and the bullets would literally go everywhere. One tactic developed by some units was to identify the “Gomer Pyle” of the group and take him away for a few minutes of private instruction where he would be shown how to zero his weapon, practice breath and trigger control, acquire a proper site picture, etc. Then, that one private was then allowed to shoot at a similar barrel; and of course, put more rounds on the target than the rest of the group combined!

Thus, the training methods Grossman evaluates as being essential in overcoming the natural resistance to killing does not prove his point, but actually undermines it. More soldiers firing their weapons in battle does not translate into more aggressive “killers” because more enemy soldiers are not in fact being killed by that firing. This principle of more firing not translating into more hits can be illustrated from police work; there are many “close encounter” videos available showing law enforcement officers in a shoot out with an armed, hostile suspect. Sometimes it was “one on one” with a police officer having to draw and fire his weapon at point blank range (i.e., standing outside the driver side door and shooting at the subject sitting in the driver’s seat!). Other times, several officers faced off against a hostile less than twenty feet away. In both situations, the officers usually drew and emptied their pistols within seconds, many of which were large capacity semi-automatics (18 rounds). Literally, scores of rounds were fired at point blank range yet only a fraction actually hit the hostile! Grossman would have us believe that somehow, the “natural” inhibition against killing was affecting these officers aim; in other words, they were deliberately (though probably “unconsciously”) missing the target – even though their own lives and the lives of their brother officers were in imminent danger. However, is it not more likely that even trained police officers, when faced with a life or death situation, were so stressed that they simply were not aiming as carefully as they should? They were faced with danger, they responded by emptying their weapons as quickly as possible, and as a result, they missed most of their shots?

Thus, missing the “enemy” has little, or anything to do with some natural instinct against killing, just poor marksmanship in general, and that the fine motor control necessary to fire any weapon accurately is the first thing to be lost in any high stress situation. And there are fewer situations with higher stress than a battlefield with all the noise, carnage, confusion and risk of imminent death or grievous injury.

Grossman has accumulated some important information, but his presuppositions are such that he cannot properly evaluate the data. The “problem” is not that the average person has a natural resistance to killing; Grossman does not seem to factor in that if such a hesitance could actually be proven to exist in American soldiers it is just as likely to be due to the remnants of our once Christian civilization; children from “normal” families are socialized not to be unnecessarily aggressive (outside of ritualistic sporting activities). “Good” people are expected to be kind, sympathetic, and help others, not kill them. Sure, after eighteen years of this kind of “conditioning,” it may take some “training” to change the civilian’s orientation. But Lt. Col. Grossman seems to think that a recruit singing, “I want to be an airborne ranger, I want to live a life of danger. I want to go to Vietnam; I want to kill some Viet Cong” somehow contributed to the transformation of “innocent teenagers” into mindless killing machines (my words, not his).

However, if he said that in the presence of any conscript soldier from the time of Vietnam they would snort beer out their noses! We might have sung many such aggressive songs in cadence marching in basic training; but nobody took them seriously! They were in-jokes that we had at the “Man’s” expense. It was widely accepted that nobody with an IQ above room temperature would be influenced by this kind of jingoism; after all, the term, “ate up lifer” referred to any one, who at any time actually took the military stuff seriously! The sub-culture amongst enlisted men was that the military was a job; often tedious, usually restrictive of individual freedom, and always pregnant with the possibility of violence (to ourselves or others). You did what you had to do so that you could fulfill your military requirement, collect your benefits and then move on with the rest of your life; but nobody “bought” into the “killer” stuff.

Granted, times have changed - today’s army is composed of volunteers; and those who volunteer for the combat arms are likely to have a different motivation than those who enlist to become mechanics, truck drivers, office personnel or supply troops. Since volunteers for the combat arms already have a predisposition to want to fight, the “motivational” material is not creating a “killer spirit” but rather reinforcing one that already exists. The military may give a recruit the skills he needs to kill on the battlefield; but the underlying motivation comes from somewhere else.

Finally, given Grossman’s presupposition that humans have an innate inhibition to killing each other, one would therefore logically expect that those who went against that “natural” orientation would suffer some sort of traumatic, life altering, deleterious, psychological effect. He spends an entire chapter dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That chapter itself demands a full essay to do it justice; however, books such as “Stolen Valor” demonstrate that the widespread belief in the horribly traumatized, dysfunctional and probably psychotic Vietnam combat veteran is a myth. Most vets claiming to suffer from PTSD never served in combat units, and were never under fire, let alone personally responsible for taking an enemy life. There may well be a biological justification for a percentage of combat veterans having some problems in that stress depletes the neurotransmitters necessary for “normal” thinking and feeling. No matter what the cause, the lack of proper neurotransmitters can cause depression, suicidal thoughts and general dysfunction. Normally speaking, over time, the body will recover and the individual will return to thinking and feeling normally. However, Grossman’s presupposition is that such symptoms result from taking another human life, not the stress associated with being under the horrendous pressure of the battlefield. After all, if so many doctors are diagnosing so many soldiers as having PTSD, then surely it must be a serious problem?

This brings to mind a psychological experiment covered in many introductory courses in counseling. A number of psychology undergraduate students were instructed to go to various mental health facilities and report one symptom; hearing a bell ring. Other than that one symptom, they were to act completely normal (or as normal as psychology undergraduates can act) and take notes about what it was like to be a patient. All the students were admitted for evaluation and immediately diagnosed as schizophrenic! Furthermore, when orderlies and psychiatrists asked them about why there were taking notes, the students replied truthfully that they were simply fulfilling a requirement for a class on what it was like to be a patient. The therapists then added “Delusional” to the diagnosis.

In other words, the psychiatrists expected to see schizophrenic people admitted to a mental health facility, and therefore interpreted every action of the “patient” in light of that assumption; they saw what they expected to see. In a significant number of cases, no amount of evidence could convince the psychiatrist that the students were not schizophrenic; and some had to be rescued by the university!

How does this relate to PTSD? Most modern, humanist psychologists assume, like Grossman, that people do not “naturally” kill other people. Therefore, any one who has done so must be mentally imbalanced, needing some kind of “treatment.” Every symptom therefore becomes self-validating evidence for the basic premise, and any conflicting evidence is discarded or ignored.

Studies demonstrate that the vast majority of combat veterans lead perfectly normal, stable lives after leaving military service. Their crime rate is actually less than the general population that did not serve in the military. Now in a large population, there are always some people at both ends of the spectrum; and therefore, when hundreds of thousands of soldiers serve during a war, simple statistics says that some of them will tend towards dysfunctional behavior in some way. If one assumes that PTSD is the cause, then every time a veteran comes to a VA hospital asking for some sort of help, his symptoms will be interpreted in light of that presupposition.

Furthermore, studies in the psychology of learning demonstrate that if there is a “culture” where the individual is told something, repeatedly, by different sources, many of them authority figures, the tendency will be to accept and internalize those statements, regardless of the accuracy. An example of this is the many poor souls convinced by sincere, but misguided therapists that they were victims of childhood sexual assault. False Memory Syndrome is the result of being told a lie, and then guided through a visualization process that creates a memory that seems absolutely real; even if the event never actually happened. The therapists assumed, before hand, that sexual assaults on children must be happening more frequently than was being reported. Since clients had no memories of such assaults, they had to be in denial, suppressing the memories. Then, usually under hypnosis, the client was guided through a process that created a memory. The client ended up convinced they were the victims of sexual assault and in some cases, innocent people went to prison. However, the assaults never took place even though the memory seemed so real. The therapists however often deny any culpability; they were simply acting out of their own presuppositions and interpreting the client’s problems consistently with those presuppositions. And when the evidence could not be found, they literally created a false memory to prove their case. In the same way, if veterans are told that their divorce, depression or general ennui in life is a result of PTSD, they have they every incentive to agree with the assessment; especially when the possibility of benefits is thrown in.

Now, the above is not in any way intended to dismiss the very real psychological trauma that some veterans experience as a result of their military service; it is not the stress and its effects that is being denied, but rather the idea that the stress resulted from violating some natural, inhibition against killing. This may be why most combat veterans will only talk openly with other veterans; a good rule of thumb is that the more that a former soldier is willing to talk about the men he killed in combat, the less likely that he ever saw any combat at all.

The public perception is that a man must somehow be traumatized by having taken another person’s life; therefore actual combat veterans simply refuse to discuss their experience with outsiders. They are told they are supposed to feel bad; but the reality is that most of them are simply happy to have survived; and usually proud of what they have done. But the culture keeps telling them that they must be “messed up” inside; those who have not experienced combat cannot really understand it so veterans simply do not talk about it, except to other combat vets. If such men ever do go for some sort of counseling, even for an unrelated problem (i.e., trying to forestall a divorce, dealing with the depression that comes from a lost job or a failed career), then the counselor will often hone in on the veteran’s combat experience as being the “cause” of the present plight.

The reality is that as long as a killing was “lawful” as in self-defense, war or a police action, generally speaking, the “killer” is just fine, emotionally and psychologically, unless he is told by his peers, family, community and therapist that he has PTSD. Grossman acknowledges this, but suggest that the well adjusted veteran is in denial, uses rationalization or some other psychological technique to either distance himself from his actions or hide from the “pain” of having killed. It must be so, because his presuppositions demand it; but the reality is that the average combat veteran is just as “normal” as anyone else. He killed, because it was necessary and then, put it behind him and went on to live his life. Grossman’s paradigm about why people kill fails.

The Biblical Alternative:

So, from a Biblical perspective, why do men kill each other? The answer is found, like many other questions, in the book of Genesis. God created the heavens and earth; and out of that earth made both Man (Gen 2:7) and Beast (Gen 1:24). The difference between the two is that God made Man in His image and breathed His own Spirit into what had been the “dust of the earth.” Basic Christian theology is that the “image” of God in man is not a physical one (for God is Spirit and does not have a body) but rather refers to Man’s reason, creativity, and moral sense. Thus, though Man does share some things in common with the beasts (for both were created out of the “earth”) he is also distinct from them because of the image of God built within him.

In the original creation, there was no death. Death entered the world as a righteous response of a holy God to Man’s rebellion against His sovereign rule; because of sin, God pronounced a death sentence against Adam and all his descendants. Now, we need to take a step back for a moment and look at what was reported here in Genesis. The sin that brought God’s righteous curse was more than simple disobedience; Adam had attempted a revolutionary act - he wanted to become like God and “know” (or “determine”) good and evil on his own. Ever since, the totality of Man’s being has been affected by that original sin; body, mind and soul. Our bodies grow old, weak, sicken and die, our minds plan wicked things (e.g., Rms 3:10ff), and we are spiritually dead until God in a gracious act, brings us back to life (Eph 2:1ff). However, the basic, sinful orientation of every human being is a desire to be as God, to have one’s own way, to lust, covet, deceive, or take what is not ours; and we will even kill if necessary to have our own way. The Apostle Paul is clear; wicked men suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rms 1:18); professing to be wise, they become fools (Rms 1:22) and worship and serve any one, any thing, other than acknowledge the One True God as Lord or obey His holy will.

In the fourth chapter of Genesis the first human murder is recorded; brother killing brother. God had rejected Cain’s sacrifice but rather than repent and offer the proper sacrifice, Cain brooded (Gen 4:6-7) and blamed his brother Abel. Eventually, this led to him killing Abel, and being banished by God. Cain did not have to undergo a complicated training process to overcome some “natural” resistance to killing his brother; he just had to follow his feelings of bitterness, resentment and jealousy.

In effect, the murder of his brother stemmed from the exact same motivation that caused his sacrifice to be rejected. God performed the first sacrifice in Genesis 3:21 when He killed an animal in place of enforcing His death sentence against Adam and Eve– thus establishing the idea of substitution. He then “covered” their nakedness with its skin; the word “covered” in Hebrew is the same as “atoned.” Hence, God instituted the ritual of a blood sacrifice as a short term “covering” of Man’s sin until His Messiah would come into the world; the future fulfillment towards which animal sacrifices pointed. Cain however did not want to worship God as He required; he did not offer a blood sacrifice, but one of fruits and vegetables. In short, he would determine on his own authority the “right way” to worship God, even if it went against God’s own divine example. Adam wanted to determine good and evil for himself, and so brought sin and death into the world. Cain wanted to determine good and evil for himself in how to worship God; and so committed the first murder.

However, there is likely more to the story than just this; God declared that sin deserved death; He was not only Life-Giver, but Death-Dealer. Therefore, sinful Man also wants to determine who will live and who will die by whatever criteria seems good to him. Cain thus showed himself to be a theological rebel, and then a moral rebel willing to kill: an inevitable implication of his basic presuppositions. Abel died because Cain refused to acknowledge any higher authority than his own will. Cain would be like God and judge who would live and who would die.

Thus, the Biblical account demonstrates two opposite aspects of Man’s nature; on the one hand, it recognizes that having been created in God’s image, every single human being reflects, in some way, His communicable attributes – i.e., that such things as love, kindness, justice, fellowship, mercy, etc., are all good and worthy in and of themselves. On the other hand, because of the taint of original sin, every aspect of Man is twisted by an inner orientation to want to be God; to place his will over others, to dominate when possible, or unlawfully submit when it suits his purposes to do so. Most of human history is a record of a few strong men dominating their weaker brothers; usually in the form of some sort of tyrannical or despotic civil government. Only with the flowering of the Reformation was the “divine right of kings” overthrown, giving the average person more personal liberty than had existed in any previous civilization. And of course, with that liberty came the unprecedented economic and social progress that so many take for granted as a “right.”

Hence, the more consistent men are with working out Biblical presuppositions about the nature of God and Man (and applying them in practical, day to day living), the more that God is pleased to bless and prosper their labors (cf. Deut 28:1ff). When men instead, reject God’s principles, a culture quickly spirals into social, political and economic chaos (Deut 28:15ff) which then creates the perfect environment for tyranny to grow. For example, God established many different laws to protect the family; the basic institution of any stable, civilized society. Perhaps three of the most controversial provisions in the Old Testament law were that adultery, sodomy and being a drunken, violent offspring were capital crimes. Some modern Christians are so shocked by God considering these issues as worthy of death that they have to create an entire theology around dismissing the relevance of all Old Testament laws.

Now, here, we are not defending the application of these laws into modern cultures; however, we list them because they demonstrate God’s concern about protecting the integrity of the family. We now know that generally speaking, lawlessness in society begins with lawlessness in the home. Therefore, to maintain a safe, prosperous and free society, requires that the culture as a whole support, endorse, and encourage the Biblical family.

However, even most Christians today take their model of the family from the secular world around them. They send their children to public schools, they reject the traditional Biblical role of the woman, they denigrate the man as being the head of the family, they tolerate fornication and embrace “no-fault” divorce, etc. And as a direct consequence, the literal God-given bulwark against social disintegration has been systematically undermined, and in some communities, actually destroyed. The result is an ever increasing number of young men who have never been raised to be moral, socially responsible and civilized human beings.

Thus, the one aspect of our nature battles with the other; we know, inside, that we are supposed to be one way – but the taint of sin creates a situation where any person, in any culture, can learn to kill and will kill if given sufficient motivation and opportunity. If there is any “resistance” to killing, it likely comes from the remaining bits of the image of God that all men still possess, in one way or another, and the sociological effects of growing up in a culture that has been deeply influenced by two thousand years of Christianity. However, the more consistent men become with godless presuppositions, the more violent they will inevitably become. If that violence is not constrained by an inner moral compass, informed by a Biblical worldview, and encouraged by an outer culture where these values are reinforced, it must be restricted by an ever more tyrannical State. In times of stress and danger, people will look for someone who promises them security, even if they have to give up their liberty to achieve it.

Life began with God, was a gift of God and therefore always belongs to God. As a necessary implication, life can only be taken on His terms. He has delegated the right to take life to the State, as His chosen avenger of evil (cf. Rms 1:13fff) as well as to the individual in self-defense (Ex 22:2). He gave in His holy Law, specific case law examples of how both the individual and the State are to exercise that right. We are not allowed by God to determine “good and evil” on our own, apart from His inerrant, infallible Word. Therefore, the State must not engage in wars of conquest, or to advance a godless agenda; it is not allowed to execute an accused criminal unless convicted on the evidence of two witnesses – and only then if the “crime” is actually a crime according to God. The individual is permitted to defend himself from a physical attack but is not allowed to take personal vengeance against another (Ex 22:2).

Finally, we live in an imperfect world; we seldom know all that we would like to know before being forced to make a decision. Sometimes, innocent men are killed by the State; and sometimes nations are not guilty of the “crimes” used to justify going to war against them. The fact that mistakes have been made, are being made and will continue to be made does not undermine the basic Biblical presupposition that there are times when killing is lawful and morally appropriate.

Video games do not create killers; and neither does the private ownership of firearms. The State, as God’s avenger of evil has a moral duty to investigate crimes, apprehend suspected criminals, and try them: and when the evidence is sufficient, convict and execute those guilty of capital crimes. However, since the Tower of Babel, men have placed their faith in a “Messianic” State that promises, if allowed enough power and wealth, that it will not only protect them from the violence of other men, but also lead them to greatness. The Soviet Union was supposedly remarkably free of crime under the Commissars; but the price was social, political and economic slavery. Vlad the Impaler (popularly known as “Dracula”) boasted that he could leave a gold drinking cup at a village well and that no one would steal it; because if anyone did, he would then brutally murder the entire village!

The average American simply wants to live his life, work at his calling, and raise his family without worrying about being at risk from dangerous predators willing to kill him for the watch on his wrist, or the shoes on his feet. Biblical Christianity provides the social support structure to encourage people to live wisely, justly and safely together. However, without that foundation, some other force must step in to keep people safe; and that usually means a secret police force, large standing armies, oppressive taxation and conscription (e.g., 1 Sam 8:11ff). And those in power want to remain in power; usually at any cost. They may be “idealists” but in the end, they think they know what is good and evil; and they are willing to use the killing power God delegated to the State to enforce their determination of right and wrong.

The Biblical view is that anyone, at any time can become a killer, unless there are inner moral beliefs, supported by certain cultural values. When the State assumes that it can determine good and evil, then we end up with the present chaos of the American justice system where 90%+ of the jailed population will return to a life of crime once released; where people will go to prison for saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time to the wrong person; but murderers will be allowed to walk free after a short incarceration.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, this also will he reap” (Gal 6:7). The growing number of killers produced by modern society is not a result of watching too many “action” movies, playing “violent” video games, the availability of firearms or an unintended social consequence of military training; instead we have mocked God, we have rejected His Law, we have thought we knew better than He – and our culture is dying from its own ethical poison.

Since all men are imperfect, all human societies will be imperfect; no State can ever fully protect all its citizens from those who would prey on them. However, a wide acceptance of Biblical presuppositions, supported by strong, intact families, and the right of every man to be armed for self-defense provides the best compromise. During the days after the War of Independence, businessmen could travel from Boston to Charleston carrying large amounts of gold and never fear being attacked. Not only was Christian morality pervasive during that time, but every man was assumed to be armed as well. In that era, when violent criminals were caught and convicted, they were executed, inhibiting the growth of the criminal class as a whole (while eliminating the “College for Crime” otherwise known as our current penal system). But modern man thinks he is wiser and more gracious than God; so the criminals are allowed to flourish.

All modern States (and those like Grossman who implicitly believe in its promises) begin with the presupposition that they can create the perfect society, if given enough money and power. They pass laws because they assume that laws can make people better. Even though they never fulfill any of their promises, the citizens just keep electing them year after year because they do not have a Biblical worldview to give them a reasonable alternative. The only real way to establish a safe, stable and free society is through creating strong Christian families which requires personal conversion, personal responsibility and individual hard work. However, it is always easier to blame the Republicans, the Democrats, Corporations, the Educational establishment, the Entertainment industry or some other “villain” for society’s problems (just as Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the Serpent, and Cain blamed Abel).

But in the end, God will not be mocked. If we hate and forsake His holy law, families will self-destruct, businesses will become non-productive because of oppressive taxation, workers will be unable to find jobs, and ever more young men will turn to violent crime. The State must either allow itself to be destroyed by increasing social turmoil, or become tyrannical to suppress those crimes.

The Christian, however, must go back to first principles. Many of us have allowed our faith to be infected with various forms of Humanism, just as the Medieval Church accepted alien presuppositions from Greek philosophy. Far too many believers are simply unwilling to work out the implications of a truly consistent, Biblical worldview. Some are even excited when the culture self-destructs because they believe it is a sign of the Lord’s Return. However, just remember, the end of our world, does not necessarily mean it is the end of the world. Most of the Middle East was once composed of Christian nations; but heresy, corruption and syncretism undermined the Biblical worldview and they eventually fell to Islam. Many of the people conquered by Muhammad’s armies must have thought it was the end of the world; but it was simply the end of their world. Have we learned nothing from their loss?

If we begin with Humanist or evolutionary premises, then we must reach Humanist and evolutionary conclusions; when we suppress the truth, even though we profess to be wise, we will become fools. Only God, in Christ, can save men from their sins. Only His holy and inerrant Word can provide the moral basis for how to live life in a manner pleasing to Him, and receive His blessing; and we cannot have His blessings without submitting to His will!

So, if we want to inhibit and even prevent lawless killing, let us be willing to do the hard work necessary to take “every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Let us be consistent with our profession that “Jesus is Lord” and call all men, in every area of life to submit to King Jesus; especially the civil magistrate. Let us always speak the truth in love, never losing heart in doing good to all men, but especially to those in the household of God (Gal 6:9ff). Let us build strong, multigenerational families by learning how to love our wives as Christ loved the church, and respect and submit to our husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:21ff). Let us honor our parents, and learn how to be honorable parents by bringing our children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:1ff). And let us repent of trying to determine good and evil apart from God’s own revelation, as well as deal with all anger, bitterness and covetousness in a proper and godly manner. Let us build strong communities by learning how to let “love cover a multitude of transgressions” and thus show how rich and wonderful life can be by making our churches a refuge from the lawlessness and wickedness of the world.

For Further Reading:

Below are listed some the sources used in the previous essay:

How to Make War: James F. Dunnigan, Quill Publishing, NY, 1983 (deals with infantry tactics, weapons performance and combat training)

Stolen Valor; (deals with the experience of combat veterans, false claims of PTSD and other issues)

Dirty Little Secrets of World War II, James F. Dunnigen, Albert A. Nofi, Quill, NY, 1994 (deals with tactics, problems, motivations, etc. of WWII combat soldiers)

The Institutes of Biblical Law, R. J. Rushdoony, Ross House Books, (deals with the sociological and cultural implications of Biblical law and their importance to social stability, security and prosperity)

In Defense of the Faith, Cornelius Van Til, (deals with a basic approach to Biblical apologetics)

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Conservative Theology and Conservative Politics
2. Why The “Assault Weapon” Ban Must Be Overturned.
3. Iron Sharpening Iron: Romantic Theology

Myths and legends are not just quaint folk-tales told for amusement-even in the days before television and movies, myths always served a higher function than mere “entertainment.” Invariably, behind those stories there exists an entire worldview that deals with the fears, anxieties, and darkest desires of a culture. A single myth can explain more about a culture, than a legion of sociologists armed with surveys and clip-boards could accomplish in a life-time. Myths are powerful because they tap into the real, underlying values of a culture

The myth of the vampire is worldwide; every culture seems to have developed some sort of legend of a creature who lives off the blood of the innocent. This connection may be explained by Scripture itself telling us that the “life is in the blood.” While we recognize both the sacramental aspects of this as well as the medical, blood and life are closely associated in all human communities. Most people today are most familiar with the Eastern European version of the blood-sucking myth, especially as dramatized by Bram Stoker’s novel, “Dracula.”

When analyzing any mythology, the old Materialist’s anti-supernatural prejudice must be recognized and dealt with. Christians, by revelation, KNOW that the supernatural exists; but apart from what Scripture tells us, we must depend upon rational investigation to determine if legends or myths have any substance in reality. Since the Bible does not talk about vampires, we have no divine authentication for their actual existence. While belief in literal vampires was common throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, (most well-educated, professionals right up to the Enlightenment assumed the vampire’s existence to have been proven), the 19^th century saw a powerful reaction against anything supernatural. Vampires, being supernatural could not exist because the Materialists refused to believe in anything that was “above” nature. By the time that Stoker wrote his novel, it was just a horror story- a compilation of strange and eerie legends that could send a shiver up the spine. Granted, his novel probably touched something very basic and primordial in English and American culture; men were uncomfortable with the advancing power of Humanism and Materialism and therefore found his novel intriguing, just because it provided a culturally acceptable way of dealing with the supernatural.

And apart from certain maladjusted personalities suffering from various psychopathologies, no one in modern society really BELIEVES in vampires -though there MAY be several perfectly normal explanation for wide-spread reports of vampirism in the Middle Ages. For example, a person infected with rabies shares many similarities with the classic vampire; aversion to light, pasty complexion, insane, aggressive behavior leading to biting, etc. And like the vampires of legend, a person bitten by someone or something afflicted with rabies will contract the disease (though actually, to become a vampire according to classic mythology requires a transfer of blood FROM the vampire to the victim-again, Hollywood usually gets this wrong). However, people afflicted with “vampirism” might bite a victim, who would then die. It was assumed that since vampirism was a curse, if a person came back from the dead, as a vampire, he MUST have done something intentional to bring it upon himself, such as make a pact with the devil or willingly drunk from a vampire; either way, there was a connection between an exchange of fluids and vampirism, which is what happens when the rabies infected saliva is introduced into an open wound.

So, modern science has safely regulated the existence of the vampire to actual phenomenon misinterpreted by “primitive” pre-scientific cultures. However rural villagers in Romania have been reliably reported TO THIS DAY to routinely drive a stake through the heart of certain corpses before final burial. (As a side note, the purpose for driving a stake through the heart of a vampire is NOT to kill it, but rather to pin it to the ground so that it cannot leave its grave; again, Hollywood got it wrong).

Originally, the vampire legend, though taking slightly different forms in different cultures, universally described the creature as a genuine undead monster, creeping out of its grave to prey on the innocent. It was only with the stage and film version of Stoker’s “Dracula” especially as personified in the characterization given by the Hungarian actor, Bela Lugosi that the vampire became a “romantic” figure with suave manners and an opera cape.

In fact, due to the strictures on sexuality in the films of the time, it became quite clear to EVERY social commentator that the appeal of vampirism was that it was a euphemism for erotic seduction. All those scenes of “Dracula” staring into beautiful young women’s eyes, or entering their bedrooms at night, were deliberately staged to suggest something that the more Christianized culture at the time forbid to put on the screen. Dracula however became passé in the 1940’s; the Depression and WW II created a conservative mindset that suppressed sexuality in ALL forms and vampirism was no longer frightening without his seductive powers. “Dracula” was eventually reduced to sharing the screen with Abbot and Costello; no longer a character of fear or even seduction but simply a caricature to be ridiculed.

The Hammer Film Company in Great Britain revived the vampire genre starting in the 1950’s-60’s and with the loosening moral ties, exploited the sexual aspects of vampirism. In the early films, they might have restricted themselves to the inevitable busty female with a plunging neckline, but by the seventies, they created an entire series of films that qualify as soft-porn. Only having seen the American television versions of the Hammer films, I was shocked when I saw them broadcast, uncut on BBC and ITV while living in England. I grew up watching Peter Cushing as Van Helsing chase Christopher Lee as Dracula with crosses, cornering him and then inventively dispatching him, only to see Dracula arise in ever more creative ways in the next film. To realize that Hammer had destroyed the “innocence” of this classic battle between good and evil by deliberately injecting nudity and perversion, was just very, very, sad.

However, this sexual aspect has always been a basic underpinning of the popularization of vampirism in modern literature and film. In fact, contemporary movies actually make the sexuality the central theme. Originally, a vampire was an animated corpse, with all the attraction that implies, able to maintain a sense of “life” by feeding off the blood of the innocent. The silent film, “Nosferatu” (and its recent remake-which is a brilliant satire on Hollywood) is a far more accurate portrayal of the actual myth of the vampire; a horrible, monstrous, undead THING that preys on the living. Vampirism is clearly a curse for both the vampire and the victim.

However, modern vampirism in movies and books seems to be a blessing; one receives eternal youth, beauty, strength and power. One can have sexual relations at will with all the partners one wants. One can control others through various means as well it seems a black belt in various martial arts. Film-makers still usually make the vampire an evil character, but they seem muddled about WHY the character is evil-and often blur the line so badly that it is hard to tell the difference between the hero and villain. In fact, in popular literature (say Anne Rice’s works), the vampire is often down-right sympathetic. “Blade,” three films based on a Marvel comic book series began with the classic conception of the vampire as the ultimate evil to be destroyed, but eventually succumbed to the temptation of making them morally ambiguous. It is no accident that if one does a Google search on the Internet for “Vampire” there are literally tens of thousands of web-sites devoted to vampiric lore, clubs, fiction, art, films, etc. The average person today no longer sees the vampire as a monster to be feared, but rather the overt expression of their own dark natures; sexual and otherwise.

The appeal of the modern vampire is of power on man’s terms; the power to be strong, to kill at will, but preeminently the power to seduce. And let there be no mistake, seduction is power. The original mythology of vampires was more akin to a brutal rape; the violent assault on the innocent (which is not to say that the earlier mythology was sexual in any way). The modern version normally uses hypnosis and the promise of immortality as the main means of obtaining “blood” when it wants to portray the vampire as anything less than pure evil; but at the core, both approaches are ultimately about exercising power over others.

The modern vampire is thus popular just because it offers the greatest of all possible temptations; to be as god, unrestrained by anyone or anything other than one’s own will. The vampire is beautiful and young, sexual and strong, without conscience or inhibition and in female form, is ALWAYS perverted in orientation. Thus the modern vampire appeals to all the basest urgings and desires of the human soul, because at heart, it implicitly grants the right to be above morality.

The ethic of the modern vampire is simply the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade without all the pretentious verbiage. De Sade was not just about inflicting pain for sexual pleasure, but about imposing his will on others because he could; whatever “is” - is right. De Sade sought philosophical justification for his perversions, and even revolutionary France declared him insane and committed him to asylums. But the attack on Christian theism and morality that the revolution had unloosed could not be stemmed simply because they imprisoned its most philosophically consistent adherent. Later on Nietzsche gave a more philosophical and rational justification for the same approach to human ethics; his myth of the super-man, directly led to fascism and the death camps in Germany. Power, unrestrained by anything except man’s own will, inevitably leads to destruction. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Thus, the modern myth of the vampire is De Sade and Nietzsche come to life in the form of a monster that we secretly recognize as living inside all of us. For two thousand years, Biblical Christianity kept that monster safely chained up; the Enlightenment, Humanism, Materialism and the death of modern philosophy have released him again to prey on the innocent. It is no accident that brutal rapes, and sadistic serial killers (almost all sexually motivated), have become pandemic in modern culture. No, we cannot blame the myth of the vampire for their cause, but we can see the common ground between them. What Hollywood and popular fiction glamorize, twisted men act out in their daily life.

As mentioned previously, at the root of all human problems is a basic orientation to want to be as god, determining good and evil for one’s self exercising power over others according to one’s own will. This power might be personal, social, economic or political; but the essence of the man in rebellion to God is an unlawful desire to replace God’s sovereignty with man’s will.

In a Christianized society, this sinful orientation is inhibited and suppressed. Men are taught by Christ, through His church, to live self-sacrificial lives, serving, rather than being served, and submitting their wills, to His. It is no accident that the earlier mythology saw Christian symbols such as the cross or the Eucharist as being the ONLY effective means of combating the vampire; symbols that are routinely ridiculed as being ineffective in ALL modern movies and books. Whether they realize it or not, the contemporary producer or writer is actually making a profound statement about the role of Christianity in modern society; it is not some half-baked attempt at political correctness, but the realization that Christianity no longer provides the basic morality of society that is being attacked.

And without that Christian moral consensus, men tend to become consistent with their basic nature-and evil flourishes in the world. It is no accident that vampirism in films and literature is closely associated with violence against women in particular; the unlawful hunger for brutal sexual power, over another man’s wife or daughter.

But the sexual aspects are simply one manifestation of the deeper problem. Apart from a few superstitious people living in almost forgotten parts of Eastern Europe, no one fears the vampire today as a genuine entity. But the same philosophy and ethics behind the vampire are taught in every university and college in America and practiced in the personal ethics of most Westerners; Man is his own god, he can have what he wants on his own terms, because there is no universal moral code that binds all men.

Thus, the rejection of Biblical Christianity, and the search for morality apart from Christ, must inevitably lead us to the ethics of the vampire; seduction if possible, brutal rape if necessary, for nothing can transcend the individual’s will. And while these terms are provocative and possibly even offensive to some, only they carry the full range of emotive response to the reality of the vampire ethic being worked out in every area of life. From the university professor seducing his students into a meaningless worldview, to the corporate raider, raping a company for his assets, to the politicians who use both techniques to acquire and maintain their position, all are engaged in the same vampiric effort to exercise unlawful power over others.

The vampire as myth no longer has the power to frighten us; familiarity does breed contempt. But the vampire as ethic is as real as your local prison; and most frightening of all, this ethic is become mainstream. Modern Western culture has no defense against the vampire ethic because philosophically, they have rejected the only worldview that can consistently combat it. By the sovereign grace of God, He has chosen to restrict how consistent men become with their vampire ethic, but how long will he be patient with a rebellious and wicked people? The lands of Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, Greece, and Rome were all finally judged and destroyed because despite the local differences, at heart they had accepted the Tempter’s lie and adopted the vampire ethic. Each of these societies glorified in death, occultism, slavery, sexual debauchery and tyranny; and each, according to God’s time table were overthrown. Let us pray then, that God gives grace and a new revival or religion, lest we find that the vampire has returned and taken up residence next door.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. New Book! The Christian and the Occult
2. A Review of Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer
3. Christian Rant: It’s None of Your Business

As far back as anthropologists can track human legends, the belief in ghosts and spirits is already present. From a humanist, materialist perspective, “animism” (the idea that rocks, streams, trees, etc. are inhabited by invisible “spiritual” entities) is asserted to be the first religion. Primitive man supposedly created the concept to explain what was otherwise inexplicable by attributing “supernatural” causes to what we “know” today to be “natural” effects. Part of that explanation process included what happened to man and animals that had died. It is no accident that in many ancient languages, the words for “soul” and “spirit” are derived from the ones for “breath” or “life” since the most visible differences between the dead and the living is that the dead no longer breathes. Therefore at death, the “breath” or “spirit” had departed the body and the inevitable questions then arose; where did it go, was it still around and what might it do to the living?

Hence, according the humanist/materialist view, ancient humans quickly concluded that it was possible that these departed “spirits” just MIGHT choose to hang around and cause some sort of mischief unless properly propitiated. This might entail special funerary rites, sacrifices, shamanism; the particulars do not matter so much as the idea that this universal belief in “ghosts” was the result of a psychological coping mechanism to attempt to control the uncontrollable.

The Scriptures in some ways, actually supports this recreation of antiquity. From Genesis, we know that God “breathed” life into inanimate matter to create life; and it is reasonable to assume that sinful men quickly perverted His revelation into something approaching the anthropologists’ view of early human religion. The difference is that man devolved in his religious beliefs from Theism to polytheism to animism. However, every culture, no matter how widely separated in distance or time from each other, has some sort of belief in “spirits;” and concern or even fear that the spirits of the dead could return to earth and affect the living in some way. In cultures that worshipped their ancestors, such “spirits” had to be remembered and honored, lest they curse the living. In other cultures, the “spirits” were seen as more malevolent, hating the living for possessing all the things that were no able to enjoy.

And this belief in “ghosts” is not restricted to the dim, dark recesses of pre-scientific cultures or third world nations. Researchers at Baylor University found that 37% of those surveyed in modern America believed places can be haunted. Almost 20% believed it is possible to communicate with the dead. Clearly, there is a difference between people believing something to be true from whether or not it is actually true; but it is telling that in the most humanistic, materialistic and “scientific” society in human history, so many people retain a belief in ghosts.

Do ghosts actually exist? Can the spirits of the departed return to haunt people or places? Can the living communicate with the dead? The Bible actually gives us some evidence that such things may be possible. For example, Deuteronomy 18:11 specifically forbids “mediums, spiritists or one who calls up the dead.” The language here is important; the text does not say those who pretend to do these things or even attempt to do them, but the actual practice; which seems to imply that some people were actually communicating with the “dead,” in some way. Granted, the modern spiritualism movement has been thoroughly debunked from the time of Harry Houdini; he exposed their cheap tricks almost a hundred years ago. And no matter how popular that “Crossing Over” fellow might be, he uses the same tired old techniques to confuse the gullible while making some money and a reputation for himself. As we saw in the chapter on the authenticity of occult phenomenon, for a long time, there have been many rewards offered to anyone who can demonstrate “psychic” or “occult” powers under controlled circumstances; rewards that go unclaimed.

Yet nevertheless, there are a lot of people who solemnly testify that they saw or heard something that does not fit within the standard, normal means of explanation. Like UFO’s, apparently, sometimes, some people do see something that seems to defy naturalistic explanations. Now, there is a difference between a phenomenon and the explanation of a phenomenon; i.e., a person may experience something real but their explanation of that experience may be contrary to fact. For example, if one is home alone at night and hears “footsteps” upstairs, a person MAY think they are hearing a ghost when in reality there may be some other, purely natural explanation. The sound may have been real; but the interpretation can be completely fallacious. In my own experience, I knew people who insisted that a particular location was haunted; they heard something as if someone was walking up an aisle banging on a series of pipes. What they heard was perfectly accurate; but it was not a spirit, but an old style steam furnace! As the steam traveled from the boiler to the various radiators, it caused the metal to expand with an audible “bang!” But for people who had always lived with forced air heaters, they had never encountered that phenomenon before so they tried to explain it according to their own beliefs. Since they were already predisposed to believe that this particular place was “haunted” (and to be honest, this particular venue was a very creepy place), anything out of the “ordinary” become evidence for a ghost; even something as simple as steam running through some pipes.

However, not every phenomenon can be made to so easily fit within a naturalistic explanation. We could spend the rest of this essay examining various solemn, eye witness testimonies made by sincere, sober people who saw something that simply does not fit within modern, materialist categories. So is there anything to all the ghost stories that have been passed down through the years?

For the classic materialist, the supernatural by definition, cannot exist; and therefore anything that is actual phenomenon must fit within his own categories. Attempts to reduce the supernatural into naturalistic categories have been on-going for over a hundred years. Many universities offer courses in “parapsychology” which studies everything from Extra Sensory Perception to Ghost Hunting. The “true believers” faithfully take readings of strange electromagnetic fields, record “electronic voice phenomenon” (where supposedly “ghosts” talk on tape recorders), use thermal imagery to take heat signatures and a host of other techniques trying to capture “evidence” of ghosts. While the most charitable assessment of their endeavors would have to conclude, “Not Proven,” the “faithful” still try to show that somehow, the supernatural is just another under-explored aspect of the “natural” world.

But what if the problem is that the supernatural itself is simply beyond the materialist’s ability to properly perceive reality as it has been revealed? As Christians, we have God’s inerrant, infallible Word that reveals things about the world that transcends what can be understood from a purely materialist perspective. God is “invisible;” that is, not able to be perceived by human senses. Furthermore, there is an entire realm of existence that transcends the material universe; a realm “inhabited” by God, His Holy Angels and rebellious spiritual entities opposed to Him and His righteous rule. Christians begin with the assumption that God exists and that what He revealed is true. Materialists begin with the assumption that reality is only that which allows itself to be studied in the scientist’s laboratory. Both worldviews begin with assumptions.

The Bible is clear that the problem is never a lack of evidence, but the ability to properly understand and interpret the evidence; Romans 1:18ff tells us that sinful men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The evidence of God’s existence is written in the very fabric of creation as well as on our hearts; but wicked men refuse to admit that it is even evidence!

Therefore, when it comes to the subject of determining whether ghosts exist, the materialist is handicapped because he either refuses to acknowledge the very possibility or deliberately suppresses or distorts any evidence he does find in order to make it fit within the parameters of his own preconceived worldview. The “Ghost Hunters” may take all the readings, recordings and photographs they want; the strict materialist will either demand MORE “evidence” or discount whatever they find as never being convincing enough. Even if a ghost walked into a laboratory and answered all the questions a hard headed materialist wanted, the only thing that would happen would be a new theory created to make the supernatural phenomenon fit within a materialist worldview.

But that is the problem, isn’t it? Ghosts do NOT show up on cameras (the ones that do, always turn out to be either hoaxes, camera problems, or have other “normal” explanations). Mediums are fakes and con artists. In fact, when reviewing the actual “evidence,” the most convincing always seems to come down to reliable, sober people experiencing something that defies a materialist explanation.

As mentioned previously, if you hear hoof beats in the distance, expect horses, not zebras. In other words, when trying to determine the cause of anything, the most likely explanation is the simplest, most “normal” one. If pipes are clanking in the middle of the night, it is probably due to metal expanding from heat; not a ghost. If stairs are creaking, it is more likely to be wood contracting in the cool of the evening, rather than a spiritual presence walking down the steps. If one wakes up in the middle of the night and sees a form in one’s bedroom, it is more likely to be a misfiring of the brain coming out of a dream state than a supernatural haunting.

However, having said that; the Bible does apparently provide some evidence that in at least certain situations, there is a phenomenon that appears to be something very similar to what we call “ghosts.” First, we know that man is more than just flesh and bone; he has an invisible aspect that continues on after death. Secondly, as mentioned previously, there is a whole category of activities that are expressly prohibited that deal with communicating with the dead not just the attempt. Therefore apparently, at least some mediums and spiritualists in Bible times were contacting something outside of the material world. Thirdly, we do have the “Witch of Endor” who called up Samuel. At least in this one case, she actually succeeded; the text says, “When she saw Samuel” (1 Sam 28:12). This seems to strongly imply that she was not just faking something but actually “conjured” Samuel from the dead. Furthermore, Saul then has a discussion with Samuel which again, pretty clearly implies that this was a real event and not just another con job.

Fourthly, from New Testament revelation we know that before the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, Hades (i.e. the “Grave” in Greek or “sheol” in Hebrew) was a place divided into two sections; apparently the righteous inhabited one place called “Abraham’s Bosom” while the wicked were in a place of torment (Luke 16:22ff). We also know that after the resurrection, the Apostle Paul said that to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord (Phil 1:23) and that when the Lord Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, He led the captives out of captivity (Eph 4:8). Without going to far with speculation, it seems reasonable that before the Incarnation, all souls were held in a common spiritual realm (called “The Grave”) until the resurrection whereupon the righteous were brought into the presence of God presumably because the price for their sins had now been paid.

However, what we do not have in the Bible is any evidence that the spirits of men are somehow trapped here on earth, continuing to inhabit in some immaterial form, the material plane. The souls of the righteous are with the Lord Jesus. The souls of the reprobates are imprisoned, waiting their final judgment. There is no Biblical evidence that some of these spirits are allowed out of their prison to haunt houses or visit their living relatives. In fact, the Luke passage pretty clearly denies this; even though the rich man and Lazarus could see each other, a great gulf existed between them; Abraham says it is impossible for even spirits in the same realm to visit each other across the great divide. When the rich man begs for Abraham to send Lazarus back to the living to warn his brothers about their coming fate, Abraham refuses because they already had Moses and the prophets; if they would not listen to THEM, then they would not listen to Lazarus.

This tale the Lord Jesus tells also shoots a hole through most of the theories modern people have about ghosts. Usually, the explanation for a haunting is that the deceased had issues that were never resolved in life and therefore got “trapped” somewhere between the physical plane and the afterlife. However, notice the assumption here; that “crossing over” into that afterlife is a desirable thing. While that might be true for the righteous; it is not so for the wicked. Those who reject God’s free offer of salvation are judged for their sins death is NOT a good thing for them; it is a place of torment and suffering for eternity. However, the modern spiritualist explanation denies the gospel, denies the need for salvation, and thus denies the need for Jesus. Therefore to accept their explanation is to implicitly accept a view of death that is contrary to God’s own revelation; it is a way of making the death of Jesus unnecessary. So if “ghosts” are not the spirits of the departed who have not yet passed over to the afterlife, what are they?

Now, everything the Bible tells us is true; but the Bible does not tell us everything we want to know. There are areas of knowledge that God has given to us to discover by exercising dominion over the earth. Hence, there are true things we can learn by studying His work in creation; things He did not specifically reveal in His Word (e.g., the principles of mathematics, or the “laws” of motion, the speed of light, the use of the arch as an architectural tool, etc.). However, there are some aspects of truth into which He has forbidden us to delve; and ghosts, spirits, divination and magic are among them. God considers these things “detestable” and was the primary reason why He ordered the Canaanites destroyed as a culture. He warned Israel about copying these pagan practices and that He would destroy them if they disobeyed. The most wicked kings in Israel’s (and later, Judah’s) history, however disobeyed Him, practicing witchcraft, demonism, occultism and consorting with the “dead;” and both nations were destroyed as a direct result.

Therefore, there could be spiritual phenomenon that people sometimes encounter sometimes unwittingly or unintentionally phenomenon that is explained by “ghost stories.” Perhaps in certain places, the barrier between the material and spiritual realms is broken and “something” leaks through. Certainly, the fear, horror and dismay so common in “ghostly” encounters might be explained as something we might expect from unredeemed souls crying out in spiritual pain. Perhaps there are some undiscovered physical mechanisms by which traumatic events in life leave can behind a “psychic image” that certain people can “feel” or even “see” if the conditions are right. The point is, we do not know; and more importantly, God specifically says that this whole area of investigation is off limits to us. There are just some things that we are not supposed to know. No sane, reasonable man would give a two year old child a loaded gun and let him play with it. Sure, when the child is older, he should be taught how to safely handle and use a weapon; but at that time, he simply lacks the maturity to deal with the responsibility that a weapon demands. In the same way, perhaps this area of “knowledge” is closed to us because we are just not ready as this stage of history to handle it responsibly.

And of course, the reason we are forbidden to explore this area might be that in that spiritual realm, intelligent, invisible entities really do exist; entities that hate God and us who wish us harm and whose purpose is deception and deceit. The Adversary has lied to us from the beginning; and his minions work to deceive people away from the truth. Therefore, it is highly possible that we are forbidden to investigate the realm of the dead because there are demons there waiting At best we will be deceived; at worst, we might discover that the demons can “cross over” and make themselves at home.

There certainly does seem to be a connection between an obsessive interest and involvement with the occult and serious personality disorders. The materialist will argue that only people whose thinking is already bizarre would even entertain the possibility of the supernatural. However, it could be that the more one involves one’s self in occult activity, the more one opens one’s self to demonic confusion and deception. In the few instances of demonic possession recorded in the Scriptures, bizarre thinking is the least of the symptoms; demons literally can drive people crazy.

No, not everyone who tries to contact Grandmother via an Ouija board or medium goes insane; most are simply deceived, wasting time and money on lies. But someone who BELIEVES in ghosts and actively seeks them out just might discover that the “Voice from Beyond” has a far darker agenda.

Conclusion

The best defense in spiritual warfare is neither modern technology, nor pagan rituals (which are common in films and television shows that deal with the occult) but rather faith in Christ and His Word. It is no accident that with the spread of Christianity, all forms of demonic activity disappear. With all due respect to the Roman church, the Bible contains no rituals for exorcism; but it does have a lot to say about repenting of sins, forgiving others, living at peace with all men and obeying Jesus as Lord.

Thus, for us as Christians, the existence of ghosts and other things that go bump in the night is simply a “non-issue.” We know that those that belong to the Lord are with Him, after they leave us. We have no evidence that the souls of other men wander the earth or inhabit our houses. If people do actually witness real phenomenon that cannot be adequately explained by “natural” means, then they do not have to give in to fear they just have to make sure that they are right with the Lord; “Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

However, since God finds spiritualism so detestable, we must refrain from any involvement. As discussed in another chapter, occult films and books are not necessarily evil in and of themselves (the reasons why we conclude that will be developed later); but we certainly should be aware of the dangers. In short, if things are going “bump in the night” your house is NOT haunted by departed spirits seeking some resolution so they can move on to the afterlife. That is one of the lies the enemy uses to call into question God’s own revelation of what happens to us after death. No, the dead are dead; passed from this life to what awaits them in the next. If people are experiencing real phenomenon, phenomenon that cannot be explained, then it is time to seek out a pastor to deal with their own sins rather than an exorcist. The best research we have to date is that (normally speaking) people who are oppressed, distressed or possessed by hauntings of various kinds almost always have been involved in various forms of occult, New Age theology and practices. Get rid of the Tarot cards, Ouija boards, pendulums, and crystals; stop consulting palm readers, mystics and mediums and REPENT for all these things are detestable to God.

Finally, the motivation to seek out a spiritualist or medium is often because some people, even confessed Christians, refuse to accept God’s providence. Someone they loved has died, they miss them and they refuse to let them go. In the movie, “End of Days” a priest asks the main character why he no longer believes in God. The character responds that he used to believe in God until they had a disagreement; he wanted his wife and child to live and God wanted them to die. This was an amazing admission on the part of the writers; the man did not really stop believing - he just rejected God’s will. The real issue is that life does not revolve around us and our desires. Nobody is owed a long, pleasant life full of good things and warm memories. Death is the inheritance of every one of Adam’s children. It is only through Christ that we have the hope of the resurrection; where every tear will be dried, every sin forgiven, every pain forgotten. But sinful men do not want to submit to God on His terms; their rebellion may take many different forms some may be overtly evil and depraved others just refusing to accept His providence but the rebellion remains as a testimony to Adam’s sin. Someone who wants to contact a dead loved one refuses to accept that death is God’s judgment on our sin just as Saul repudiated God when he sought out the witch of Endor. No matter that Saul was a member of the covenant community, was personally chosen by God to be king and had received many examples of special revelation; in the end, Saul was a rebel. He refused to submit to God, to live life on God’s terms, descending into occultism and spiritualism because it promised him power. And therefore, he lost not only his kingdom and his life; he lost his soul as well.

Death is painful; and it hurts terribly to lose someone we love and at the same time, our own death is certainly before each and every one of us. But our hope is not in contacting the dead but in rising with them to new life because Jesus has died in our place. The gospel removes the sting of death and robs the grave of its victory.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. The Bible and Self-Defense
2. The Bible and Economics
3. How to Start A Bible Study that Works

The word “occult” means “hidden, concealed or secret” and refers to of such things as astrology, sorcery, magic, alchemy, etc that purports to give the practitioner esoteric knowledge; and with that knowledge, supernatural “powers.” Deuteronomy 18:9ff lays out God’s view of ALL occult activity, “When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft or one who interprets omens or a sorcerer or one who cases a spell, or a medium or a spiritist or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.”

Table of Reference:

•  Occultism as Power Religion
• Types of Occult Activities
• Occultism’s Worldview
• Why the Resurgence of the Occult?
• Dealing with the Occult

Clearly, God finds such activities as abominations, worthy of condemnation. In fact, He specifically states that the REASON why the Canaanites were to be destroyed was of their practice of the occult “arts”. We need to think carefully about this for a moment; was this just some obscure, ceremonial law that was relevant only to Old Testament Israel, or is there some equity today for modern Christians and the civil magistrate - How we answer this will have profound effects on our culture and our lives.

First, God hates occult activity SO much; he destroyed an entire nation just because they were deeply involved in it. Granted, ALL pagan nations are mired in the occult to some degree or another. In antiquity, Egypt was clearly committed to occult activity trying to mimic the miracles performed by Moses. There, God destroyed the entire nation through Divine judgments in the Ten Plagues. In the case of Canaan, He ordered the Israelites to be the vehicle of His judgment. Therefore SOME nations He destroys by His divine providence, while He entrusts the civil magistrates to inhibit it in others. But lest anyone think that His providence allows the modern magistrate off the hook, consider that occultism is like idolatry; God warns the civil magistrates in Romans 1:20ff that idolatry brings His curse on ALL societies, not just covenant ones like Israel. Therefore the civil magistrate, as a servant of God (Romans 13:1ff) WILL be held accountable to God on the Day of Judgment if they allow occultism to go unsuppressed; just as He holds idolatrous nations accountable. It is interesting in this light to note that even PAGAN nations, historically, often passed laws against witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

Secondly, modern cultures would do well to consider WHY God hates occultism so much. The essence of all occult activity is power through secret knowledge; power over the natural elements, over sickness and adversity, power over one’s enemies or simply power for power’s sake. From the beginning of human history, when Adam sought to be as God, wanting to determine good and evil for himself, wicked men have a “natural” bent towards the occult in the illusive search for power though secret knowledge. Gary North in many of his better books has identified the essence of Satanism as “Power Religion.” Biblical religion is based on submission to Almighty God, bringing our lives into conformity with His revealed will. Jesus said it this way, “He would be great among you must first become the servant of all.” Thus ethics is central to Biblical Christianity; as we serve God, and others, His power flows into us and through us but it is always HIS power to do HIS will.

However rebellious Men, in a vain attempt to be as God, seek power apart from God. They want power for its own sake, to be used according to their own will because they want to BE God. They recognize that power can come through a strong arm, and hard work, but they also recognize that the essence of divinity is power over the “natural” world. Occultism is not a “short-cut” to power; acquiring occult power takes decades of dedicated training to master (see Carlos Castaneda) but rather an attempt to get to the “real” source of all power. The “universe” is assumed to be power in chaotic form, which by the proper rituals and procedures can be controlled by the will of men. Man thus recapitulates God’s actions in creation, imposing order on primeval chaos for His own will. Occultism thus is the inevitable religion of paganism as it represents sinful men’s attempt to become God.

Even pagan Hollywood understands this aspect of the occult; in the very first Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “Conan the Barbarian” James Earl Jones’ evil character begins his descent into wickedness by craving the “power of steel” and raids Conan’s village because of their reputation for making the best swords. Later on, in the climatic confrontation, Jones has given up on armies and steel because he discovered that the occult and religious ritual is more powerful than swords.

It is interesting that in this passage from Deuteronomy, God promises that He will raise up for His people a prophet like Moses who shall direct and guide His people. Jesus, who was the literal fulfillment of this prophecy demonstrated as a part of His divine nature, power over the demonic, the natural world and the future. All the things that shamans, witches, fortune tellers so avidly seek to obtain were demonstrated in the life and work of Jesus. Jesus was often accused by his enemies of being a sorcerer because He demonstrated supernatural power.

But an important distinction must be made between miracles and magic; miracles are God’s intervention into human events; magic is about men attempting to exercise supernatural power on their own terms. Magic is the power to invoke, summon, or control celestial/demonic forces to do one’s bidding for either “good” or evil while miracles are an act of God through a specific individual in order to authenticate or demonstrate His sovereignty. Miracles in Scripture are never random, events. If one carefully reads through the Book of Acts, even the Apostles and their authorized agents did not perform miracles on demand. Each recorded incident is specifically given to reveal something about God, His Son or His will. Magic on the other hand, is ALWAYS about obtaining and using supernatural power for one’s own purposes. Simon Magus was specifically condemned for his attempt to purchase the abilities the Apostles demonstrated.

Thus occult practices are “detestable” to God (Deut 18:12, EX 22:18) just because they are attempts to steal His glory and honor. They are inherently blasphemous because they attribute to men, that which is reserved to the Divine nature. Occultism thus places man’s faith in his ability to imitate the divine, ascribing to himself what only God can do.

In Biblical history, one can see how God judged Israel for violating this command. Occultism was one of the sins so severe that it deserved the death penalty in ancient Israel (Ex 22:18).Occultism was one of the reasons Saul lost His kingdom (1 Chn 10:13). By consulting the witch (better translation, “medium”) of Endor, Saul sought knowledge of the future apart from God. God would no longer speak to him, so he hired a medium to call up Samuel’s ghost. As a result, his apostasy was complete and he lost both his kingdom and his life the next day. Later on in Israel’s history, occultism was characteristic of Manasseh, the worst king of Judah (2 Chn 33:6) whose depravity was the final cause of their captivity in Babylon for seventy years. It is God’s irony that because of occultism (and idolatry) the remnants of Israel were enslaved for two generations in the heart of the most occult society in the ancient world! Finally, the New Testament states that people who are involved in the occult are excluded from heaven (Rev 21:8, 22:5).

Occultism as Power Religion

This relationship between power and religion is a recurring theme in Scripture. As creatures, we have been delegated legitimate power by God; the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:26ff clearly gives man the right to exercise dominion over the earth. But we ought to note two things about the dominion mandate; first, the purpose of that power was to glorify God, not to elevate men. By subduing the earth, men would extend the beauty, harmony and productivity of the Garden over the rest of creation, thus imaging God’s work in creation.

Secondly, the means by which men were to subdue the earth was by being fruitful and multiplying, not through some supernatural accumulation of power. Men though made in the image of God, are not His equals. Even prefect, sinless men were dependant creatures created to live within the limits of a physical universe. Their dominion over the earth would be accomplished by hard (but not onerous) work-work that would be shared by future generations building on the accomplishments of their ancestors.

But occultism by nature and definition is the attempt to obtain dominion on Man’s terms by unlawful methods and procedures. It was “hidden” from the average person, and only revealed to the “chosen” ones. The beginning of ALL occultism was the Serpent’s lie to Eve in the Garden. She had revealed knowledge about God and His will, but Satan offered “hidden” knowledge that God had supposedly kept from her. Satan called God’s character into question, stating that He wanted to keep certain knowledge from Adam and Eve, knowledge that would give them the power to be as God. Satan then graciously offered to share this knowledge; eating from the forbidden fruit would make her a God. Thus occultism appealed both to her vanity and desire to have power.

In many books and discussions today, those claiming to have occult powers often insist that they use them only for good and in some cases that they are actually doing God’s work! Popular television shows such as “Charmed” or “Angel” or “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” are heavily dependant upon occult forces working against evil for “good.” However, it is not just how a power is used but rather whether God glorified by its use. God and God alone can determine what glorifies His name, reveals His character and establishes right conduct. If God has forbidden us to use certain means even to a “good” end, then such practices are wrong. Thus there is no such thing as “white” magic. But the appeal is that the occultist’s “secret” knowledge and power takes precedence over God’s revelation; hence recapitulating the original sin in the Garden.

Types of Occult Activities

In the Deuteronomy passage, Moses identifies various types of occult activity which is specifically condemned by God. The first reference is to human sacrifice; i.e., “passing through the fire” and probably is a direct reference to Molech worship. In order to gain power from the god “Molech” (which probably comes from the word for “king” hence referring to the “King of Heaven” another blasphemous reference to the One True God) pagans would sacrifice their babies by casting them into a furnace that had been super-heated by fire. The babies would be instantly consumed and this demonstration of loyalty to the “god” would therefore presumably bring the god’s favor. That favor might be sufficient rain for a good crop, victory over enemies in battle, prosperity in business, etc.

It is not hard to see sacrificing children as an obscene parody of God offering His only begotten Son Jesus. Human sacrifice is thought to be the most potent form of “magic” just because it imitates God’s own predetermined will to send Jesus to die for our sins.

A second form of occultism forbidden in this passage is divination or the act or practice of trying to foretell the future by unknown or occult means. Knowledge of the future represents power. Wouldn’t we all like to have knowledge of how the stock market will do next year, or what our enemies plan for us? But only God is the “Alpha and Omega; the first and the last, the beginning and the end” and therefore only He can know the future. For men to seek such knowledge apart from God is to attempt to manipulate that which is God’s own domain. It is to claim for one’s self the nature of God; His omniscience.

Granted, in the Bible, God did often send prophets to His people who would, on occasion and according to His will, give knowledge of future events. There was even a procedure during the tabernacle and temple years wherein one could consult the High Priests through the Ummin and Thummin to receive instruction and guidance. But the main purpose of a prophet, throughout the Bible was to declare God’s will, not to give power to people.

Sorcery, wizardry and witchcraft are the claim of the ability to use supernatural power to influence the natural world (NT pharmacopeia; the use of potions/drugs-). Again it is blasphemous because it represents a rival religion to Biblical Christianity. The sorcerer claims to be “connected” to the ultimate source of power which he can manipulate at will. He attributes to himself that which only God can do. Hence, it is always idolatrous and always contrary to revealed religion.

Mediums/spiritualists are those who consult the dead or through whom the dead communicate to the living. Death is the great curse and all men, at the center of their being fear it. Therefore those who can supposedly communicate with the dead achieve power over the living by allaying their fears about the “after-life.” As noted before, Saul’s consultation with a medium was his final act of rebellion that cost him his life. There is even a popular television show that has made its way from basic cable to broadcast TV called “Crossing Over” wherein a medium gives “messages” to a gullible audience.

Necromancy is the acquisition or use of occult powers through contact with demons, spirits and the dead. The idea that spirit is intrinsically superior to matter is not just the product of Plato and ancient Greek. Since God’s divine power and nature is clearly seen through every aspect of creation (Romans 1:18ff), men have always understood that there exists a spiritual realm and sought a connection with it. God is Spirit, and therefore, the assumption goes, the spiritual realm is more powerful than the physical realm. If one can obtain a little power there, it could mean great power here.

Demons are well known in all ancient religions; clearly men “experimenting” in this area discovered that intelligence existed in the spiritual world and sought ways to control it. In the same way, the dead, who now reside in that spiritual universe, were assumed to have access to knowledge and power unavailable on “this side” of the life and death barrier. Necromancy was the attempt to utilize that spiritual knowledge and power.

Astrology/stargazing is the art of gaining knowledge and or power through the positions, influences etc. of the stars, planets etc. In the ancient world, the stars were seen as more than physical objects in the night sky; it was widely assumed that they represented angelic or demonic beings; it was not an accident that all the planets in our solar system were named after particular Greek gods. By studying the movement and position of the night sky, men believed they could foretell future events.

Again, astrology is a blasphemous perversion of a Biblical truth. God specifically says that one of the reasons why He created the stars was to serve as “signs” and “seasons.” The “seasons” aspect we can understand well enough as fundamental to creating a reliable calendar. If one cannot precisely mark off the seasons, especially in an agrarian society (which represents 99% of human history) one cannot know the proper times for planting or harvesting; but what about the “signs” aspect? Well, there is ONE astrological sign that every Christian knows about; the star of Bethlehem. The “Wise men” from the east KNEW that the Messiah had been born because they “saw his star” in the heavens. But where was it revealed in the Old Testament that the Messiah’s birth would be foretold by a “star?”

I would argue that God’s providence governs every aspect of His creation, including celestial mechanics. We may “know” today that stars are burning balls of gas (actually, thermonuclear explosions) but perhaps they also serve another purpose? Psalm 19:1 says that the “heavens declare the glory of God” and surely this means more than we get a funny feeling in our tummies when we look at the night sky? It may well be that God DOES reveal things about Himself through the providential movement of stellar geometry, and “stars” may be more than just physical objects.

However, while the above is an interesting speculation; whatever signs God has placed in the heavens has no direct relationship to the practice of astrology. Astrology is blasphemous just because it attributes the predestination of God to some other entity; the planets and stars (or the spiritual beings believed to be behind them). While the modern astrologer may reject the association with angelic or demonic forces, the underlying presupposition remains that some entity other than God directs the course of human life. Thus to consult the stars through astrology was another form of worship and service to these false gods.

Finally, God finds occultism detestable because the content is often revolting; sexuality/sensuality, disgusting practices; grave robbing, use of body parts/fluids/excrement, human sacrifice are all part and parcel of the “magical” world. The very things God calls “unclean” in the Old Testament ceremonial laws are the essential ingredients in sorcery and witchcraft.

Occultism’s Worldview

The basic presupposition of occultism is the myth of primeval chaos and ethical neutrality. Like modern evolutionary theory, occultism believes that order arose out of chaos. Man’s will becomes the ultimate standard as he imposes order over the cosmic forces. The “supernatural” thus consists of potential energy that is available to those who understand how to use it for their own ends. In the ancient world these forces were sometimes associated with various pagan gods, demons, spirits or even just “forces” that if properly manipulated could grant the user power.

Since the ultimate nature of creation was chaos, there was no definite standard of good or evil, apart from the will of the individual who had the most power. Kings in the ancient world were seen as semi-divine connections between this world and the next. Sorcerers and Necromancers often worked FOR the King. But the worst sort of atrocities were common to both since there existed no ultimate moral standard other than the will of the most powerful

Occultism of course is not just an ancient, pagan belief. In modern society these same “forces” have been secularized by giving them a “scientific” covering: for example, the brain supposedly only uses 1/10th of the available material- could the other 90% be used in ways that are now long forgotten? Or perhaps “ESP” is an evolutionary atrophied ability lost because of man’s increasing dependence on the left hemisphere of his brain which stresses reason and logic? Poltergeists (a German word meaning “noisy ghosts” referring to mischievous or even dangerous hauntings) could in reality be the electromagnetic disturbances caused by anxiety and trauma of puberty and adolescence. The “Force” is a universal energy field created by all living creatures which the properly instructed can manipulate at will.

The point here of course is that though the explanation given is different, and more acceptable to the modern mind, ancient occultism and new age thinking, paranormal “science” etc., is really describing the same phenomenon.

Both ancient and contemporary manifestations of the “supernatural” exalt man at God’s expense; we simply replace the old gods for new ones. Romans 1:23 demonstrates that idolatry comes in many forms; men may worship animals, spirits or Man himself.

Thus occultism is ultimately deceptive because we do not live in a morally neutral universe, but rather an ethical one; i.e. if your “power” does not come from God then it must come from the adversary. But the power that God gives men is obtained by ethics, not ritual, and is to be exercised for His glory through dedicated loving service to others (Mark 10:45). Occultism however offers the temptation of power apart from God that Man can obtain on his own terms.

Why the Resurgence of the Occult?

Occultism is most closely associated with paganism and as the gospel conquered Europe, occultism was suppressed. In many places, only the most rural areas retained some of the older rituals; and even these were Christianized. The Renaissance saw however an outbreak of occultism that is seldom mentioned in most history text-books; the Italians rediscovered more than just Greek sculpture and philosophy but some of their darker secrets as well.

Alchemy was a serious attempt at discovering the “basic” nature of creation and manipulating it. The goal was not as popular imagination would have it to turn lead into gold, but to discover the “elixir vitae” that would grant immortality and spiritual power. Certainly there were attempts at matter transmutation, but how much of this was sincere, or how much was a way of getting financing from Kings and Princes is unclear. One of the most enduring characteristics of occultism is its close association with con artistry. Even the most primitive shaman dancing naked around a camp fire knows that MOST of his REAL power comes from the belief of others rather than in anything he can actually do. In fact, an argument could be made that shamans, witchdoctors, alchemists, sorcerers and necromancers were the first practical psychologists capitalizing on the gullibility of the people. After all, if people THINK you can do something supernatural, it gives you power over them, regardless of whether you actually CAN do anything supernatural.

But with the Reformation and the Enlightenment, rationalism came to rule the day. Reason, logic and clear, critical thinking are the most effective counter-agents to the occult. Reason and logic make things clear and can be shown to anyone who wants to know the truth. Occultism by its very nature defies rational categories and can be learned, only if one is initiated into the secret mysteries of the cult.

Thus, occultism went underground during the Reformation, existing mostly in secret societies that turned to political and cultural issues in the 17-18^th centuries. The theology of ALL revolutionary movements has its origin in occult thinking. In order for societies to be transformed, men must descend back into the primeval chaos that is the ultimate nature of reality. Then SOME men can enforce their will on that chaos and bring about a new political, economic or social order. As demonstrated in the book, “Fire in the Hearts of Men” all of the social revolutionaries of the 19^th century can trace their ancestry directly back to earlier occult societies.

But in the mainstream, at least in the West, occultism dwindled into fairy tale and folk-lore. Christianity and rationalism ruled the day and even in the secularizing process of the 19^th century when Materialists won many of the philosophical battles, occultism was seen as the last remnants of a primitive worldview.

But in the last half of the 20^th century, occultism returned with a vengeance. Partially, thanks to the bankruptcy of modern philosophy, many people lost the very idea of objective truth. If there is no one, all encompassing truth, then there is no place for rationalism. Reason is a useful tool, but if people begin with the basic presupposition that the ultimate nature of reality is chaos (i.e., there is NO truth), then the door has been opened for occultism to make its reappearance. Furthermore, Materialism is inherently an unsatisfying philosophy because it denies something that is inherent within every human being; the knowledge that God, and the spiritual world, exists.

Rational thought, a product of a consistent, Christian worldview, allows us to have dominion over the world by ensuring that we THINK is real, is “really” real. By thinking logically and critically, we can evaluate various claims, and therefore determine truth from error. But if there is no truth, just the subjective impression of the individual, then the chaos is king. As a result, people can believe anything, because anything COULD be true. As mentioned before, one of the marks of people involved in occultism is gullibility; as demonstrated in another article (The “Reality” of Occult Phenomenon); there is actually little real evidence to support claims of occult activity. Even Gary North in his book, “Unholy Spirits” gives undue credence to CLAIMS of occult activity that do not stand the tests of empirical research. Dr. North insists that this is due to occult phenomenon not fitting within the worldviews of modern academics; and to a degree he is most certainly correct.

There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones and one’s presuppositions will determine whether something is even considered a “fact” in the first place. Academics who are materialists at heart are not above discounting the evidence of their own eyes as not being “evidence” just because it does not fit within their frame of reference. And yet, this charge can be turned directly back at Christians. Christians who ASSUME the existence of the supernatural can often believe a certain event has a supernatural origin when in reality it is just good old slight of hand.

The answer to both problems is to think rationally and critically, like the Bereans did before believing every claim that comes to our attention. The Bereans began with the right presuppositions, the authority of Scripture, and then reasoned FROM those Scriptures to evaluate the claims the Apostles were making about Christ. This same process is necessary for all areas of life; begin with the proper presuppositions and then think clearly and logically from those presuppositions.

However, reason, logic and critical thinking are not emphasized in the modern educational system; not by Humanists, and sadly, not often by Christians. The average Christian either accepts things by appeal to an authority (pastor, teacher, popular writer or television personality) or adopts a subjective standard of truth based on whatever the “Spirit” speaks in his “heart.”

The secular world also has adopted a largely subjective standard of truth. There are many supposed “truths” out there and the only unforgivable sin is to hold one truth above another. Both errors in rationality inevitably lead to allowing occultism to flourish.

Of course, the universe is the way God made it and therefore either you live in harmony with that reality, or you suffer. Scientists, engineers and technicians have in the past provided a bulwark against mysticism and occultism because their basic presupposition was that through the scientific method, the universe would be required to give up all its secrets. The 19^th century saw the transition from a religious worldview to a secular/materialist worldview partially because of the power that the scientific method gave to modern man. Science discovered how to make rail-roads, cure diseases, mine ores, build better weapons, conquered the skies and even led us to the moon.

But there was a dark side to science. In the 20^th century, the optimistic hopes of the 19^th century were crushed by two world wars and the invention of nuclear weapons that could potentially end life as we know it on earth. Furthermore, there were limits to what even scientific enquiry could take us. The discoveries about the basic nature of the universe at the sub-atomic level destroyed the earlier Newtonian view of physics. In some way, the very act of observing sub-atomic particles determined how they would respond.

As a result of the increasing mystery of modern physics, the older materialist’s consensus was destroyed. Einstein never discovered his unified field theory which would tie all of physics together. While Science Fiction has gone from embarrassingly bad speculation unknown outside of a small audience to capturing the popular imagination, the reality is that physics has been in despair for almost a century. The world does not seem to fit into any of the comfortable categories established by the 19^th century materialists. And as a result, the possibility of occultism has to be entertained. All societies have some sort of religious beliefs about the nature of the universe and in the West, that mythology for 150 years has been scientific materialism. Therefore, for any idea to become acceptable, it MUST fit within the dominant scientific worldview. Therefore, occultism was transferred from the magician’s study to the scientific laboratory and renamed “Paranormal Research.” For years, such activity has been seen as on the fringes of scientific enquiry, but the very fact that universities take it seriously enough that they offer courses and degrees in these areas, has therefore authenticated occultism in the popular mind. The average person today who has read anything of the actual literature would come away with the clear conception that science has “proven” the existence of ESP, poltergeists, and other occult phenomenon. The reality of course is less clear, but the fact that the highest authority in Western culture, the secular university, teaches such things, therefore makes its acceptance almost guaranteed.

Another reason for the recent outbreak of occultism has to with the church adopting 19^th century materialists’ skepticism of the supernatural. Liberal theology was an attempt to adapt the Bible to the prevailing cultural norms, and in those days, that meant getting rid of the supernatural and the miraculous. This left a gaping hole in the human psyche that occultism has been quick to fill. People WANT to believe in something greater and grander than themselves, and as discussed previously, there is an innate hunger for supernatural power to bolster our inner desire to be “as gods.” What mainstream Christianity took away, cults, sects and occultism gave back; at the price of reason and rationality and the dangers of consorting with demons.

Finally, occultism found a ripe harvest because of the chaos and complexity of modern culture. From 1960 onwards, the West has been experiencing a traumatic social revolution. Sexuality, abortion, the break-down of the traditional family, the failure of modern religion, etc., all have combined to create a social situation that leaves the average person feeling confused and estranged. Occultism in its various forms promises to bring meaning to these people, to put them in touch with the ultimate nature of reality while not requiring them to abandon their most basic presupposition that the world must revolve around them. It is no accident that the fastest growing Christian churches in the world are those that PROMISE miracles to their people on a regular basis.

For the Christian, the supernatural really exists. We believe in a sovereign God who according to His own providence can and does interact with His creation. We believe that prayer really can change things. We believe in the existence of spiritual beings at war with our heavenly Father and at enmity with us. Thus, we are predisposed to seeing “supernatural” explanations of various events. When we hear people of good repute and respectable character giving reports of demons exorcized, bodies healed, or even the dead being raised, we do not immediately dismiss such accounts because they COULD be true.

Dealing with the Occult

In light of what we have discussed, what ought to be the Christian response to occultism? It is pervasive in our culture; rather boring, traditional English school stories infused with a little magic has made J. K. Rowling fantastically rich. The most successful movies and films of the past twenty-five years all have strong occult themes. The Christian cannot escape the occultism of modern society unless they withdraw completely FROM that society. So what do we do?

First, there is a lot of fear amongst many Christians regarding anything even remotely associated with the occult; unreasonable fear. Attacks have been made against J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis’s fiction because there is “magic” in their books. The “Dark Side” of Harry Potter has been popularized by many different writers all motivated by a legitimate concern that exposure to this kind of material MIGHT lead to future involvement in the occult.

But there is “magic” and there is MAGIC and we have to distinguish between the two. In Christian works, the “magic” must be understood in context of the times. Remember, these books were written before the modern resurgence of occultism when Materialism seemed destined to extinguish popular belief in ALL supernatural phenomena, including Biblical Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien’s use of good “magic” for example is always CLEARY distinguishable from the evil sorts that come from demonic associations. In Lewis especially, he uses “magic” in the sense of “miracle.”

In Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” the “wizard” Gandalf is in reality an angel sent to earth to help men battle against the evil demon, Sauron. He is severely restricted in using “magic” and his purpose is more to motivate men than it is to directly battle evil. Yes, there are “magical” rings, swords, and devices, but even here, Necromancy and Sorcery are clearly seen as evil and satanic. The “magical” devices are basically technology that is not understood by the average person. And that phenomenon is just as true of the average person today as it is in Tolkien’s world. How many people actually understand how their television works, or could explain the physics of an internal combustion engine? But we do not call such things “magic” but invoke the more acceptable term “technology.”

If there is an actual difference between “magic” and “technology” it is the application of the scientific method. Technology by definition is something that COULD be understood if a person was willing to put in the time to study it. Magic on the other hand, by its nature, is hidden from the average person and only the initiate, with the proper mind-set and conditioning can master it.

Secondly, occultism in movies and books, even when it comes from a secular source does not necessarily qualify as one of the detestable things in Deuteronomy. For example, is the comic book hero “Superman” something God had in mind when He outlawed occult activity? Superman is an alien being with powers far and above the abilities of the average human. He can fly, is invulnerable, has X-ray vision and has super-strength: does this make him an occult figure?

I would argue no, because there is in Western culture, going back to the beginnings of Christianity in Europe, myths, legends and folk-tales where people have extraordinary powers. But they are just that, stories; they are not real, we are not supposed to believe them, and nobody does. We find such characters interesting and fascinating BECAUSE they can do things that no real human can do, not because somehow we believe we can obtain such powers.

Granted, there have always been some little children who put on their Superman capes and jump off the roofs of their houses trying to fly and yes, there are a few adults with brain dysfunction who religiously attend Star Trek conventions anxiously hoping that Scottie will “beam them up.” But we LAUGH at such people just because they cannot separate fantasy from reality.

Does not EVERY little Christian boy find Samson the most interesting character in the Bible? And haven’t most of them, at least a few times, played as Samson pulling down the temple? Is it not the very fact of Samson’s unusual power, through his amazing strength the very reason why we find his story so fascinating?

Movies, television shows and books I think fall into this same category. Just because the hero may have some unusual powers does not necessarily mean that the show is outright demonic in its orientation and therefore ought to be avoided. What is of far more importance is the values and morality being portrayed. Is it not interesting that many Christians “horrified” by the thought of watching certain movies that may have some form of supernaturalism will relish romantic trash that glorifies adultery, fornication, rebellious children, etc? So which kind of film is more likely to cause serious harm to one’s soul?

Granted, there ARE such films and books that by their nature are simply evil; they glorify the occult, and romanticize evil. The most dangerous are probably the “Slasher” movies. In this genre, begun by the infamous cult film “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and made popular by “Halloween” demonically controlled human beings gruesomely murder stupid teenagers who insist on going into dark places alone. Werewolves, Vampires and Frankenstein’s monster are creatures of fiction; we know they do not exist. But homicidal, sociopaths dismembering innocent people are all too real.

As seriously as we ought to take God’s warning against occultism in any form, we need to make a distinction between the actual practice of such blasphemies and its mere occurrence in literature or films. Just because something has “magic” in it does not necessarily make it unlawful.

Bram Stoker’s famous novel “Dracula” is inherently a Christian book because it clearly identifies the main character with Satan, and he is to be opposed by Christianity. Similarly, Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” (though written by a 19 year old girl involved in an adulterous relationship with Percy Shelly), addresses a fundamental question about the relationship between science and religion; man might be able to create life, but only God can create a soul. In the BEST examples of this kind of literature, the “occult” aspects may be present, but they are addressed from a Biblical perspective, even if the writer or producer himself is NOT a Christian. They cannot help but do so because God is the ultimate source of all truth and beauty. For a film or novel to work, it must relate back to God in some way, even if it is thoroughly unintentional on the part of the author or film-makers.

The Francis Ford Coppola film version of Dracula is a wicked movie; Dracula is portrayed as a sympathetic creature, appealing and seductive. He is turned into a vampire after his wife commits suicide and he rebels against God. There are gross scenes of sexuality that serve no other purpose but to titillate the audience (and personally speaking, the reason why I usually only watch such films on our VCR or DVD, the fast forward button is a necessity). But even in this, the director to resolve his story HAD to return to Christian themes of redemption. Thus even in a most perverse and wicked film, God’s image bears through.

Furthermore, fiction CAN be a legitimate means of discussing profound theological and philosophical issues without tempting anyone to dabble in occultism. Popular films, especially ones with occult themes, can open the door to sharing the gospel that would otherwise remain firmly closed. People are hesitant about sharing their personal beliefs about God, but will often willingly engage in long conversations about films and books.

Though a tangent, perhaps this is the time to discuss the role of all forms of “entertainment.” Christians need to be able to analyze what they see on TV and films or read in books. Every author or producer has a worldview they want to present. The “entertainment” is just a means of packaging that worldview to make it easier for the audience to understand. When we watch something, or read something, we will find it “entertaining” if it meets certain, objective criteria; are there characters with whom we can identify and sympathize, are there conflicts that concern us that are resolved in a satisfactory way? Is the film well made, or book well written?

However, the crucial aspect is ALWAYS the worldview of the writer, director, producer, etc. Furthermore, since making movies is about making money, there is a limit as to how far the author or producer can push that agenda before losing their audience. And just because “in Him we live and move and have our being” even wicked men, cannot help but image the God who created them.

Either Christians just step out of the whole arena of movies and fiction, thus cutting us off from where the average person thinks and feels, or we have to learn how to deal with these worldviews that are in conflict with ours. We have to do more than just sit passively absorbing “entertainment” but instead learn how to analyze the worldview and critique it.

Furthermore, we need to learn how to show that Hollywood’s worldview is either arbitrary or inconsistent; the fatal flaws in all non-Christian worldviews. Apologetics is the full time responsibility of every Christian as he interacts with friends, neighbors and co-workers. Our goal is to take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5) and present the truth claims of King Jesus.

Discussing popular films, especially science fiction and those with some sort of occult theme, has thus been one of the most effective evangelistic tools I have ever found because people LIKE to talk about their favorite movies. They may not have read much philosophy or thought through their own worldview, but they have watched countless hours of movies and television. By learning how to discover the worldview of a film, and then exposing its errors, we CAN then break the ground for evangelism.

For example, several years ago an extraordinarily well made film, “The Sixth Sense” dealt with a little boy who saw dead people. He was not a medium or spiritualist and his “sight” was a terrifying experience he wanted to be rid of. This was a “haunting” film as a psychologist deals with his own estranged wife while trying to help the little boy through his horror filled days. It had a shock ending, that caught most viewers unaware, and for a while, everyone was talking about the movie. Now, not for a moment does the Christian have to give any credence to the worldview in this movie. Yes, it does have occult themes dealing as it does with a boy who sees and talks to dead people. And we know that the dead are not wandering around seeking to resolve personal problems before they move “into the light.” However, it does RAISE the issue of life after death and from the perspective of the viewer, the even more important issue of the responsibilities of life BEFORE death. We can use this movie and others to introduce the TRUTH; and we can legitimately appreciate a brilliant piece of film-making at the same time.

However, Christians seem to have fallen into the secular trap of seeing movies and TV as merely “entertainment.” Too often, they are passive recipients satisfied with watching the pretty pictures flashing across the scene, not thinking about what they are watching and why they find it interesting and “entertaining.” Granted, one can appreciate the Indiana Jones movies, even while discarding the gross misunderstanding of the nature of God that is prevalent; after all, its fun to hate Nazis! But we must not settle for this superficial level even if we can appreciate it. The issues are always deeper and ALWAYS must relate back to God.

Whether Hollywood or Stephen King know it or not, they can create meaningful, entertainment only if they assume certain things that their own worldview cannot sustain. God is the creator of all things, and His character and nature are revealed in all things. The eternal themes that make great literature or films are that which touches on the nature of God and Man.

However, many people have expressed the concern that entertainment could be the means of actually introducing people into occult activity. And yes, as mentioned previously, there are those who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality and therefore they ought to refrain from such areas; just as there are people who cannot handle drinking alcohol without getting drunk and should probably refrain from drinking, or those who cannot stop themselves from eating an entire pie ought to keep sweet stuff out of the house.

The real danger of occultism is not its mere presence in a book or film, but in a person’s view of God, and in their daily practice. Ask the average Christian their astrological sign and probably 99% know it. Perhaps not as many, but an overwhelming majority read their horoscope on a daily basis. Many Christians have had their fortunes told, or played with Ouija boards or even participated in a séances. The danger from the media is that unthinking Christians can become desensitized to the occult and accept it as normal, and eventually leading some to participate in it, thus bringing them under God’s wrath.

The average pagan however sees occultism in films and literature as an experience, not unlike the thrill of a roller coaster. If done technically well, then a “scary” movie or book makes them FEEL something-but since they do not really believe in the occult, just as they do not really think the roller coaster is going to kill them, it is a “safe” feeling.

Christians on the other hand realize that the world that occultism describes (often erroneously) is in fact real; and some times they become terribly frightened. Unlike the pagan who is just looking for a thrill, the Christian knows that there are such things as demons and rightly do not want to become involved with them.

Granted, there are certain popular role playing games that actually REQUIRE the player to indulge in sorcery and necromancy; and here the Christian parent has a right to be concerned. If God says something is “detestable” then we can rightly question whether allowing our children to role play disgusting things is lawful.

However, it appears that often, the real problem is fear; many Christians fear that they might inadvertently invite demonic activity in their homes by simply watching certain movies, reading certain books or even if they play a particular computer game.

The Christian of course ought never to give into fear because “greater is He who is in you, then he who is in the world.” The Adversary certainly has power, even power which he MIGHT occasionally share with some deluded humans; but if we walk in faith before God, repenting of our sins and trusting in Him, there is little that the enemy can do to us. Remember, the New Testament, though documenting the reality of demonic possession, places far more emphasis on the demon’s ability to DECEIVE the elect, than it does on Christians being attacked by them! To the contrary, when the gospel is preached and believed, the demons tremble and flee. We ought to have the same attitude towards the occult as the Bible itself does; recognize its reality, understand its dangers and then, just ignore it. Christians ought never to be concerned about haunted houses or spooks or curses; they need to be concerned about selfishness, arrogance, pride and willful sin. Demons cannot harm you, but a stubborn, rebellious heart CAN bring God’s judgment and that is the ONLY thing we should fear.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. The Christian and the Occult
2. How Authentic is the Occult?
3. The Christian and Vampires

The Bible and Race

All men are descended from Adam and Noah, giving them common ancestors which makes all humans related to one another, in some manner (Gen 1:28, 10:1ff).

God divided men at Babel into various linguistic/cultural groups (Gen 11:1, 8-9).

The promise of the Gospel given to Abraham was that ALL nations would be blessed in him—not just those directly descended from him (Gen 12:3).

Throughout the Old Testament the dividing line between men was NEVER race BUT religion—between those who worshipped and served the one true God from those who worshipped and served idols (e.g., Gen 3:16, 4:16ff, 12:1, etc.)

During this time, occasionally, even pagan kings and peoples repented of their sins and acknowledged that the Lord was God (Ruth, Jonah, Daniel, etc.).

The Lord Jesus declared that His gospel was for all men, all nations, all tribes and all languages (Matt 28:19ff).

Within His Church, there was to be no distinctions between Jew, Greek or Roman for all had access to God the Father through Jesus the Son (Gal 3:28, Rm 10:12, Jas 2:4).

One day, every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:10-11).

Therefore the Gospel is to be freely offered to all men, regardless of ethnic, cultural or national origin (Matt 24:14, 35:32, Rm 9:23, Rm 16:26, etc.).

The Church is to “disciple” these “nations” to obey Christ in everything (Matt 28:19ff).

The distinguishing mark of being a disciple of Jesus Christ is love for the brethren—the commitment to do what is right and good for another regardless of personal cost (John 13:35, 15:12, Rm 5:8).

Therefore, any doctrine or practice that makes unlawful distinctions between Christians based on race, ethnicity or national origin is a violation of the Lord’s most basic commandment to love one another and hence, a disciplinable offense (Gal 3:28, Rm 14:10,19 Phil 2:1ff).

On Culture and Religion

All culture is religion externalized; i.e., the outward manifestation of a peoples’ most basic values and beliefs. As the Gospel penetrates a culture, it will change it to reflect God’s unchanging Moral Law. This may take many generations to achieve. A culture that has not been significantly affected by the Gospel may retain many unbiblical and even immoral values and practices. These unsanctified cultural traits can and should be lovingly, kindly and gently examined, rebuked and corrected as a normal part of Christian growth (Heb 10:24, Col 3:16, etc.).

However, Christians are allowed to retain certain aspects of their cultural and ethnic customs (e.g., food, styles of music, art, literature, language, architecture, etc.) provided that such practices do not contradict the doctrine of love and the Moral Law (cf. Acts 15:1ff, Rm 14:1ff).

The ONLY distinction that matters is between those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord, from those who do not. Those who confess His Lordship, regardless of ethnicity, language or race, have been adopted into God’s family and are to be united with all other believers in love and service (1 Peter 2:9).

Final Thoughts:

Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and the like are all heretical attempts to undo what God did at Babel. Men want unity on their terms, rather than His—the very essence of Original Sin.

However, for true unity, men must submit to King Jesus and acknowledge His Lordship over every area of life. Christ unifies diverse peoples within one Church, one Family, which itself is a down payment on the perfect community of the Eternal State.

We can and should respect, appreciate and even celebrate God’s providential acts in the history of our own national and ethnic origins—but we must never forget that our ultimate loyalty is always to King Jesus and His Kingdom. Those who confess Jesus as Lord, regardless of race, color or language, are bound together by His blood, made into a new People with a common destiny.

There is never room in God’s church for hatred, animosity, arrogance, contempt or bitterness towards other believers. Those who claim His name but hate his children are liars 1 Jn 4:20

Get more Christian Helps »

Possibly Related Posts:

1. New Book! The Christian and the Occult
2. Christian Eschatology: The Irrelevance of the Modern Nation State of Israel to Biblical Prophecy
3. What Does It Mean to Be A Christian?

Copyright © January 2008

Highlands Reformed Church and The Institute for Christian Culture

Director’s Cut: 2

Church Ministry. 2

Internet and Writing Ministries. 2

Teaching Opportunities. 3

This Edition. 3

Dealing with Authority. 5

Rebellion as a “Natural” Act 5

The Definition of Authority. 5

The Implications of “Submission”. 6

Who Has Authority?. 10

Limitations of Authority. 12

When Authority is Wrong- the Right of Appeal 13

When an Appeal Fails… 17

Conclusion. 21

Application: Case Files to Analyze. 21

How Not to Argue for Authority. 22

Tolerance and Liberty of Conscience. 26

Sociological Reasons for Doctrinal Diversity. 27

Toleration. 29

Liberty of Conscience. 30

Winning Arguments and Losing Friends; Proverbs on Resolving Conflicts. 31

Winning at the Cost of a Relationship. 31

Kindness and Truth are not Opposed. 32

Stop Digging Yourself Further into the Hole. 32

Gossips Destroy Relationships. 33

A Gentle Answer 34

Learning How to Persuade. 34

Make Sure You Have ALL the Facts. 34

Stiff Necks will be Broken. 35

Forgiveness. 35

Defining the Terms: 35

Forgiveness Is A Non-Optional Principle. 36

How to Forgive Others. 37

Conclusion: 39

Director’s Cut:

By long tradition, the “Cut” that introduces each new issue of High Ground is supposed to be mildly satirical, self-deprecating and at least slightly humorous piece as a part of a nefarious scheme to entice the unwary into reading our more serious stuff. We would then pepper the entire newsletter with little “funny” bits; things we had either written ourselves (after late night marathon sessions watching “Adult Swim” on the Cartoon Network) or found on the Internet; “come for the jokes, stay for the theology.”

However, we have been moving away from that for the last couple of issues. First, quite frankly some people just do not have a sense of humor; as an old friend, known for his witty aphorisms once said, “Some Christians act like they were baptized in pickle juice.” We thought that we were just following Mary Poppins’ advice in using a little sugar to help the medicine go down. Granted, not being professional comedy writers, maybe we have not always been that funny; but some people seem to like their theology better when it’s bitter.

Secondly, we have undergone some serious trauma over the past couple of years and quite frankly, we have not done a lot of laughing ourselves. The details are not really important but it is hard to create jokes when the high point of waking up is thinking, “Well at least I am one day closer to the resurrection!” Elaine insisted that we need to look on the bright side; I no longer have to worry about retirement because the past five years have probably taken two decades off my life

And thirdly, while making fun of the silliness that is so common in the American church might be lawful at least it keeps us from crying or tearing our hair out in frustration - is it the best way? When we were really hurting, certain gracious people went out of their way to encourage, support and stand with us. This caused us to wonder if rather than adding a little “sugar” to the “medicine,” maybe all we were doing was rubbing “salt” into the wounds (gotta love those mixed metaphors)?

So, we are not promising NEVER to crack a joke or attempt a witticism and maybe something will slip through when we are not looking. But in the main, we want to focus on being a little kinder, a little gentler, and in encouraging others. We have tried to temper the language to encourage others to obey God, not just criticize their disobedience.

Church Ministry

Highlands Reformed Church moved its location to Idaho last year to accommodate the needs of many of our people, some of whom had to commute almost two hours for Sabbath services. We are now strategically located at:

The Silver Lake Motel

6160 N. Sunshine St,

Coeur D Alene, ID 83815

(I can never spell that city something else we can blame on the French!). We have a wonderful congregation; small but with dedicated believers committed to bringing every thought captive to Christ. They are universally humble, loving, gracious, kind, supportive, and hungry for spiritual growth. This may be the smallest congregation I have ever served; but it is also the godliest.

We have added a few new households this year; some still having to commute from a considerable distance. Winter weather, childhood sickness and the like mean that for any given Sunday, we may have as much as half our congregation providentially hindered. With the rise in gasoline prices, it actually has put a significant burden on some families to come to church. Highlands would appreciate your prayers and continued support.

Internet and Writing Ministries

We are amazed at how effective our web-sites have been; literally we have thousands of hits every month, from all over the world. Some of our articles and essays are picked up by other ministries and reposted on their web-sites. Almost all the new folks who worship with us found us originally on the “Net.” Please keep this aspect of our ministry in prayer; answering email from those who want to grow in understanding and applying a consistent, Biblical worldview is a large part of our ministry. The “Net” allows us to minister, to encourage and even disciple brothers and sisters that we might never meet personally.

We have also worked on a number of “for print” publications this year. Peter Hammond asked me to contribute to a new book entitled “The War against God” and I wrote about a hundred pages for it. This is really going to be an important analysis of why we suffer the things that we must endure. In fact, Elaine said that I could not have written what I did, if we had not undergone the last five years of trauma. The book is at the printer’s right now; we will let you know when copies will be available.

Meanwhile, apparently you can now find “Character Assassins” on Amazon.com. If you have not bought a copy yet, please do; in fact buy a copy for your pastor and elders and every gossip in your church! There is some wonderful material in this book and the many positive reports we have received back from ministers have been most encouraging.

We have also completed an entire series of brochures that cover various aspects of the Christian life; e.g., Dealing with Fear, Anger, Loneliness, Depression, Liberty of Conscience, Sanctification, God’s Plan for Victory, Finances, Family, etc., that are available at a slight cost. We also plan to make them available right here and on the Highlands Reformed website under “Christian Helps.” Our idea is to make simple introductions to very complex subjects to “help” Christians better understand a consistent Biblical worldview and how it applies to their daily life.

These projects, plus several others I have not mentioned because they are still in the planning stages with others, as well as researching new materials for every edition of High Ground take up a lot of time. The church though has been most supportive and encouraging; it is such a blessing to pastor people who have a vision to minister to the world.

Teaching Opportunities

The West Coast Christian Worldview Conference is coming up sooner than you think. If you have teenage or college age kids yourself, or know of ones in your church, now is the time to start encouraging them to attend. This annual conference has become in many respects, the high point of my year; just seeing so many godly, dedicated young men and women, coming together to discover how to develop a consistent, Biblical worldview is a great encouragement. Please consider supporting this vital ministry. Visit them at http://wcwc.ws/site/.

This Edition

Much of this edition was originally written for the Chalcedon Foundation’s Monograph series over a decade ago. However, publishing schedules, organizational changes and new challenges pushed this project off to the side. I had intended to make this material a sub-set of a longer work entitled, “Restoring Christian Relationships” as it seemed that in both the church and the family, people were often frustrated and divided because they did not understand how God intends authority to operate. As I was putting these materials together, I found that I had written far more on the issue of “authority” than I had initially assumed which could give some people the idea that I was advocating some sort of “authoritarian” mindset.

The older I get, the more I find that I loath tyranny in any form, and in any sphere of human life. I hate tyranny in the State; but I also deplore it in the family and the church. As I read the Scriptures and meditate on how life is to be lived to the glory of God I see a wonderful sense of liberty permeating every page. I have this ideal of free men, living responsibly under God, willingly serving others for His glory as being the key to not only living life to its fullest; but also to recapturing our culture from humanism.

What you are about to read below as a defense of lawful authority must always be understood in context of what I have just said above. I hate tyranny; I love liberty- “For you were called to freedom, brethren only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love, serve one another (Gal 5:13). I interpret this to mean that Christians must have maximum freedom under God’s Law.” Where God has spoken, we must obey; where He has granted liberty, we must not compel.

We must also keep in mind that liberty is not autonomy. Several years ago I came under public attack by a sincere brother who reacted to a common phrase I “borrowed” from the late R. J. Rushdoony; “the self-governed man.” He assumed that by encouraging self-government I was advocating some form of autonomy (”auto” = “self” + “nomos” = “law” or “self-law”). He could not have been more wrong; I reject autonomy with as much passion as I reject tyranny. The “self-governed man” is simply one who has internalized the law of God so that he does what is right, just because it IS right! He does not have to be forced to obey God, or His human authorities, through fear or manipulation. He loves God, and he loves His Law and wants to bring every thought, every word and every deed into submission to Christ.

Perhaps I am naïve but I really do believe that being “self-governed” ought to be the goal of every Christian. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands.” I love Jesus, and that means that though I am a wretched sinner, my heart has been changed by His Holy Spirit and I want to obey Him in everything. And when I fall short of His glory, I want to repent as quickly as possible and be restored to Him. Hence, this edition deals with the importance of obeying Him by learning how to relate properly with His authorities in family, church and State; how to give them the honor and obedience they are lawfully due, without handing over my conscience to any institution. Finding that balance I think is central to having peace in the home, joy in the church and liberty in the State.

However, experience has also taught me that my views are not universally shared within the Christian community. There is a real danger of “fascism” rearing its ugly head in even the most orthodox of churches, and the godliest of families. While “fascism” technically refers to a political and economic system (associated with Mussolini and Hitler) in its common usage it can be defined as “unlawful dominion over others.” In effect, some people do not like the way that other people live their lives, use their time, spend their money, raise their kids, treat their wives, etc. Such “fascists” strive to gain control of churches, or manipulate relationships to impose their will on others. If people do not submit to their unlawful demands, they will falsely accuse elders, excommunicate the innocent, divide churches, destroy families and crush anyone who stands in their way. Their most common tools is gossip (either personal or the Internet); which is dealt with in a book I co-authored with Peter Hammond (”Character Assassins; Dealing with Ecclesiastical Tyrants and Terrorists”).

The Biblical method of dealing with such “fascists” is to “speak the truth in love” and simply refuse to give them dominion in our lives. When we “stimulate one another to love and good deeds” the contentious, the divisive and the schismatic are revealed for what they are. We then have duty to gently confront them, and if they do not repent, reject them (Titus 3:10). The godly will receive the truth of the word with humility and repentance; the wicked will continue on the path to self-destruction. Therefore, the following study is offered as an attempt to find the balance of Christian liberty within the bounds of God’s unchanging Moral Law.

God has called us to peace; peace in our homes, our churches and in so far as it depends on us, with all men (Rms 12:18). Learning when to submit and how to submit will grant us a great measure of that peace. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft; something abominable and repulsive in God’s sight; and may God grant us all repentance for our past sins. Yet, let us also move on to the wonderful liberty we have in Christ; to discover how to live richly and fully in His will and in peace with one another.

Brian M. Abshire, January 08

Dealing with Authority

Rebellion as a “Natural” Act

From the very beginning we have had a problem with authority. God, as the creator and sustainer of Creation, governs Heaven and Earth according to the pleasure of His own will. He gave Adam one, and only one command; but Adam rebelled against God’s authority, wanting to determine for himself what was good and evil. He did not want to recognize God’s right to require his obedience and as a consequence brought sin and death into the world. Adam then passed this same tendency for rebellion to all his posterity.

In the thousands of years since Adam, untold damage has been done by rebelling against lawful authority, or ungodly submission to unlawful authority. We tend to swing between two ends of the pendulum; from anarchy (recognizing no lawful authority) to tyranny (exercising unlawful authority) depending upon the circumstances. Liberty is a rarity in human history, difficult to attain, and even more difficult to retain.

Ultimately and finally, of course, all rebellion will be put down; every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. But in the meantime, we endure much needless suffering because we do not understand the nature of authority, its corresponding responsibilities, its limits or how we are supposed to respond to it.

God thinks so highly of authority that He included it as one the basic requirements of His Moral Law. The fifth commandment, dealing with honoring fathers and mothers, has been understood by most commentators in church history to include more than just our physical parents but how we are to treat anyone that God puts in authority over us. And let there be no mistake, every human being, is under the authority of both God and some other human institution; including kings and emperors. Since the Council of Chalcedon, the Church has maintained that no earthly claim to ultimate authority is valid, for all are under God. The “Divine Right of Kings” met its end, both theologically and militarily in the English Civil War and the American War of Independence. It may have taken centuries to work out all the implications, but no one is above the Law; everyone must submit to someone.

The Definition of Authority

What then is authority? Briefly defined, authority is the right of someone or some institution to require our obedience in some way. All authority is derived from the Lord God who created all things to reflect His nature, being and glory. In the doctrine of the ontological and economic trinity God reveals that each person of the godhead shares equality in being, nature, glory, honor and power. Yet each person of the trinity is distinct, (the economic trinity) with a distinct function and purpose. For example, the Father plans redemption, the Son obeys and accomplishes redemption (Jn 17:4) while the Spirit applies redemption to the human heart. Each Person is fully God, but each Person also has a different function. Furthermore, the Son submits to the Father, and the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. Thus, we have both equality of being and a positional difference between the members of the Godhead.

This concept is clearly seen by the words God used to talk about authority and submission. Our word “submit” most commonly translates the Greek hupotasso which means “to be placed under.” Just as there is a distinction between the Father and the Son, there is a positional difference between people; God places children under parents, citizens under civil magistrates, Christians under their elders, etc. This does not mean that by being in a subordinate position that they are second class persons. Rather it is an earthly illustration of a heavenly reality.

Thus, submission does not imply inferiority, just that there are differences between us. Being given lawful authority over another does not make you better than them. Nor may those given authority “lord it over” those placed under them (e.g., 1 Peter 5:1-3). Jesus, using Himself as the supreme example and model said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and become a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Clearly, those IN positions of authority have a divine responsibility to carry out their duties conscientiously, diligently and sensitively for the wellbeing of those under their authority. My good friend Dave Ames paraphrases this principle as “Authority is always for the benefit of those UNDER authority, never for the benefit of those IN authority (Rms 13:3-4, Eph 5:22ff).” This is an important truth. God chose to govern His creation by placing some people in positions of authority to act as His ministers (servants) for the benefit of His people. Thus a Biblical understanding of authority requires respect and honor for those providentially placed “higher” than us, and a diligent care and concern for those placed “under” us.

The Implications of “Submission”

Since all lawful authority is derived from the Lord God, submission is not mindless obedience but rather trust that God governs His creation in certain ways and that He has providentially placed people in life, where He wants them to be for His own purposes. God works through means. God could have chosen to govern His creation directly, speaking individually to each person with an audible voice; “Go here, do this” However, He did not; instead He created institutions, the family, the church and the State as “ministers” or “servants” and gave them responsibility to act in His name. In a perfect world, without sin, holy men would have found the perfect balance between exercising their lawful authority while recognizing, respecting and protecting individual liberty.

However, since sin has entered the world, every aspect of creation has been touched by its corruption leading to two common errors when discussing authority and submission. On the one hand, there are some who recognize the real dangers of tyranny, but end up promoting autonomy and anarchy. On the other hand, there are those who recognize lawful authority but can err in demanding absolute obedience to those authorities.

Since all authority derives from God Himself, we cannot break His law by claiming we were only doing what an authority told us to do. There has always been a tendency for men especially to abdicate responsibility. Adam’s first act when confronted with his sin was to try and shift the blame back to his wife, and then to God. In Hebrew culture, a slave was often a man who traded his freedom for security; and throughout history, many men have given their conscience over to a king, priest, dictator, pope, pastor, etc. But the godly man walks the balance, recognizing the reality of human authority and submitting to it while at the same also recognizing his primary loyalty belongs to God.

Since submission is the willingness to recognize the right of another to require your respect and obedience in the areas God has entrusted to them, it requires more than just paying only “lip service” to one’s authority. Our highest calling is to glorify God in whatever situation He has placed us is. Therefore, if He has placed us under some authority, He expects us to bring all our talents, gifts, insights, and abilities to bear to make that institution a success.

For example, if we are employed by someone, that person has genuine authority over us at work. Our goal as Christians ought to be to make our company a success by working diligently and conscientiously. “Slaves be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling in the sincerity of your heart as to Christ; not by way of eye service as men-pleasers but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service as to the Lord and not to men knowing that whatever good thing each one does this he will receive back from the Lord whether slave or free” (Eph 6:5-9) While the context of this passage deals with slavery, surely we would all agree that the underlying principle of how to submit to an authority would apply to many other areas of life. When we contract with an employer, we make a covenant; we will work for him a certain number of hours for an agreed on amount of pay. Our moral duties here are covered under the fifth, eighth and ninth commandments; we honor their lawful authority, we do not steal from them by taking their money without giving back what we agreed to give (our labor) and we keep our word.

Submission does not make us not mindless drones to be used and abused by upper management, but rather free men, who trust that God works through His appointed means. The godly man understands that God has given him certain gifts, talents and abilities, mixed them with various life experiences and has placed him in his current situation. Knowing that all lawful work is worship, he therefore, does his job, and does it well as he can for the glory of God. Even when companies are less than appreciative, or managers less than fair and equitable, we can still with a clear conscience give a good day’s work, knowing that we are offering that work to our God. And as we make our human authority a success, we not only adorn the gospel with good works, but make ourselves a success as well; God promises specifically to bless us.

Let us take a step back for a moment and consider the nature of life itself. Only God is independent; all men are limited in time, talents and abilities. Not all men have equal intelligence, equal talents or equal opportunities in life. No everyone is gifted in the same way or can do the same things. Yet there are many tasks in life that require men to work together for the common good.

Say for example a village sits on one side of a river. As the village grows, they start running out of arable ground to grow crops. On the other side of the river however there is plenty of fresh soil, just waiting to be tilled. However, the river is in the way. For the village to settle the far bank, a bridge must be built. But building a bridge takes a lot of time, specialized knowledge and the expenditure of considerable resources. No single man can build the bridge by himself; he needs the help of others. Even if one man knew how to build a bridge, he still needs someone else to help him cut down trees, saw them into planks, drag them to the site, and assemble them into a bridge. The bridge requires labor, capital and knowledge.

Now we all highly value multi-talented people who can do many different things; but even a man who was wealthy, strong and technically savvy could not build this bridge on his own. He needs the help of others. People need to work together to accomplish something that would benefit everyone. And someone has to be in charge, to coordinate the efforts, to acquire the needed resources, to plan and schedule the work. An old adage is that “something that is everyone’s responsibility is no one’s responsibility.” Some form of authority is necessary to complete the task.

The same principle affects every area of life. Most men would enjoy working for themselves without having a boss to tell them when to show up for work, what to do while at work, etc. But why do most men have to work for someone else? Why do the vast majority of new businesses fail? The simple answer is that most of us lack the abilities needed to create and run a business. We do not know how to read the market, organize our time, plan and schedule work, deal with the employee problems, etc. None of these are moral failings - just the inevitable result of God’s providence in that He has not gifted every man with the same talents and opportunities. Therefore, most of us end up working for others (and an argument could be made that even business owners “work” for their customers).

Now we did not intend here to get side-tracked onto a discussion of economics but in building a bridge, running a business, maintaining a home, organizing a church or governing a State, someone has to be in charge, to resolve problems, adjudicate disputes, coordinate efforts, and ensure that the goal is never lost. This is inevitable because we are not God; we are dependant, we need others. And since God Himself has positional authority as a part of His own unchanging nature, we in creation will reflect that diversity.

Sinful men however resist lawful authority and will often do only the bare minimum required to get by. They want to do their will rather than follow the instructions of those placed over them. The free market system uses enticements and rewards to motivate their workers. However, historically, other tactics have been used. All authority has certain sanctions it can bring to enforce its will, if nothing else works, men learn to fear the sanctions and therefore give grudging obedience; e.g., every one drives slower when they see a police car. Yet true Biblical submission must go one step further. Since it is God we are serving when we obey lawful authority, and He has organized human affairs to reflect His own nature, we must do more than just seek rewards or avoid sanctions. Take for example a child whose father tells him to clean his room. If he does not comply with Dad’s lawful instruction, he can suffer “sanctions.” Dad may rebuke him, which no one likes. Dad might make him stay on that job until it is done to his satisfaction, not allowing him to play outside. Or, Dad could even spank him.

The child then is forced to obey because he fears the consequences of rebelling. Since we are all sinners, all of us at times may have the same sinful temptation to rebel, and God gives various spheres of authority the right to punish us in some way; remember, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Parents can spank their children, churches can discipline their members and the State has the “power of the sword” to suppress wickedness.

However, surely we recognize that obedience out of fear may be the beginning of wisdom, but not its end. The father who relies solely on sanctions to enforce his lawful authority risks “vexing” his children. The boss who constantly threatens his workers with being fired is going to lose his best people as they seek a better working environment. States that tyrannize their citizens will ultimately fall to revolutions. The Christian should not submit to lawful authority out of fear, but in confidence that God is in control but the authority, if it is wise, will make that submission as easy as possible by demonstrating that they have their peoples’ best interests in mind.

If we appreciate that by submitting whole-heartedly to lawful authority we are simply obeying God, and then bring all our gifts, insights and abilities to accomplish the goals of the institution, everyone involved is blessed. The authority does not have to become strict and harsh and those in submission can find peace and prosperity. For example, when told to clean his room, a godly child will do precisely what is needed to fulfill his father’s instruction without grumbling or complaining. Granted, with children, a large part of the problem is that they need to be taught HOW to do a certain task. This is where the father needs to be patient and understanding giving the child time and opportunity to learn how to accomplish the task successfully. Some children will learn faster than others; some seem to need to be told the same thing over and over again until even the godliest of parents’ feel like tearing their hair out in frustration! But the point here is that as a child matures into an adult, hopefully they will learn that rather than do a half-fast job just to get Mom and Dad off his back, he embraces his parent’s goals. As a result, not only does he save himself much grief and pain, he actually develops vital skills that are essential to prosperity and productivity throughout his life.

Often the difference between the man who is successful in life from some one who just “gets by” is the ability to “go the extra mile.” In our earlier illustration, the village needed a bridge to take advantage of the great fields across the river. If the workers refuse to show up on time, if they spend the work day gossiping and sleeping, if they do their work sloppily, then the bridge will not be built; and the fields will not be planted. If they want the benefits of the bridge, they must get behind the project with all their heart; the sooner the bridge is built, the sooner they can enjoy the benefits of the fields. The better they build the bridge, the longer it will last; thus saving them from having to do it all over again in a few years time. When we give whole hearted submission to the goal of an authority, everyone benefits; if we only do the bare minimum, everyone suffers. Furthermore, if everyone else is working hard and we are loafing, people will recognize that and not entrust us with greater responsibilities or opportunities. It is a basic principle of our Lord that we must prove ourselves faithful in little things before He will give us “greater” things.

Granted there are unreasonable people in every sphere of life who will never be pleased with anything that any one ever does for them. Some men in positions of authority can be capricious, arbitrary, unfair, harsh and tyrannical. As a direct consequence, the entire project suffers; people will not work as well for a dictator as they will for a capable but compassionate leader; free men in the West have constantly out produced slave economies such as Fascism or Marxism. If we are forced to deal with such people, let us simply praise God for His providence and look for the time when we no longer have to deal with them. If we cannot lawfully remove themselves from their authority, let us still trust in the providence of God and do what is right. R. J. Rushdoony has noted that Imperial Rome eventually they had to stop persecuting the church, because Christians were the most productive, law abiding citizens; and the only ones who paid their taxes! Even though pagan Roman emperors hated us, they needed us.

Usually however, when an authority is upset with us we need to take a long, hard look at our own motivations. Often, we are more concerned about our own promotions, our own pride or own goals. We all want to do, what WE want to do; and many of us give only grudging submission to those placed above us. Authority in any sphere of life will recognize this attitude and act accordingly; we are the ones that pay the price.

Personal anecdote; years ago when the world was young and dinosaurs still walked the earth I spent almost six years serving the US government in the Air Force. Being rather typical of my generation, I resented all authority. And though forced by financial circumstances to do a stint in the military, I was not about to anything more than what was actually demanded of me. In this I was not alone; in those days, almost everyone serving their first “hitch” did so only grudgingly and under compulsion. One of the manifestations of that rebellion was in dress and appearance. It was an unstated goal of almost every one of my peers to see how far they could push the official standards. To have your hair cut, shoes shined and a pressed uniform was considered being a “lifer” and universally ridiculed. I spent the first two years of my enlistment pushing those standards just as far as I could; I never did any of them unless specifically ordered to do so. In other words, I was waiting until being threatened with sanctions before submitting.

Some time along that process I became a Christian and by the love and grace of God met some wonderful older brothers who shared with me, much of the information I am writing about here. While in the course of Bible studies and discussions the subject of authority and submission came up, slowly it finally began to sink in that by rebelling against lawful human authorities, I was in fact rebelling against God. I repented of that rebellion and started trying to see every task as a way of glorifying God- no matter how mundane. Now, just to put things in perspective, I had a job that I absolutely hated in the Air Force; one that I found boring, demeaning and unchallenging. Yet, if God was in control, that meant He wanted me right where I was, doing what I was doing. Rather than straining against His providential care, I needed to repent and get behind it.

And all that was required was simply to show up for work a few minutes early each day (instead of trying to walk in the door exactly on-time, which meant that if anything went wrong I would be late). Glorifying God in my situation meant getting a hair cut BEFORE my sergeants told me to; shining my shoes every day and making sure my uniform was cleaned and pressed. What I did not realize was that by making these somewhat mundane applications would be instrumental in changing my entire attitude towards every area of my duties. Rather than waiting to be told to do certain things, I took the initiative and started looking around for jobs that needed to be done. Rather than just doing the minimum to “get by” I began to actively look for ways to do my job better, faster and more efficiently, taking on extra projects and even staying as late as needed to complete the day’s work. Within a few months I went from being just another “problem child” to being seen as being a dependable, reliable and trustworthy worker that was an asset to the organization.

In all this, I was not trying to advance myself, just be faithful in the situation God had placed me. But in His grace, because there was such a profound change in my attitude and work, every single person in my shop asked me “what happened to you?” And I had the opportunity to share Christ with each and every one of them! Several even prayed with me to acknowledge Jesus as Lord; but the important thing was that God was glorified in my submission.

And while I did not expect it, I received better and better performance reports that directly led me to being promoted above my peers. I literally went from being one of the lowest ranking people in the shop to the one in charge, just by trying to obey God in submitting to His human authority.

Thus, authority is something to be desired rather than despised. Men must work together to create great things or accomplish great tasks; but to work together, demands that we have some sort of system in place to organize our efforts. “Too many chiefs, too few Indians” is an old and time honored cliché. The reason why it became a cliché is because it is something universal in human experience. When men work together and are willing to subordinate their individual desires to accomplish a greater good, incredible things can be accomplished. But if men are only concerned about having their own way, advancing their own agenda or doing their own will, then nothing good ever happens.

Submission to lawful authority gives us freedom to act within set bounds. Once we know the limits, we have freedom to act within those limits. Is a train free to travel without tracks? Granted, the tracks restrict the direction of the train, but the train cannot function outside of set boundaries. In the same way, God never intended for free men to live without any limits. The authority He grants to various institutions defines those limits and true freedom comes from acknowledging and living within them.

Let us go back again to our bridge illustration; everyone wants the bridge and the benefits that will come. Everyone is willing to work on the bridge; but who does what? Who cuts down the trees, who saws them into planks, who attaches them together? Someone has to organize the labor and ensure that the right men have the right supplies when they need them. The carpenters are only free to work their craft if the lumberjacks do their job; what if the lumberjacks decide that hammering nails is more “glamorous” than cutting trees? Every group associated with building the bridge needs to limit their own freedom in some way, so that they can work at their best. And the guy in charge, the “authority” is the one who brings them all together.

Who Has Authority?

First, civil governments have the right to make certain laws and expect their citizens to obey them (Rms 13:1 ff). Specifically, God says that the civil magistrate is His minister for justice, with the right to punish certain classes of criminal behavior. The magistrate also has the authority to require us to pay taxes and the right to demand our honor and respect. Now granted, in a Biblical Republic, the powers of the magistrate will be far less than in any modern society and the taxes considerably less. There is no doubt that all modern governments have greatly exceeded their God given roles and become tyrannies. But please notice that in ALL the times the magistrate is discussed in the Scriptures, even when they are acting contrary to Biblical Law, Christians are still commanded to respect and submit to their authority. The only exception is when the magistrate attempted to force Christians to sin. The early church was persecuted and murdered because they refused to offer a pinch of incense to the Emperor. They were NOT persecuted because they refused to pay their taxes (taxes which were unlawful according to Scripture), they were NOT persecuted because they denounced Caesar in the public forums, and they were NOT persecuted because they formed paramilitary organizations and attacked Roman garrisons. Social transformation came to the Roman Empire by reformation, not revolution.

Volumes could be written specifically to detail the duties and responsibilities of the State and how Christians should deal with tyranny; Samuel Rutherford gave a definitive response in “Lex Rex.” Therefore here we will only note that autonomy and anarchy are contrary to Biblical Law.

God also gives genuine authority to parents over their children (Eph 6:1). They have the right and responsibility to educate their children (both formally and informally), training them up under God’s Law (Eph 6:3ff). Children are required to respect and honor (Eph 6:2) as well as obey (Col 3:20-21) their parents. In fact, Paul makes it clear that this is the first commandment with a promise, obey and honor your parents so that your life might be long on the earth. God specifically promises to bless children with a long and productive life if they “honor” their parents; not just “good” parents, or fair ones or just ones, but all parents. While fathers are required not to “vex” or exasperate their children (i.e., to make that submission as easy as possible), this does not negate their genuine right to compel a child’s obedience.

Husbands are given authority over their wives (Eph 5:12, Col 3:18). A husband has the right and responsibility to require that his wife respect him (Eph 5:33), that she not nag him (1 Ptr 3:1ff ) and she obey him in his lawful role as head of the household. It is significant that in many modern marriage ceremonies, this duty to obey one’s husband is left out (in fact, after refusing to withdraw this vow, several people who asked me to perform their weddings then decided to find another pastor). Yet it is crucial to a wholesome, Biblical marriage. Some liberal evangelicals have insisted that modern marriage requires “mutual” submission, a nonsense term. Since the word “submit” means “to be placed under,” two people cannot “submit” to another, any more than two plates can be stacked so that neither is on top of the other! Granted, the husband is required to treat his wife with gentleness, kindness, and not abuse her trust. But he still has genuine authority within the marriage relationship (1 Tim 2:11f). He is the one responsible for ensuring that the family stays on its Biblical course. He has the primary duty of teaching the entire family, including His wife, God’s Law (cf. Deut 6:6ff, 1 Cor 14:35). However, notice 1 Corinthians 7:4, the wife also has genuine authority over her husband’s body! When two people become one flesh, the wife must seek to please the husband, but the husband also has a duty and responsibility to please his wife!

Clearly, since husband and wife are “one flesh” they ought to be agreed on goals, means and how to best use the family’s resources and assets. They are a team and ideally, a godly husband with a godly wife will work together for the common good of the family. Going back again to our bridge illustration; the husband might be considered the architect and the wife the chief carpenter. His responsibility is to plan for the bridge and she assists him in that task. As a good “boss” of course he will consult her on the best way to build the bridge; he needs her skill and expertise to build a proper bridge. Furthermore, he might well develop plans that are impossible to execute with the resources possible; it is her duty to tell him that and work with him to build the best possible bridge they can. But ultimately, he is responsible to God for the bridge that is built.

The church has real authority over the congregation in terms of preaching the word and administering the sacrament. Elders are to be respected (Hebs 13:17, 1 Thess 5:12, 1 Ptr 5:1-4) and when speaking the truth, to be obeyed (Hebs 13:17). When a pastor steps in front of the congregation and preaches the Word, he is doing so with genuine authority, authority that is to be respected, even when we disagree with what he is saying. Even the Apostle Paul, when struck by a member of the Sanhedrin, APOLOGIZED for rebuking the High Priest. From our perspective, the High Priest DESERVED to be rebuked for his unlawful actions; yet Paul respected the position that God had placed the high priest in. Does this mean one may never disagree with one’s elders? No, of course not. All elders are human, which by definition means they too are sinners who fall short of the glory of God. They will sin, and like all other men, need to be rebuked and corrected. But that rebuke must come from a respectful man, in submission to God, in fear and trepidation, in a respectful manner.

This is I think a symptom of our time. We live in an egalitarian age and do not like to acknowledge the authority of others over us. We are in the inheritors today of the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960’s where lawful authority in every sphere of life was challenged and overthrown. As a result we have forty years of autonomy assumed as a basic social norm; many children have grown up in homes where little or no authority was exercised. This hatred of authority and quest for egalitarianism has had many profound effects on how we treat one another; e.g., we casually call our elders by their first names. Now, in and of itself, this is perhaps no big deal; but in doing so, we are in effect demanding to be put on the same level. And if we are on the same level, therefore we feel free to argue with them, debate them, criticize them, etc. Heaven forbid that we should actually consider the possibility that God has placed people over us to instruct us!

Granted, in today’s world, pastors often encourage such familiarity, are afraid of exercising authority and then wonder why their people never seem to learn. Though over the years, I have seen a few men I would consider to be ecclesiastical tyrants, I have also seen far more tyrannical parishioners who refuse to submit to ANY elder for ANY reason. They demonstrate it by their words, their attitudes and their willingness to rip a church apart with schism any time they disagree with the elders!

Now granted, a strong church, with strong men often means that there can be a conflict of wills. No godly session objects to having men who take the sermons seriously, study the Scriptures and ask hard questions. To the contrary, good pastors positively REJOICE when they have such men in their congregation. But we are not talking about Bereans here, but about ecclesiastical anarchists. It has been my experience over the past three decades that a pastor will be popular, highly respected and everyone’s favorite right up until he tells someone, something that the person would rather not hear. It might be a doctrine with which a church member is unfamiliar, it might be an ethical exhortation from Scripture that goes against the common practice; but all that a pastor has to do to go from “hero” to “bum” is to gently, kindly, and articulately correct someone.

In the same way, older men have some degree of authority over younger men (1 Ptr 5:5). Scripture requires young people to rise up when older people enter a room in respect to their age and experience. Now whether God intended this law as a passing cultural custom or an enduring sign of respect is something we do not have time to debate here. The underlying principle though ought to be clear; younger men must speak of and to older men with respect, granting them honor. Young men must not sharply rebuke older men, but rather appeal to them in love as to a father (1 Tim 5:1ff).

Older women have genuine authority over younger women (Titus 2:3-4); specifically, to teach them how to love their husbands and children, to be workers at home, etc. Younger women therefore have a duty to listen to the counsel of older women and learn from them. Wisdom is more than academic knowledge; it takes life experience to really appreciate how certain principles of God’s Word are to be worked out in practical applications. Sadly, our culture underwent a transformation in the 1960’s that lost much of the previous generation’s wisdom. We ridiculed our parents and grandparents for their values, habits and priorities, thinking we knew better. We ended up creating a culture where divorces happen as often as marriages, where women proudly bore children out of wedlock, where Mom decided that working out of the home was more “fulfilling” than raising a family. We are suffering the consequences today in poverty, crime, drug use, and emotionally scarred people of both sexes.

Finally, employers have genuine authority over their employees (1 Ptr 2:18, Eph 6:5-8). In the New Testament, slaves are commanded to work hard, respect their masters and obey them, not grudgingly but with a whole heart. In modern terms, we have eliminated slavery, but the principles still seem relevant and applicable. When we covenant to work for someone, we implicitly agree to accept their authority over us. We agree to work a number of hours for an amount of money. We agree to show up at work at certain times. We agree to abide by the policies the employer sets. And since all work is to be done as “to the Lord” we therefore have a responsibility to give them our best efforts. Unlike slavery, employers’ authority over us ends when the work day is over; but during that time, they have the right to compel our obedience in the areas with which we made covenant with them.

Limitations of Authority

In all the above situations, certain people are granted genuine authority by God in certain specific areas; and in those areas, they have the right to expect us to obey them. However, as mentioned before, no human institution can claim total authority over our lives because our ultimate loyalty must be given to God and God alone. Clearly, the first limitation is that no human authority can compel us to sin. In the past I would have assumed that this principle is self-evident yet over the years I have run across some people who deny this. Rather than take a long detour to explore this in detail, let us just quote Peter; “For we must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Peter had been instructed by the Council of Elders to stop speaking about Jesus. They were a genuine authority in Israel at the time. Peter refused to obey this unlawful order. Therefore he articulated a basic Biblical principle of a limitation of human authority. Granted, wicked men can attempt to pervert this doctrine to justify rebellion but all we want to establish here is that there are times when men not only may, but MUST refuse to submit to human authorities.

Yet there are other limits to authority as well. God defines those limits within the framework of the authority structure. For example, parents have authority over their children until that child grows up and establishes a new household (Gen 2:26). Once a man has taken a wife and created a new covenant household, the authority of the parents ends. Granted, the son should still honor his parents, and listen respectfully to their counsel and advice, but he is no longer bound to obey them. But while he is living in their house, he is subject to their rules. He comes and goes as his parents dictate. He wears what his parents allow him to wear. He uses his time and money in the way his parents instruct him. Granted, a wise and prudent parent will work to make their children responsible, self reliant and productive people granting them increasing freedom as they mature. But when in his father’s house, a godly son lives by his father’s rules.

Again, no father wants to “vex” his children; the rules that he establishes for his household ought to be for the benefit of those under his care. A good father explains his reasons for his rules and will wisely allow for some negotiation in some areas. For example, parents might well set a regular bed time for the children. As the children grow older, they might let up on the restrictions to allow a child a later bed-time. The point here is that the parents have the right to set the standards and the child ought to obey.

In the same way, a godly wife submits to her husband and follows his leadership. He does not control her conscience, but when she takes that marriage vow, she promises to obey him. Again, granted, a godly husband will not be a tyrant, he will not run his household as if it were a petty kingdom and he the lord of all he surveys, making arbitrary rules just to watch his wife and children jump at his every command. He will demonstrate his leadership through his servant’s heart, giving himself up for his wife, working to create in her a godly and Christ-like character (Eph 5:19ff). He will not vex his children, but strive to bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. But in this sphere, he does exercise genuine authority that must be obeyed. As mentioned, his primary responsibility is to set the standards for the household and keep it on track to glorify God. Since the authority as a husband was entrusted to him for the benefit of his wife, he must be careful to treat her with gentleness, kindness, compassion and love. Her duty before God to obey her husband does not make her his servant; his duty before God to work for her sanctification does make him hers!

A godly civil magistrate will protect the people under his care by aggressively seeking out criminals and applying Biblical sanctions against them (Rms 12:1ff). He will not become tyrannical and steal from some to buy the votes of others. He will keep the conditions of the covenant under which he was elected or appointed, not twisting the meaning to fit his own agenda. He will not attempt to use his power to tyrannize other legitimate institutions.

A godly church will focus on preaching the Word and administering the sacraments, applying discipline as needed against unrepentant sin but it will NOT seek to run every member’s life. It will recognize the appropriate authority of the State and the Family and work to bring both into godly submission to Biblical Law. The church does not have the authority to tell people who they should marry, how the family must spend its money or even how to raise their children, unless, there is a violation of the Moral Law.

Finally, the Family will not attempt to run the church. The Church and State will not seek to subvert the Family. Each sphere of lawful authority will recognize the legitimacy of the other spheres and seek to build up the godly social order by allowing the maximum degree of freedom.

When Authority is Wrong- the Right of Appeal

As mentioned, there is a problem; some men love the “thrill” of having dominion over others and lose sight of their divine duties. They can either abuse or misuse their authority and as a result, those under them may suffer. Bad men make bad decisions. An irresponsible husband may blow his paycheck in bars or on lottery tickets, a father can be unfair, the civil magistrate may waste our tax money, and a session may not care for the sheep. And though it is tempting to rebel against such misuses of authority, rebellion is never an option. The entire book of First Peter is written about submitting to a hostile authority, recognizing that sinful men will attempt to tyrannize us. Sometimes, submission cost us something. Scripture says that “this finds favor with God, when we bear up under sorrows when suffering unjustly” (1 Ptr 2:19). There is sometimes no earthly court of appeals and restitution must wait until the final state. However, we need to remember that God is in control and if we are humble before Him, the fires of this life will prepare us for future glory (1 Ptr 5:5-6).

Hence, just because an authority does something wrong, does not in and of itself mean that we are justified in removing or rebelling against it. While we will discuss options to unjust authorities later on, we need to understand that someone else’s sin does not justify or excuse ours. If a boss is unfair, a husband uncharitable, a parent arbitrary or a session unjust in their adjudication, we may have to suffer some indignity, some inconvenience and humiliation. I would suggest however that even here, God’s providence must be seen; perhaps the Lord is giving us the opportunity to practice submission, to go the “extra mile” to test whether we really trust in His sovereignty in the world?

It is not really submission to authority if you agree with what that authority is telling you. The acid test of submission is when you think that the authority is wrong. Do you do what you are told to do, with a glad heart and confidence in God even when you disagree? Yet we have already dismissed the idea that submission means mindless obedience. The problem is that all humans (and the institutions they create) tend to seek unlawful dominion over others by unlawful means. Because of Total Depravity, what was intended to be a source of peace and security often degenerates into tyranny and despotism. Therefore, Christians must face the real world problem of how does one deal with an authority that is either overstepping its limits, or telling us to do something that that we think ought not to be done?

First, let us recognize that fallen man is quite good at rationalizing, justifying or excusing rebellion and every Christian must be honest with God and himself when he thinks an authority errs. Are they wrong, or do you just disagree? Over the years I have met many Christians who want to complain about an authority in their life; their elders, their boss at work, their parents, husbands, etc. In many of the cases, honestly speaking, I might have even agreed with the complaint; if I had been in their place, I too might have concluded that the authority in question had erred. But just because we disagree with someone does not make them wrong or us right; life is a little more complicated than that. Life is messy, issues are often complex and sometimes, there can be legitimate differences in how we think a situation ought to be resolved.

However, because of our own sinful nature, we also need to realize that we can always find reasons why we ought not to obey someone with whom we disagree and therefore, give them a break. We do not always have the same information as those in authority. We do not have the same pressures. We do not have the same personality or life experiences. Just because they see an issue differently than we do does not make their decisions invalid or wrong. A leader who tries to lead his people into sin is one thing; simply because he wants us to do something that we do not want to do is a whole different issue. Maybe we are right, and the “boss” is wrong; or maybe he knows something we do not. In the end, sometimes only God can really sort out who was right and who was wrong. We will not be judged by God for the bad decisions of those He providentially placed over us; but we will be judged by how we dealt with those decisions. Therefore, unless something is a life or death situation, we need to remember that some decisions are just not our responsibility and “chill out.” God is still in control.

Secondly, let us also acknowledge that all perfection will have to wait for the resurrection. The fact that a father, husband, elder, or civil magistrate may and will err does not necessarily mean that they lose their lawful authority or give us the right to overthrow them. Good people sometimes make bad decisions; they may even do something wrong. Submission requires us to help them make the best possible decisions they can and if they blow it, not criticize or judge them. Let us all have a little self-honesty here; we will not always do the right thing for those placed under our care; therefore, we ought to give grace to those placed over us.

Since we all have a tendency justify rebellion, we must establish a basic principle to give authorities the “benefit of the doubt.” There are many gray areas in life where a situation might be one way, or the other, depending upon one’s point of view. A godly submission to authority will therefore allow the authority some room to make different or unpopular decisions without us second guessing them. Hence, workers will not complain about their bosses when a judgment call has to be made. Wives won’t nag their husbands (1 Ptr 3:1ff). Children will not whine about their parents’ reasons why they can’t do whatever it is they want to do. Church members won’t have roast pastor for Sunday lunch.

Thirdly, we always have the right to appeal what we perceive to be a bad judgment call on the part of authority. An appeal is simply asking the authority to reconsider his decision. Hopefully, a wise leader will consult with those under his care as a part of the information gathering process needed to make any decision. Since a godly leader is not a tyrant, but a servant of those under him, normally speaking, he should ask their input. When it comes to marriage, only a fool would make a decision without discussing an issue in great detail with his wife; the two are “one flesh” and she was created to be his “help-meet.” If he does not honestly and sincerely seek her wisdom and advice, he is cutting himself off from half of the resources God has given him! Lawful authority means having the responsibility before God for the final decisions that have to be made for a particular area of life; however, every decision requires good information if they are to be wise ones.

Sometimes though, even with the best intents in mind, an authority may ultimately decide on a course that we believe, “less than” wise. Therefore, we have a right and a duty to let an authority know when his decisions may not be in his best interests.

The Biblical basis of appeal can be found throughout Scripture. One of the best known examples was when God told Abraham that he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Reading between the lines, we can surmise that Abraham was concerned about his nephew Lot. God was going to destroy Sodom, Lot was in Sodom and Abraham did not want his nephew to be killed with all the unrighteous (for what it is worth, this is the only reason I can see why Abraham would have been concerned about the fate of a city infamous for its wickedness). Abraham them “bargained” with God about the situation (Gen 18:23ff).

Now notice how Abraham approached thus issue. God had stated that He was about to do something; Abraham was concerned about the consequences and asked God to reconsider. God did not condemn him for this request therefore establishing that Abraham had a “right” to appeal; as long as it was done in the proper way. First, he was in right standing with God. He expressed His loyalty and support. He was not denying God’s right to do whatever He planned to do and he did not whine, complain or criticize God. He did not call God’s character, nature or wisdom into question. Instead, he appealed to God on the basis of His reputation (cf. Ex 32:9,10,12), His rightful authority (Gen 18:27,30,32) and His ultimate goals (Ex 32:13). In other words, because Abraham was in submission to God, he could then appeal to God to NOT do what He had said He was going to do because that would be contrary to His own goals and purposes. Abraham (and Moses in a different context) was never in rebellion when appealing.

One must also choose the right time to appeal, preferably not during a crises situation. When the enemy is shooting at your ship, and the bridge is on fire and casualties are being taken all around you, this is no time to complain to the Captain about the ward-room menu! Sometimes, decisions have to be made and there is no time for long drawn out debates about the merits of different positions. If we choose one of those times to call a leader’s choices into question, he simply may not be able to give our arguments the time and consideration that they would otherwise deserve. Thus a legitimate appeal that might well be heard and acted upon in one context may get a completely different response when the adrenaline is flowing, and the hormones are surging. It is arrogant to insist that one’s authority MUST answer our objections immediately. We are not ultimately responsible for the decisions that an authority makes; he is. Furthermore, at the wrong time, the authority may well perceive that the appeal is a direct threat to his authority, and therefore believe that he must say “NO!” This is an interesting dynamic here, not often understood.

Generally speaking (with many exceptions noted) men will respond in two ways to situations where the believe their authority is being challenged (1) they will either attempt to slap down the perceived insurrection or (2) completely fold and let someone else take over. Both situations can lead to disasters for everyone involved. Not only does the “bad” decision not get rescinded, but in the first case the man may act like a tyrant, making a difficult situation worse. Those under authority are going to suffer, whether from a harsh manner, spanking, firing, excommunication, etc.

In the second case, the man God has placed in authority has been unlawfully deposed. Since every aspect of life is governed by the providence of God, we are risking the Lord’s extreme displeasure. When we have lost the person God has placed over us, the family, business, church, etc., will often suffer from a power struggle wherein everyone loses. Wives might get their own way over their husbands, but lose their children in the process as they follow her example and grow up to be rebels. Kids might make Dad give up in disgust, only to find that he was being providentially used to protect them from great evils just waiting to pounce. Congregants might be able to force the pastor or elders to do their bidding, only to see the church self-destruct as various groups vie for power and control. The rule of thumb here is not to force your authority into a corner where he may feel it necessary to save face. A little sensitivity and common sense may see your appeal granted, with everyone benefiting.

Therefore all of us need to learn how to bite our tongue, shut our mouth, clench our fists, count to ten, or do whatever else is necessary and wait for the appropriate time, trusting that God is in control. This is especially true when we are being “corrected” by an authority. Our first, most natural response when accused of anything is to defend ourselves; which in and of itself is not unlawful. But since the heart is “deceitful and desperately wicked” we are not always the best judge of whether or not our actions were righteous. Trying to justify yourself when caught doing something wrong only makes things harder for everyone involved to repent and become right with God again.

Please note this little psychological dynamic; our authority accuses us of doing something wrong. We do not like admitting we did something wrong, so we defend ourselves. The authority then has to raise the ante trying to prove we were wrong. We raise the ante defending ourselves; often hurling accusations that the authority is not perfect and exposing his weaknesses, failures and sins. We then create a vicious cycle of antagonism with anger and frustration building up until something explodes. And what might explode is your marriage as husband or wife decides that enough is enough. It might mean losing your children as someone is kicked out of the house. It could entail being thrown out of or even destroying a good church because people insisted they were right and everyone else was wrong. Nobody wins in this kind of messy conflict; yet our stubborn pride will still insist, “I was right!”

True submission requires us to recognize the providence of God in even this kind of situation. If we do not agree with an accusation, we do not have to become indignant, outraged, angered or embittered. If God is in control, then He has allowed this situation to happen for a reason. We need to take a step back, and see if we can figure out what He would have us do. Rather than defending ourselves, we need to really LISTEN to what is being said. At least we need to respond with something like, “Thank you for your correction; please let me pray and think about this”

As I grow older I am increasingly convinced that many of the issues that tear families, churches, businesses and relationships apart are actually fairly minor. I suspect that God was in fact more concerned about the way that we handled those insignificant issues, rather than who got their own way. Yet, we foolishly tear each other apart just to save our pride.

Yes, if falsely accused, we have the right to bring evidence to clear our good name; but let us also be aware that some of our greatest heroes in the faith were excommunicated from apostate churches, driven from their homelands under false indictments, persecuted, arrested, tortured and even murdered. Bad things happen; sometimes, there is no justice in this world. Therefore, when confronted by an authority, let us first look to God in humility lest we be in sin, and then again to Him in confidence that He will eventually make all things right. We certainly must not use this as an excuse to attack others; “Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult but give a blessing instead.”

Since all human authority is less than perfect and will not always “get it right” therefore, we must give them the opportunity to realize that a mistake has been made and some time to let them correct it on their own. If God placed them over us, He is working in THEIR lives even as He is working in ours. We can begin by letting them know that we share their concerns; that we do not wish to be rebellious; that we will listen carefully to what they say. We need to give our authority the confidence that he CAN correct a “misstep” without losing face, because he is confident that we support and stand behind him. We want him to be a success and will not think any the less of him, or lose any respect for him if he makes a mistake. But if we force a man to the wall at the wrong time and wrong place, many will just dig in their heels out of sheer stubbornness. Nobody wins, everybody loses and God is not glorified.

The authority must also be able to concentrate on what you are saying and why you think it important. This can seldom happen in a crisis situation; and let us be honest, most times, when we disagree with an authority’s judgment the consequences are not life-threatening. At worst, opportunities might be lost, or we might be inconvenienced. Most commonly the greatest threat we face is that we do not get our own way on something or our pride is injured in some way. So we need to put things in perspective; what is more important, having our own way or glorifying God? And if we are truly committed to glorifying God, we can extend a brother a little grace and time to sort things out.

Finally, we must appeal with the right attitude and words. Screaming, insulting, belittling, etc., an authority is never going to accomplish anything but make a bad situation worse. The more we argue, the worse it is going to be. Respect for authority means that we are humble before them, yes, that’s right, humble. In colonial America, wives would often address their husbands as “Mr.” as a token of respect. Now not for a moment am I recommending a return to that practice, but HOW we talk to one another says a lot about HOW we think about one another. Familiarity is not wrong, but I say with pride that my children address me as “sir.” Yes, they also call me “Daddy” and when they were younger it was often a real pain trying to read our evening story together when all six kids wanted to crawl into my lap at the same time. But what makes that love and affection so effectual is that it is based on respect.

My children occasionally appeal our decisions as parents on various subjects. Over the years, there have been occasions wherein my wife Elaine would listen to my reasons for a certain decision and raise one eyebrow slightly (a sure sign that she strongly disagreed). Because I was wise beyond my years and managed to snag a godly woman far better than I deserved, I trust my wife’s judgment implicitly. I know that if she questions something I have decided I would be a fool not to listen to her council. 99% of the time, the issue of appeal never arises because any decision we had to make, we worked through it together. However, on occasion, there have been things that I thought needed to be done, that for whatever reason were being neglected. When Elaine has to give me “the look” I know it is her way of saying, “Do you really mean that?” Most commonly, when I asked if she has a question or comment, it became clear that I did not communicate clearly why something had to be done the way I said it had to be done. By explaining in more detail, she then understood my goals better and therefore can more fully support them. Sometimes, when explaining things, she has pointed out factors I might have missed. I have no problem doing an about face as necessary because I KNOW that my wife is committed to making me a success. I do NOT have to fight to exercise authority in my home for my wife is NEVER rebellious, disrespectful, manipulative or undermining and therefore I have complete confidence that if she has a problem with a decision I have made, then I had better listen carefully.

As the children have grown up into responsible, godly young men and women, they have developed similar mature responses to lawful authority. Sometimes, they are more consistent in working out Biblical principles than we are as parents; after all, they do not have the baggage that Elaine and I have; they SHOULD think more Biblically than we do.

Sadly, our family’s approach is not as common as it ought to be in the Covenant community. Over the years I have sat in on numerous counseling cases where the wife publicly derides, degrades and humiliates her husband. They quarrel in public, they complain about each other to anyone and everyone who will listen and their homes are war zones with the children suffering the worst casualties. Almost universally I blame the husband for the problem. First, if the woman is a shrew, it is because he abdicated leadership in the home very early in the marriage. Secondly, almost always, the behavior the wife demonstrates was usually evident before they got married and he married her anyway. Thirdly, he could put a stop to it at any time if he would just stand up and exert some authority. But he won’t, so she doesn’t respect him and I cannot say I really blame her.

Of course, she is miserable and their entire family suffers (better to live in the corner of an attack than in a whole house with a contentious woman). But his sin does not justify or excuse her sin. The values of respect she should have learned from her father were missing, and now her husband does not have what it takes to teach them to her in the home (often because he never learned those values from HIS father). Their children pay the biggest price however; not only is their home torn apart by controversy, but they do not learn that rebellion always leads to disaster. They then replicate the same rebellious attitudes towards authority in their own lives. There is a connection between teenage immorality, drug use, delinquency and failing to learn how to respect and submit to authority.

When I have watched rebellious teenagers bring their parents so much grief, usually the problem can be traced back to failing to teach children to honor their parents when they were little. The parents did NOT do what they should have done then and everyone is suffering now. They did NOT exercise authority when they had the chance and the children grew up uncontrolled and undisciplined. They then turned that same lack of respect into rebellion against every other sphere of lawful authority.

The problem is that in our culture, we have been indoctrinated with the idea that we MUST act according to our feelings. When we do not get our own way, (or when we disagree with others), we can feel indignant, hurt, or frustrated. We then tend to justify those feelings both in internal and external dialogs. What most of us do not realize is that the way we speak to and about one another has a great deal of influence on our attitudes and feelings toward one another. If we feel oppressed, frustrated, annoyed or irritated about some authority over us, verbalizing those feelings only intensifies the attitude. However, if we follow the Scriptures, being kind, gentle, humble, and choosing our words with care, we will find that the emotions will change as well. Once we are calm inside, we can think more wisely about the problem, and how best to resolve it for the glory of God.

When an Appeal Fails

But going back to our discussion of appealing a decision; what happens if an appeal does not work? What happens if you have done everything right, with the right attitude and right motivation and right words and EVERYTHING and still the authority wants you to do something you sincerely think is wrong? There are three main options; one may flee, one may submit or one may resist. Each alternative has serious consequences and determining which response we choose will require humility and wisdom.

First, we may flee from an attempt to impose unlawful authority. This principle can be seen in the Exodus of God’s people from Egypt. They came into the land as free men. They were subsequently enslaved by tyrannical government. When they prayed for deliverance, God allowed them to flee Egypt and go to the Promised Land. In the same way, when David was unlawfully persecuted by Saul, he fled (with others) from Saul’s authority; he left the country and even sojourned amongst pagans for a while. David did not lead a revolutionary army against Saul, for even though he became a tyrant, reprobate and demon possessed, Saul was still the anointed king. David simply fled his jurisdiction and waited for God to remember His covenant promises.

Most Americans who can trace their ancestry back more than a few generations have this principle of fleeing tyranny as a part of their national heritage. We came from many different countries, to escape religious, political and economic tyranny. Sadly, there are few places to flee political tyranny today. I have visited many countries in the world and the USA for all its faults and problems is as good as it gets.

However, this remains a valid option for many other areas of life, For example, a church, telling people whom they may marry, where they may live, what jobs they may take, etc., is clearly acting tyrannically. God has not given the church authority over these areas of life. They may counsel, advice, and encourage their members to make better decisions; but they do not have the right to use the powers of the church to tell people how to live their lives unless sin is involved. Confronting sin is one issue; disagreeing with someone else’s decisions is a whole different matter. Therefore, one may lawfully flee from their authority and go to a new church. In the same way, if a wife is in physical danger from an abusive husband, she may lawfully flee (ideally after seeking counsel from her elders). If one is working for a bad boss one may “flee” to another company.

Obviously this principle can be misused by rebellious people who want no authority over them. It is easy for some to cry “tyranny” whenever an authority tells them to do anything they do not want to do and therefore implicitly embrace some form of autonomy or rebellion. For example, people have”fled” our church because we teach and require that men be the heads of their households and conduct consistent family worship. While we have never threatened or used formal church discipline against anyone for not fulfilling what we think is a basic Christian duty, some people have resented the fact that we constantly exhort fathers in this regard. They have left us; and we let them go with sincere regret, but also confident that God will work in their lives according to His time table and not ours. I have known children to leave home the day they reached 18 just because they did not like their parents’ house rules. I have seen people go from job to job because they did not like various employers’ ways of doing things. In all these cases, while I have my own private opinions, ultimately, with liberty comes responsibility; each person will have to stand accountable to God not only for what they did, but why they did it.

The solution begins by Christians thinking carefully about the covenants they have made with various institutions. The better we articulate up front the duties and responsibilities that both sides have in any relationship, the easier it is to discern between legitimate but unpopular demands from an authority and genuine tyranny. God of course establishes certain fundamental conditions in all these areas but there is much that He has not specifically legislated. Instead, He gives us general principles and expects us to work those out in practical ways.

Hence, bosses should clearly write out the standards and expectations for their company and instruct new employees in what is expected of them. Churches need to articulate their doctrinal standards for new members and the “house rules” under which everyone agrees to abide. Parents need to teach their children exactly what constitutes proper behavior and be consistent in enforcing their own rules. Men and women interested in getting married to each other ought to spend a lot of time talking about how they understand their roles and responsibilities in marriage before they decide to “tie the knot.”

In other words, often people become frustrated with authority because the conditions of the covenant were not spelled out. Both sides assumed the other was “on board” with THEIR understanding until a conflict arose over some issue. The conflict then quickly degenerated into warfare because both sides felt that they have been betrayed. Simply writing out the conditions of the covenant will do much to sort out these kinds of misunderstandings. Furthermore, if the conditions are unacceptable, then one often has freedom NOT to enter into a potentially devastating relationship where one side eventually cries “tyranny” and the other side responds “rebellion!”

The second option to an unreasonable authority is simple; you submit. Even if you have to suffer, you submit. This is what Peter commends Sarah for doing (1 Peter 3:1ff). When Abraham told her to pose as his sister, and as a result got her kidnapped TWICE, she still submitted. She did not stage a walk out, deny him marital intimacy, burn his supper, gather all the women of the encampment together and carry signs decrying Abraham’s bad leadership; she submitted. Granted, no human authority can command us to sin, so if an evil and perverse husband wants to swap wives a godly woman may rightly say “No.” A worker may rightly refuse to sign counterfeit work orders. An enlisted man may rightly refuse an order from his officer to execute POW’s. A citizen may rightly refuse to offer incense to a State idol. But in all honesty, aren’t those situations so much fun to discuss because they are so rare? Isn’t the real problem less about when we are commanded to do something contrary to God’s Law, but more about when we are commanded to do something we don’t want to do? When you submit to an authority even when they are in error, you are allowing yourself to be used by God as a means of changing that authority; even if you have to suffer as a result.

And while under certain conditions we may flee “tyranny” but in doing so we are also losing all the benefits of that authority. A wife may have a husband who does not appreciate, respect or fulfill his divine duties towards her as she would like and reasonably expect. She may (emphasis on “may”) have a lawful right to flee since he has broken covenant with her. On the other hand, she may choose to stay and be used by God as a witness to him (note; we are not talking about a situation where her life is in danger). By submitting, she is also preserving the economic capital of the family and providing for her children; something a divorce may well destroy.

A church may have less than perfect doctrine or programs and a conscientious believer may lawfully seek one better grounded in good teaching. But if he flees he will lose all the good things that church is doing, the friendships he has made, the programs that do benefit his children, etc. He may decide to stay in that congregation because his presence can have a positive effect in moving the elders to a more sound theological understanding.

A young adult may weary of his parents’ influence on his decisions and after reaching the age of majority, decide he wants to leave home. But in doing so, he incurs tremendous economic costs he would not otherwise have to pay and he risks losing the wisdom that comes from his parents’ life experience (and risks’ losing their moral guidance as his quest for “freedom” is often motivated by a desire to sin without being confronted).

Yes, staying often comes at a price; we have to be prepared to suffer the consequences. We live in an imperfect world and we are often forced to make trade-offs. Wisdom requires knowing what things are really important and worth fighting for and being willing to let the little things go. Every good marriage demands both husband and wife appreciate the good things about the other, while learning to live with the not so good things. There are no perfect people, no perfect institutions, and no perfect choices. We need to be charitable and gracious to people who make different decisions. Sometimes, one person may make a decision in this regard that we personally would not; ultimately each of us will stand before God and give an account of why we did whatever it is that we did. Furthermore, the person making the decision is the one who is going to have to suffer the consequences.

Take the State as an example; I believe our present system of taxation is unlawful, tyrannical and a symptom of God’s judgment against our land. I therefore have the same three options we have been discussing. I can flee what I see as the tyranny of the IRS by moving to a different country; I can resist by refusing to pay unjust, unconstitutional taxes or I can submit. Which option did I choose? Well I could try to flee but I know of no place in the modern world where I could escape the same kind of tyranny. I could resist and refuse to pay those unlawful taxes but that would mean being arrested, losing my house, having my meager savings confiscated, impoverishing my family not to mention going to a federal prison. ALL resistance to authority, even lawful resistance, has severe consequences; therefore I submit. I pay my taxes, all of them; even the unlawful ones.

Generally speaking, it is frequently better to submit to unjust authority than to resist (unless it is a matter of sin), because the cost of submission is considerably less than the cost of resistance. A woman watching her husband waste her children’s inheritance by gambling is paying a price. A worker who finds his boss taking credit for his ideas suffers. A church member who submits to a bad decision from his elders may have to live with the unpleasant consequence. But in all these cases, for the sake of the peace and purity of church, family, job, etc., a Christian may well decide that the price of suffering for righteous submission is better than the costs of fleeing.

The final alternative is to resist. In this sense, to “resist” means to actually take a stand against an authority and seek either to change it, or remove it. The ethical condition that must be met for lawful resistance is that the authority is attempting to compel us to sin. This was the situation with Peter and John and the Sanhedrin mentioned earlier. When a lawful authority ordered an unlawful act they refused to obey. However, this is not an individual right that one can determine on their own. Since God has ordered all of life with mutually affirming spheres of authority, when one sphere attempts to compel unlawful obedience, we should first turn to other authorities for aid.

The doctrine of resistance was fully hammered out during the English civil war and the Westminster Assembly and is commonly called “the lesser magistrate.” In any sphere of authority there are many levels. For example in the civil realm there towns, counties, states and national. In the church there are pastors, elders, deacons, sessions, presbyteries, general assemblies, etc. In the family there is both a mother and a father, in the work place there are foremen, supervisors, managers, etc.

If one authority attempts to break covenant, then the individual can lawfully appeal to the intervening levels for relief. For example, if the President of the United States attempted to overthrow the Constitution, free men could lawfully appeal to either the Congress, governors or state legislatures who could then, if necessary, call to take up arms to resist the Federal Government. This was the theology used to in the Declaration of Independence to justify resisting England. In essence, the colonial legislatures sent delegates to Philadelphia who established that England’s king had broken faith with his people. Therefore, they were justified in removing him as their sovereign. This action did not occur in a vacuum; the English had done exactly the same thing in their Civil War a hundred and thirty years earlier when they beheaded Charles Stuart. However, neither event was a revolution, but the parliament and legislature having lawful authority to depose a tyrant. Individuals did not take up arms against lawful authority but appealed to “lesser” authorities for help.

However, resistance comes at a price and may not always succeed. The last time this was tried in America was in the War Between the States when the South attempted to secede from the Union. The Southern States voted to withdraw from what they considered to be a tyrannical Union. A horrible war then began which costs more casualties than all of America’s other wars combined. We are still living with the scars of that war and it profoundly changed the very nature of American civil government.

As our nation has rejected God and embraced humanism, the Federal government has continued to usurp more and more power from the States. Many sincere believers are gravely concerned about losing any more freedoms and some have even openly rebelled. Some people have moved to rural areas and tried to establish self-sufficient lifestyles or communities where they hope to live freely. Some have tried to drop off the “radar” and hope the Federal government will forget about them. Occasionally however, these people or groups have found themselves in conflict with the Federal government anyway.

For what it is worth, I think the murders at Ruby Ridge or the massacre at Waco were terrible acts from an unrighteous government. The people who ordered those attacks will stand before God one day. But at the same time, the leaders (Weaver and Koresh) will also have to stand before God and answer for their decision to resist. Was it worth the lives of all those women and children for them to take arms against government agents? Yes, both were attacked unlawfully; both were attempting to flee what they considered unrighteous indictments. However, what would have happened if Weaver or Koresh had simply surrendered and had their day in court? Could the Federal government have even convicted them of a crime? Even if they had been wrongfully convicted, they would have spent only a few years in prison. But what was the alternative? Is escaping prison worth all those lives? Sometimes we have to be prepared to suffer little things to protect greater ones. It is not right, it is not fair, it is a terrible infringement on our liberty; but we live in a world cursed by sin.

In other words, at Ruby Ridge or Waco, innocent people died because the leaders resisted an erring authority. However, the right to resist, at least according to historic Reformed theology is not found in an individual, but in a “lesser magistrate.” I am not forgetting that sometimes, a man MUST resist, no matter what the cost; but it has to be done with proper authority; neither Weaver nor Koresh had such authority. And we should note that in both cases, both men had adopted an apocalyptic eschatology where they believed the world as we know it was about to end in horrible civil unrest. Both expected terrible things to happen and so became victims of self-fulfilling prophecies.

However, let us also be realistic here; for the vast majority of us, those situations are extremely rare. Usually, the issue is not about rogue Federal agents, but an erring husband, a recalcitrant board of elders, arbitrary parents, or an inefficient boss. Are we ever justified in resisting such authorities and if so, how?

Well, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate applies even to these more mundane situations. A husband who is consistently failing in his domestic duties is still under the authority of his church. A wife can appeal to these “lesser magistrates” and ask for their counsel, and assistance. Most companies have some sort of procedure to appeal certain concerns “up the chain of command” if a particular boss is in danger of doing something immoral, illegal or just not in the company’s best interests. Even children can appeal a decision from Dad, to their Mom under certain circumstances. In all of these areas however, we may never arrogantly defy a lawful authority. All the general principles of Christian conduct come into play here; we are called to be kind, to speak the truth in love, to be humble, to be not be contentious, argumentative or combative come into play. “A harsh word stirs up anger but a gentle answer turns away wrath” Solomon said. Lawful resistance is simply saying, “No, I will not do what you told me to do because it is wrong.” We can say that with genuine respect; as David spoke to and about Saul. And yes, sometimes immoral pastors have to be defrocked, wicked husbands have to be divorced and illegal company activities have to be exposed. And sometimes, wicked tyrants must be removed. But we will be held accountable for our reasons, our attitudes and our methods of dealing with such problems; and may God grant us all grace.

Conclusion

In this essay we have tried to deal primarily with the basic principles where people live day by day. In our lawless age, men often struggle against authority; and always to their detriment. An attitude of submission is not blind obedience, but rather confidence in the sovereignty of God. It ought to be our goal to live a quiet life, without interference from others and to live at peace whenever possible with all men. Therefore, a humble attitude towards all human authority is required. Those placed in positions of authority must responsibly and self-sacrificially care for those placed under them remembering that God will hold them accountable. Those under authority must remember that God put those over them and expects us to honor them, as we would Him.

So often, so many problems could be avoided if we simply bent our stiff necks a little. While nobody likes to be wrong, the wise man will thrive on correction (Pvbs 12:1). Like water off a duck’s back, we need to allow indignities and grievance to just wash over us. This too shall pass, and there is a new day coming. Sometimes there is nothing else we can do at this present evil time except allow God a chance to work. Families, businesses, churches and communities would all profit from our example of respect and acknowledgment that God’s providence is at work.

If wives cannot respect their husbands, and if husbands cannot earn their wives’ respect and their children’s obedience in the home, why should God ever give them power in the community? And if husbands cannot manage their own families, what makes them think God would allow them to rule a nation? If members cannot submit to their churches, and churches exercise lawful authority without tyranny, why should God bless their preaching?

Our God is sovereign. He will do all that He has said He will do. But perhaps one of the reasons why we do not yet see the all the blessings He has promised is that because we are in rebellion to His lawfully constituted authorities, we are in reality, in rebellion to Him.

Application: Case Files to Analyze

Based on the principles discussed in the essay above, discuss the following cases and apply the relevant Biblical principles. How would you counsel these people?

Case #1 Sixteen year old Sally and her mother have a disagreement about her wardrobe. Her Mom thinks her skirt is too short. Sally insists that her skirt is the current “style,” and though short, is not immodest and is the only style readily available in the stores. What should they do?

Case #2 Ted really detests his 17 year old son Andy’s taste in music. He finds it obnoxious, irritating, and disturbing to his peace. Andy responds that the music is not immoral, the bands he likes are Christians, and the lyrics are based in Scripture. What should they do?

Case #3 Sarah thinks her husband George is spending too much money every month on entertainment. George thinks Sarah is spending too much money every month on clothes. What should they do?

Case #4 Debbie is eighteen and now attending a local college. She has met a nice Christian guy from a different denominational/theological background who wants to date her. Debbie’s family has always maintained that “dating” is inappropriate and forbidden it. What should she do? Would it make any difference if she lived away at college instead of commuting?

Case #5 Frank is upset because the church has budgeted for a new building and is giving practically nothing to mission’s this year. He fought hard for the missions work but lost in the annual business meeting. What should he do?

Case #6 Mary is concerned because her husband does not do consistent family worship. What should she do? What should she not do?

Case #7 George is 23 years old and after receiving permission from his father, asked Helen to marry him. However, when he asked the pastor to perform the ceremony, the pastor refused because he believes that Helen is not really a Christian. Furthermore, he has been forbidden to marry her on threat of excommunication (since is she is not a Christian, he would be “unequally yoked”). What should he do?

Case #8 Daryl thinks that the elders are seriously mismanaging the government of his local church. He disagrees with the programs they have developed, how they are utilizing limited funds and even how the pastor spends his time. He has developed his own plan on how the church ought to proceed and offered it as an alternative to the elders. They however reject his plan politely, but firmly. What should he do?

Case #9 Lisa married a non-Christian who now forbids her from their children at home. He wants the boys to be able to play sports as he did and sees no problem with the children dating as they get older. What should she do?

How Not to Argue for Authority

The below was written originally for some folks in our church many years ago as my attempt to help them work through a conflict; it back-fired, managing to offend everyone on both sides of the issue. None of the people mentioned now attend our church. Initially I never intended to publish this- but after certain people left the church I decided that others, not so personally involved, might see things more objectively and learn before something similar destroyed their fellowship. While I changed some of the minor details my intent was always to illustrate how a disagreement could escalate into a church splitting schism because neither side properly understood the nature of Biblical submission. Often, when sincere Christians object to the issue of submission, especially in regards to marriage, it is not the Bible that is being rejected, but the way that the Bible’s teaching is being presented. This essay covers some of the same ground as the previous one, but it does not hurt to see the same principles applied to different situations.

Some years back I had to leave church fairly quickly after the morning service and in my absence, several members of the congregation found themselves in a long, heated discussions. Apparently “Bob” (real name withheld to protect the guilty) had been having a recurring debate with “Betty” on the issue of whether when Scripture commands a woman to “respect” and “submit” to her husband, this entailed obedience. This had started as a good natured discussion. But on this particular Sunday, a number of other women were in close proximity when “Bob” and “Betty” began “tweaking” each other.

As “Bob” was trying to demonstrate that submission requires obedience, the question arose “if a man orders his wife to fetch him a glass of water, MUST she obey him” (with a good heart)? “Bob’s” answer was “of course” and was shocked when everyone did not immediately agree with something he thought so fundamentally clear in Scripture. “Bob” then considered the entire church to be full of feminist women, and limp-wristed men lacking a full complement of male hormones.

Since I did not witness the discussion I had to base any assessment on the testimony of others. So, when I heard that a discussion had taken place that left some people very unhappy, I called all the principles involved, listened to each side of the story and tried to understand not only what had happened, but also what, if anything could have been done differently.

Despite “Bob’s” assessment, I did not believe that the women in our church were all implicit feminists, or their husbands “girly-men.” Granted, many Christians need to develop a more consistent, Biblical worldview and learn how to relate every area of life to King Jesus; but even though they might not have worked out all the details, I was convinced that they wanted to, given time. As I talked with various people it appeared that there were undertones here of which poor “Bob” had been unaware that framed the context of the question - as well as what would constitute an acceptable answer. In my view, people were talking past each other. Neither side really understood the other’s position and so created animosity and resistance to an important Biblical doctrine.

For example, one of the women had a son-in law who was by all accounts a lazy slob who treated her daughter like dirt. This man used the doctrine of wifely submission, as an excuse to sit in his favorite chair, watch television, and order his wife around in the most menial, and demeaning way, with no regard for her needs, or his responsibilities. These parents saw something desperately lacking in the relationship between their daughter and son-in-law; something so seriously wrong that it could not be dealt with by a simple “yes she must submit unconditionally.” They were not exactly sure how this problem was to be resolved because they did not think as quickly or as clearly as “Bob.” However, they knew the answer was more complex than just saying, “A wife has to obey her husband and get him the glass of water.”

Though I was not there (and hindsight is always 20-20), I think several logical fallacies were committed that confused the issue. First, “Bob’s” favorite method of discussion was to “argue to the antithesis” wherein he would attempt to show the logical conclusions of a person’s position. However, this can be tricky as the problem of “false extension” is always a possibility. There is a difference between showing where a person’s arguments could lead and where they necessarily must lead. Outside of a formal academic debate, most people are not trained in formal argumentation; hence they do not choose their words with precision. Therefore someone quick enough can twist what someone says and extend that misunderstanding in directions the speaker never intended.

Secondly, there was also the very real danger of “faulty dilemma.” A faulty dilemma is insisting that there are only two options and forcing people to choose between them, when in reality, there may be other options available or other factors that are not mentioned. In “Bob’s” case his answer was that the woman HAD a moral responsibility to get the water or she was in rebellion. Whether he intended to or not, people THOUGHT he was saying that a wife’s submission to her husband makes her literally no different than a serving wench. But are these really the only factors here? Yes a man MAY ask his wife to get him a glass of water, and normally speaking she should comply, BUT what is the motivation and purpose of the husband in issuing the command in the first place? One of the ladies specifically said that while the husbands had the “right” to have his wife get him a glass of water, she could not see a godly man doing so because it would not seem to her as if he was loving her has Christ loved the church; more about this later.

Hence, I think people reacted against the unintentional and unbiblical characterization of the wife’s role rather than against the Biblical doctrine of submission per se. In essence, “Bob” was perceived as sounding as if a husband has absolute authority over his wife. But of course, all human authority is derivative; only God has absolute authority and EVERY human institution must operate only under God’s specific limitations.

Furthermore, whenever authority is given to someone, there is also a corresponding responsibility to protect, and care for the person under authority. In Ephesians 5:21ff the Apostle Paul deals with submission in three main areas; between husband and wife, parent and child and master and slave. In each relationship there is genuine authority that those under that authority have to respect and obey; i.e., wives must respect and obey their husbands, children must honor and obey their parents and slaves must respect and obey their masters. Yet in EVERY case, Paul also details the corresponding duty that those IN authority have to those UNDER their care. The husband must give himself up for his wife, the father must not exasperate his children, and the master must not threaten his slave. Authority and Responsibility are two sides of the same relational coin; both are essential and necessary for a proper, Biblical understanding of the issue. When “Bob” emphasized the one and was perceived to ignore the other, people rejected his argument. He then considered them all “feminists.” But they were not necessarily rejecting God’s instruction to godly wives, just his characterization which did not deal with the responsibilities inherent with all Biblical authority.

God gives real, lawful authority to various human institutions; family, church and state. But none of those institutions are ultimate and all are bound to operate within the specific limits that God himself sets, for the purposes He Himself specifically delineates. For example, “Bob” was quick to rule out an ungodly husband trying to order his wife to sin; clearly he recognized there are limits to submission. But I would go one step further and argue that the attitude behind authority is always central to the discussion. As my old friend Dave Ames liked to say, “Authority is never given for the benefit of those IN authority, but for the benefit of those UNDER authority.” This is what the Lord Jesus Himself said to His Disciples, not to seek to lord it over each other, but rather to become the servant of all. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom to many.”

Since a man is commanded by God to work for the sanctification of his wife and is given authority for that purpose, he MUST ask himself, “How does this contribute to her holiness?” A man’s wife is not his personal servant; her divine duty to submit to his leadership does not give him the right to treat her in a degrading and demeaning manner. To the contrary, he is HER servant; his authority over her is specifically delegated by God so that the husband can assist in his wife’s sanctification. Therefore, a godly woman gladly submits to a godly husband because she is confident that he is committed to her personal holiness. A godly man does not issue arbitrary orders to his wife as if she was there just to serve his personal desires.

However, let us be careful here; what one woman may consider “demeaning” another may take as her normal duty. When Elaine and I were first married, I would often want a cup of tea in the evening. I would go into our little “kitchenette” and yell “Hey Honey, do you want a cup of tea?” as I put the kettle on. Elaine was offended! You see, in her family, part of being a good homemaker meant anticipating a husband’s desires. When I offered to make HER a cup of tea, she automatically took it as an implied criticism of how she handling her domestic duties. It was not a part of English culture to directly confront an issue; the Brits just love to give hints and “read between the lines.” Therefore in her mind, I had been sitting there desperate for a cup of tea, expecting her to offer it and when she did not do so, my making my own tea was intended to be a rebuke that she had not correctly read the “signs.” Yeah, I know, a different way of thinking about things than is common in American culture; but there is also a reason why we Yanks have a worldwide reputation for being loud, confrontational and obnoxious!

Once, we had that straightened out, I learned just to ask Elaine for a cup of tea. She was happy, I was OK with it (I am NOT a cripple, I CAN get my own cup of tea!) but we have taken a lot of flack over the years about this issue. People, who do not know either Elaine or me very well, often feel free to criticize when I ask my wife for a cup of tea! Obviously, I must be some sort of terrible, nasty person, abusing my poor wife because I ask her to do something for me that I could easily do myself.

There of course is the problem; too many Christians find it perfectly acceptable to judge and criticize others based on their own personal standards. Furthermore, in our culture, giving anyone a direct order will often be seen as abusive. When I was a junior NCO in the Air Force, almost thirty years ago we were told NOT to give direct orders, but rather to phrase them as requests! And there is some rationality to this; no one likes being treated like a slave. Phrasing things as a request is just polite, civilized behavior; as long as we understand that there are real positional differences between say a colonel and an airman, it certainly does no harm for the colonel to treat his people with courtesy and phrase his orders as a request. That is; as long as the airman actually understands he must treat that request as the order it really is.

Now, back to our main point; women are under the positional authority of their husbands. A godly husband, treating his wife with respect and dignity certainly has the right to ask her to do certain things, and normally speaking, she should obey. The fact that our culture finds this “demeaning” should not influence our understanding and application of a clear Biblical principle. Yet, we cannot leave it there.

Let me go one step further than the original question asked “Bob;” after all, fetching a glass of water is pretty innocuous. Can a man lawfully order his wife to cut his toenails for him? Yes, I know, a gross illustration, but I want to use “Bob’s” methodology and force us to be consistent with our presuppositions. Now we are not talking about some guy who is handicapped or otherwise physically unable to do this necessary but unpleasant task for himself; but a normal man, in good condition who simply does not want to bend over and clip his smelly nails. Does his wife have to obey even here?

Well, we could argue that God has given the husband genuine authority over his wife, just as He has given them both genuine authority over their children. There is nothing inherently sinful or unlawful about this command. Therefore you could conclude that a woman should obey her husband in this illustration. But we cannot end the discussion there because the motivations and reasons of the husband requiring his wife to perform this unpleasant task are crucial. Does this man really love his wife as Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her when he makes her do something demeaning; something he could easily do for himself? In making her cut his toenails, is he helping her to become “perfect, spotless, without wrinkle or blame?” Or is he just some self-indulgent slob who enjoys ordering his poor wife around?

I think that when the question was asked about the water, and “Bob” gave his answer, people may well have been reacting to what they perceived to be the attitude behind the order, rather than the Biblical duty of a godly woman to obey her husband. You see, the world continues to pervert the doctrine of godly submission and characterizes it as demeaning to women. While we do not care a fig for their opinion, we also have to be careful not to give them any ammunition they can use against us.

And honesty forces us to admit that there are some men who are obnoxious louts who treat their wives and children little better than hired hands. And we should always be ready to condemn such ungodly distortions of the Biblical doctrine of submission; a wife is NOT a slave or a servant. She and her husband become one flesh, united in spirit, mind and body to exercise dominion over the earth for the glory of God. She is a joint heir of the faith, and must be lived with in an understanding manner, and treated accordingly (1 Peter 3:5-7). The authority God grants the husband should never be abused.

However, let us also acknowledge that families are different. In many households, a young girl is taught from a young age that she reaches her highest calling in fulfilling her domestic duties. Cooking, cleaning and caring for her family’s physical needs are considered the highest expression of love. This has been the traditional view in Western civilization for thousands of years. Thus, for many godly women, “waiting” on their husbands and children is in THEIR view, both their honor and their duty. Our culture however has changed in the past fifty years. Many families are dependant on two incomes to survive. Feminism has infiltrated the Christian community and has brought with it, a change in values and standards that do need to be examined from a consistently Biblical perspective. Many young women therefore have come to expect that all domestic duties are to be shared by both husband and wife. And let us be honest here; there is nothing in Scripture that says it is the wife’s duty to do the dishes, clean the house, do the laundry, or even cook the meals! (Please note the Proverbs 31 woman had servants to do all these things for her!). So, a couple might well get married and have to work out some of these cultural applications in context of the universal moral principles lain down in Scripture. It is very likely that different Christian families will work out the implications differently; to the degree that they understand sound doctrine and their own sanctification.

Granted in my limited experience, I have not seen many Christian men acting like tyrants. For what it is worth, I think “Bob” had an important point in that the real problem in most marriages is emasculated, feminized men (e.g., see my essay, “Girlie-Men in the Pulpit). Many young Christian women have developed core values from secular American culture, not the Scriptures and therefore have never learned what submission actually entails. Furthermore, since we believe in total depravity we know that all men can be tempted to abuse and misuse authority. That’s why we have checks and balances for the civil magistrate, and we Presbyterians have church courts that have authority over individual ministers. As the doctrine of godly submission is rediscovered in the Christian community, there will also be greater opportunity for its abuse by some sinful men. Hence, it is only proper that like the Apostle Paul we ALWAYS pair the doctrine of submission to the corresponding responsibility of those in authority. He knew that men would misuse that authority unless specifically reminded of their responsibilities; and we would do well to emulate his approach.

Thus while trying to argue submission without addressing the corresponding duty of the man, “Bob” quite possibly caused people to react to his imbalanced view rather than necessarily denying the duty of the woman to obey. This whole situation illustrates several important principles from Scripture about conversations. The first is “Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.” There is often a much more complex situation affecting even the most innocent of questions. If we want to avoid unnecessary conflicts, we need to carefully discern the real agenda behind a person’s words. We also need to be careful to listen to what people actually say, rather than speculate about what they might have meant by what they said. Not everyone is as articulate as they might be; not every one can think quickly on their feet. Not every Christians has worked out a consistent Biblical worldview.

Therefore, the second Biblical principle from 2 Timothy 2:23-24 is important to keep in mind, “And the Lord’s bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth.” Since issues are often more complex than what they first appear, a gentle answer, full of kindness and good will toward another helps to keep a theoretical discussion from degenerating into a heated altercation. Furthermore, even if a godly person believes they are being wronged when they are defending the truth of God’s Word, they are required by God to be patient, gently correcting others knowing that God alone can change the heart. In this case, if BOTH sides had practiced these principles, the discussion might have shed more light, and less heat. For what it is worth, I think everyone involved made a “rush to judgment” because they did not really understand what the other side was trying to say.

One final application of these two principles; we need to be careful in the way we look at other peoples’ relationships. I assume that all Biblical Christians would agree that a man has a solemn responsibility to serve his wife by giving himself up for her, working to sanctify her before God. She has a solemn duty to respect, submit and obey her husband. Yet, those outside of the husband and wife relationship need to be very careful in judging that relationship, or how well each person is fulfilling their God given duties. The man is responsible to GOD and his wife to love her as Christ loved the church, not to you or me. While, if his sin becomes odious, he may be answerable to the church courts (i.e., he attempts to command his wife to sin, he refuses to do family worship, etc.), we ought to be mighty careful either having or offering opinions about how well he is doing his job one way or the other. Frankly, it is none of our business how a couple works out THEIR salvation with fear and trembling. Unless they come to us for counsel and advice, we may be unaware of certain facts that COULD change our assessment of the same situation.

Oh, we can certainly be as iron sharpening iron, encouraging, exhorting and even admonishing one another to become more godly and holy in how we fulfill our duties to our spouses. We can speak the truth in love to one another (Eph 4:15) and try to help one another put those truths into practice (Col 3:16). For example, if we witness a man berating his wife in public, ridiculing and demeaning her with harsh words, it is perfectly correct and proper to go to him in private and correct him. If we witness a woman openly deriding her husband’s authority and showing contempt for his leadership, we can and should go to her in private and confront. But in both cases, we commit the logical fallacy of hasty conclusion if we then over-generalize about their relationship to conclude that he is an arrogant nob or she is a rebellious witch. There may well be other factors that contributed to that particular unpleasant behavior of which we are aware. Instead, we need to stop classifying people based on limited knowledge, and start following Matthew 18:15 confronting individual sins and problems, rather than holding them inside or making caustic remarks about people to others.

Christians would be better off working on their own marriages than being unduly concerned about the marriages of others. Too many Christians seem more interested in spotting the splinters in other people’s eyes than dealing with the logs in their own. Even worse, too many Christians feel free to discuss other peoples’ marriages (or families, or hobbies, or spending, or housekeeping). We all have blind spots, and NONE of us has it completely together. There is room for improvement in even the best marriages. So we ought to be careful judging others, lest we be judged ourselves.

In conclusion, wives must respect and obey their husbands, but husbands have to give themselves up for their wives, working to sanctify them before God. Loving, self-sacrificial service is the key to dominion, “Let he who would be great among you, first become the servant of all.”

___________________

Tolerance and Liberty of Conscience

This essay was originally written for a book published by the Chalcedon Foundation that dealt with certain dangerous doctrines that were infiltrating the Reformed community. The entire book was a good faith attempt to differentiate between legitimate doctrinal differences that would allow believers from different perspectives to work and minister together and those who had “crossed the line” and embraced some form of “heresy.” I wrote several chapters for that book one of which is below. It relates to our discussion of authority in that even the strictest theological systems of the Reformation recognized implicitly that there were some issues on which not even the church could attempt to bind men’s consciences. This section is included because it provides a necessary counter-weight to our admonitions about the importance of obeying lawful authority. God alone is the Lord of the conscience and no authority, whether in the State, the Church or the Family should over-step its bounds. Though the essay deals primarily with theological issues, it applies to all authority in every sphere of life. Where God has legislated, we must obey. Where God has given liberty, we must not infringe. Lawful authority never implies tyranny.

A charge of “heresy” is indeed a serious one and not to be made lightly. For as we have defined the term here, heresy is doctrinal error so wrong, that a person believing, affirming and teaching it could not be saved. Therefore it is important NOT to throw this charge around lightly. Not every doctrinal deviation is heresy. Since all men are imperfect, all men have imperfect understanding of the Scriptures. Since all men are different, not all men have the same level of wisdom or understanding. Therefore there are those in the church who hold to less than perfect doctrines, but are nevertheless considered within the household of the faith. For example, children and new believers often do not possess a consistent and comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures and frequently may for a time, affirm something contrary to sound doctrine. Grace, gentle correction and exposure to the truth is normally all that is needed to clear up these kinds of errors and bring them to a deeper, richer understanding of the truth.

But there are also doctrinal differences that divide more mature believers who sincerely hold to different doctrinal positions, yet they display all the characteristics of mature, godly, Christian life and practice. They are humble in their attitude, express genuine love and commitment to the Sacred Scriptures, have abundant evidence of the fruit of the Spirit and in all other ways APPEAR to trust in Christ and Christ alone, for their salvation. Yet, the doctrinal differences are there. Some refuse baptism to covenant children, others affirm a confused understanding of “free” will, still others insist that certain “gifts” of the Spirit are still operative in the church. Even within Reformed churches, there are often significant theological differences between various groups. Some insist that we may sing only Psalms in worship (without any musical accompaniment) while others believe hymns and choruses are perfectly appropriate. There are certain groups who insist that any church not holding to the Solemn League and Covenant is by nature apostate while many Presbyterians think this nothing more than an interesting historical relic from the past. Some Reformed believers are premillennial, some amillennial and some postmillennial.

The differences are real, and we cannot simply excommunicate all those who hold to different theological positions unless we want to be in the unenviable position of insisting, “We are the only true church, all others are apostate.” Such grandiose claims probably reveal more about the psychological and emotional problems of its adherents, than it does about the “purity” of their doctrine. But the question is, how do Christians deal with the very real differences that separate them from others, without falling into a hopeless subjectivity that destroys any claim to ultimate truth? The Bible IS God’s Word and it IS the final authority in matters of faith and practice. How then do sincere Christians deal with different interpretations of its teachings? Furthermore, the historic Reformed faith, as hammered out in detail by the great Reformation creeds, is today held by only a handful of believers, in comparison to broad evangelicalism. Baptists make up the single largest group of Protestants in America today, with Pentecostal and Charismatic groups closing the gap. If in fact the Reformed Faith IS an accurate and reliable summary of Bible doctrine, how do we deal with all those in the church of Christ whose doctrine significantly departs from historic orthodoxy?

Sociological Reasons for Doctrinal Diversity

While Christians must begin with Scripture in order to understand the nature of the world, we ought also to be aware that there are other factors that affect our understanding of Scripture. Man is not a blank slate. Scripture affirms the validity of the pagan proverb, “bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor 15:33). In other words, a man does not arrive at his belief structure in a vacuum. There are environmental factors that act on him, just as there are spiritual ones. Furthermore, the Scriptures warn repeatedly of the dangers that false teachers cause to the body of Christ. Hence most Christians arrive at their understanding of the Faith from what they are taught by their pastors, what they read in books and what is believed by those around them. If they have good pastors, read good books and are in fellowships where good doctrine is normal, then they too will have good doctrine. But if the opposite is true, then generally speaking, their doctrine will reflect this too.

It simply is not enough to say that all men should be Bible scholars and depend upon their own intelligence, wisdom and understanding to arrive at doctrinal truth. God gives the church pastors and teachers who have the responsibility to TEACH His people (Eph 4:11). If the church did not need teachers, then God would not have given them to her. Therefore, if the pastors and teachers do not teach the truth, then the people of God will not receive the truth and cannot therefore believe the truth. Granted, in all fellowships, there will be some men with greater insight, ability and perseverance than others. And when these men encounter various errors, they like the Bereans, will search the Scriptures, discover the truth and depart from churches with less than correct doctrine; but not always. Often men remain in churches with less than optimal doctrine because of other factors. Most people trust that their pastor will teach them the truth, and therefore will believe what they are taught. And if they are taught error, then they will believe error because they know nothing else. Apollos is an example of this dynamic to a certain extent. He believed the gospel and taught it. But Pricilla and Aquilla had to straighten him out on some issues. His doctrine was good, in so far as it went, but not perfect. He needed someone to teach him in order to improve his doctrine.

Secondly, in modern culture, the church presently suffers from what sociologists call pluralization; i.e., the problems resulting from a multitude of options. Any given community will offer Christians a wide variety of churches, worship services, fellowship opportunities and doctrinal standards. Many of these churches will deliberately tailor their programs, emphasizes, etc., specifically to attract certain kinds of people. Since we live in an anti-intellectual age, deeply influenced by pietism, the average Christian is NOT primarily motivated by the search for truth, but for a warm, intimate relationship with God and a comfortable social environment. It is only “natural” then for Christians to seek out those churches that make them feel comfortable and provide them that experience.

It can be hypothesized that certain personality types will tend to gather at churches comprised of similar personality types simply because they “feel” more comfortable there. This assumption may seldom be verbalized, or even recognized, but it is a factor never the less. For example some people are drawn to “traditional” churches; others may seek out “activist” churches, while still a third will desire more “emotional” fellowships. Over time, there may well be a “sorting” effect where various personality types join like-minded churches thus affecting the very complexion of the church or denomination.

Is it just an “accident” that Baptists are renowned for being evangelistically oriented while Presbyterians are known as the “Frozen Chosen?” Is it just a coincidence that Pentecostals and Charismatics place a great deal of emphasis on emotions? In other words, it is NOT necessarily the doctrine that makes the people, but rather the personalities of the people that are attracted to certain kinds of doctrines. The Scriptures warned that this would be a problem wherein men would gather teachers to themselves who would tickle their ears (cf. 2 Tim 4:4). But it does not necessarily follow that all men everywhere would necessarily choose evil teachers. Christians just might choose teachers who make them “feel” comfortable, who emphasize certain doctrines, and ignore others.

This perspective can be verified by noting that Church membership in America is directly related to social class. The higher the socio-economic ladder one climbs, the more one tends to be drawn to specific denominational affiliation (e.g., Episcopalians are mostly comprised of the top 2% of the population followed by Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists. Charismatics and Pentecostals, in general, tend to be made up of the poor and working class in American culture.).

Hence, doctrinal divisions may have more to do with social class, then genuine theological convictions. It may not be an accident that the best-educated segments of society are largely drawn to churches with the best-developed doctrinal systems. Furthermore it is significant that the higher one’s socio-economic status, the less appropriate are overt displays of emotion. Thus, those who come from poor or working class backgrounds are not only more comfortable, but may actively seek out churches where emotions, not intellect are more highly valued. Since emotion and experience, rather than academics are valued, such churches are more likely to adopt, permit or even encourage doctrinal error. It also works the other way. Historically, it can be argued that Presbyterian churches were so enthralled by impeccable academic credentials that they STILL insist on their seminary professors having degrees from prestigious secular universities, even though this led directly to theological liberalism and apostasy.

Now granted, this tendency is a general rule, with many notable exceptions. But if this analysis holds up, it does help to explain WHY there exist such differences in doctrine between various evangelical Christians in American culture today. The plurality of churches allows believers of similar temperament and values to gather together in places where they feel comfortable because experience, not doctrine is considered the essence of the Christian life. The pastors and teachers are never exposed to a more structured and consistently Biblical doctrine because it is not deemed necessary to their ministries. Since one cannot teach what one does not know, the average Christian is seldom given the opportunity or the motivation to develop a better theological understanding of the Scriptures.

Toleration

Whether we like it or not, approve of it or not, or accept it or not, doctrinal differences exist and not all those differences are heresy, or even necessarily harmful. Romans fourteen is clear that there are some issues that each individual must decide before God for himself, being “convinced in his own mind.” No one else can judge their conscience in these matters. In New Testament times, with a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles, the matter of food was crucial. Some could not in good conscience eat meat sacrificed to idols. Others could and did. The Apostle Paul was very clear that no one should judge another on something like this. Though some knew that food sacrificed to idols was harmless, others did not have this same understanding. If they ate, their consciences would be defiled and they would have been in sin.

It is significant to note that Paul does NOT rebuke the “weaker” brother for not having better theology. Instead, he warns the “stronger” brother not to allow something as mundane as food to become a cause of division. It would appear then that God is more gracious towards us, even in our error, than we are often towards one another.

Hence the Scriptures allow a degree of tolerance on some issues that some of us today would find difficult to accept. Tolerance can of course become an excuse for intellectual laziness or even an abandonment of ultimate truth. But perhaps we should consider the issue of “tolerance” from an engineering perspective. For an engineer, “tolerance” has to do with how closely two things have to fit together to operate acceptably. An example of this is the old Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol. Developed to counter the drug induced charges of the Moro guerillas in the Philippines, the U.S. Army needed a hard hitting, and reliable side-arm for its officers (the men had rifles, the officers had only pistols. Reports had some officers shooting guerillas six times with their .38 revolvers and still being killed by their machete wielding attackers).

The original 1911 had extremely sloppy tolerances (some old timers insisted that if you held it up to the sun, you could actually see daylight through parts of it). However, the loose tolerances allowed the 1911 to operate even in the harshest environments. It did not jam easily. Even in wet, muddy, jungle conditions, it continued to function reliably. It was NOT the most accurate handgun in the world, but it was a reliable one.

Though replaced by the Beretta 92, the Colt 1911 is still a popular handgun and widely used in shooting competitions. However, to increase accuracy, the TOLERANCES have been significantly tightened. Special tighter barrels, bushings and slides have all been designed to increase accuracy out to literally 100 yards. But the push for accuracy and the tighter tolerances makes the gun less inherently reliable. It jams more easily, requiring barrels to be throated and polished to feed ammunition reliably. It must be cleaned regularly and lubricated properly. In many respects, a custom-built 1911 is the finest handgun in the world, just don’t get it dirty. And all the work needed is too expensive for the casual shooter.

In many respects, this aspect of “tolerance” illustrates the problem facing the church. Yes, increased accuracy is desirable, but it comes at a cost that at this point in time, in this stage of the sovereign work of God in history, that the average Christian is not willing or able to pay. There does appear to be in Scripture an acceptable degree of “tolerance” (in the engineering use of the term) that we are expected to deal with.

In the past two thousand years, we have made great strides in developing a comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures. There is no doubt that the high-water mark of Christian theology was the Reformation and the great Reformation creeds. But the reality is that some of the brethren (and let us be honest here, at the present time, MOST of the brethren) no longer share that understanding. Baptists and Methodists combined, at the time of the American War of Independence made up less than 10% of the population. Now, Reformed churches of ALL stripes probably make up less than 10% of just the Christian population. As a consequence, large segments of broad evangelicalism now hold to some form of Dispensationalism, Arminianism or Pentecostalism. Now ANY error is serious and has repercussions on every aspect of the Faith. A strong case can be made that the church militant has largely lost the battle for Western culture as a direct result of embracing these errors.

Yet it is no good saying they “ought” to know better, because the reality is, they “don’t” know any better and it does not look as if they will learn better any time soon. Broad evangelicals profess their faith in Christ, baptize in His name, build churches to his glory, and do the work of the ministry. Even in Reformed churches, surveys will show that a significant number of their members were brought to faith in Christ through various broad evangelical churches or ministries. Obviously, from our perspective, they could do all these things BETTER if they had better doctrine. But only the worst sort of sectarian nonsense would deny that God is at work in broad evangelical churches.

Hence tolerance in this sense is not simply leveling the playing field where all doctrines are reduced to the lowest common denominator, but rather the recognition that God in His grace uses ALL of His people to bring about His will, despite all OUR error and sin. There are no perfect people, no perfect churches and no one with perfect doctrine, but God uses all just the same. Hence even as we encourage our brother to develop a better and more consistent understanding of the Scriptures, we ought also be aware of the fact that God is using them. Furthermore, occasionally, there just may be things that He is doing through them that He is NOT doing through us and we might actually be able to learn something from them.

Liberty of Conscience

The great Reformation creeds define liberty of conscience as freedom from the commandments of men that are contrary to the Word of God, or beside it (WCF 20:2). God alone has the authority to bind our conscience and require our faith and obedience. Furthermore, the Word of God is NOT absolutely clear on all points in all places. The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture says that all things necessary for God’s glory, man’s salvation, faith and life are expressly set forth in Scripture or discovered by good and necessary consequences (WCF 1:6). But still the illumination of the Holy Spirit is required for men to understand these things. Even the Apostle Peter says that the Apostle Paul wrote many things, “difficult to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). Thus not all men have the same measure of illumination. Not all men have the same degree of understanding. And not all men agree to what is a “good and necessary consequence.”

Therefore at the end of the day, Christians have to realize that not all differences are heresy. There needs to be grace given to another, who may not yet have attained our degree of doctrinal accuracy. In this life, they may NEVER achieve our desired level of understanding. Brothers MAY sincerely disagree with each other on certain issues; and God may be more concerned with how we handle the disagreement, then with who was right and who was wrong.

Like iron sharpening iron (Pvbs 27:17), so we ought to strive to encourage, exhort and admonish each other to arrive at a better, deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the Word (Col 3:16). Hence we ought not to judge, but to serve one another, trusting that each man stands accountable before God for his labor (Rms 14:4). We do not have to give up on the truth and accuracy of doctrine to realize that God is truly present in another church, or believer, that He is working in them and through them according to His divine plan.

The challenge of course is for those who DO have a better understanding of the faith to bring their brothers along without the arrogant and contemptuous attitude to often too common among some Reformed churches. If we have the truth (as we sincerely believe we do) then let us demonstrate that truth by loving and serving our brothers. The Chalcedon Foundation has come under criticism occasionally from other Reformed ministries because of its willingness to teach Charismatics. We speak at their churches, teach at their conferences and occasionally even train some of their pastors. As a result, there are increasing numbers of Charismatic churches that have adopted a more consistently Biblical worldview. No, they probably will not be applying to the OPC any time soon for membership. But they have discovered the doctrines or grace, they have come to love the Law of God as the expression of His unchangeable nature, they have adopted an optimistic eschatology and are willing to apply their faith in their work, community, nation etc.

Jesus said that the mark of greatness in the Kingdom is being the servant of all (e.g., Mark 10:45). To serve requires humility and grace. A love for truth does not require contempt for those who do not yet know, as we think they ought to know. But reformed Christians in particular would do well to remember that love and truth are NEVER to be pitted against one another (cf. 1 Cor 8:1). If we truly have the truth, then it ought to be demonstrated by grace and peace and a dedication to winning our errant brothers, not condemning them or judging them. Therefore let us exhort, admonish, encourage and teach our brothers, demonstrating by the grace of our speech, the purity of our love and the sacrifice of our labors that the truth of God is with us. For in so doing, the ancient church conquered the world in the name of King Jesus. And in so doing, will we achieve victory over the nations.

_____________________

Winning Arguments and Losing Friends; Proverbs on Resolving Conflicts

At first, one might ask what “Conflict Resolution” has to do with the issue of “authority.” The original version of this essay was written over a decade ago to help some brothers who were in conflict with various authorities. We started from some general principles and then as the essay went on, specifically applied them to various real world situations. If you disagree with your authority on any issue, you have a conflict; now the issue is how you resolve it!

Conflicts have been eating at the Christian Church since the time of the Lord Jesus (remember John and James angling for power?). None of us have yet been perfected; all of us will sin against God and each other. Thus conflicts are inevitable. Ideally, impartial church courts, governed by wise and compassionate elders, ought to help us resolve conflicts appropriately. Sadly, not all of us have good churches. Sadly, not all good churches have good elders. Even the best churches with the best elders can make bad decisions. Ultimately each of us is responsible to God for how we live our lives. His word clearly tells us how to live wisely, justly, kindly and in peace. Self-governed men must take personal responsibility for studying the Scriptures and working to apply them in daily life.

The following principles from the book of Proverbs are offered as a primer on resolving conflicts Biblically. The issue is not so much that conflicts occur, but whether we handle them according to God’s commands.

Winning at the Cost of a Relationship

First, whenever in a conflict situation, we need to remember Proverbs 28:26; “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but he who walks wisely will be delivered.” Our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). There is a “natural” tendency to blame others for the problem (going all the way back to Adam in the garden). Some of us seem to have a pathological need to be right and use every trick in the lawyer’s handbook to convince ourselves and others that “I’ve been wronged!” We can always find reasons, excuses, and rational-izations to justify our actions; and why someone else’s was “wrong.” Proverbs 21:2 “Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the hearts.” Just because we are sincerely convinced that we are right, does not necessarily mean that we are.

Often, the situation may not be as clear cut as we think it is. Over the years, I have spent many, many hours mediating disputes between Christians. I have learned the hard way that when two people have a conflict, part of the problem is almost always that neither side really understood what the other was saying. Both may have made unwarranted assumptions about what the other side intended, or read too much into something. Neither may have understood what the other person actually said or put the worst possible interpretation on their actions.

Life is often far more complicated than most of us appreciate; issues are not always clear cut. Usually, Christians have (at least in their own minds), “good” intentions behind whatever they said or did that led to a conflict. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to plead his case seems just until another comes and examines him.” Therefore, rather than getting upset with others and wanting to prove ourselves right and them wrong, we all need to exercise a little humility, a little kindness, a little patience. We can often defuse a situation before it blows up into a disaster. But if our primary motivation is to be “right” and we hate to be corrected, then we are setting ourselves up for judgment; “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge but he who hates reproof is stupid (Proverbs 12:1).”

Hence we need to ask ourselves, “Is being ‘right’ really all that important?” What benefit to win an argument here, only to be judged by God in eternity? And what folly to lose God’s blessing by being right, but in the wrong way, with the wrong attitude (1 Cor 8:1ff)? Therefore Christians need to develop a gentle and contrite heart, open to correction from others, lest we harden ourselves to the Spirit’s conviction. Isaiah 66:2 says “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”

So if we cannot trust our own heart, what do we do? “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes but a wise man is he who listens to counsel (Proverbs 12:15). We need to seek out wisdom by asking others for counsel. This does not mean trying to get other people on our side; and it certainly is not a loophole for gossip. Again, that wicked and deceitful heart can lead us to seeking out people who will agree with us rather than actually lovingly tell us the truth. For what it is worth, I think the primary duty of elder is to adjudicate problems, showing believers how the unchanging principles of God’s Moral Law applies to their specific problems, concerns and conflicts. Therefore, the godly man will join a church with wise elders, and then seek their counsel when he has a problem.

Kindness and Truth are not Opposed

A second principle of resolving conflicts biblically comes from Proverbs 3:3 “Do not let kindness and truth leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favor and good repute in the sight of God and man.” Both kindness and truth are important. The two go together. Sadly in this age when truth is so regularly compromised, Christians tend to be either “kind” or “truthful.” This is an unbiblical dichotomy. Kindness is the setting by which the beauty of truth is displayed. Proverbs 25:11-12 “Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken in right circumstances. Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise reprover to a listening ear.” Notice the result, “favor and good repute.” Sometimes, when we run into opposition, especially when standing for the truth, the cause might not have been the truth, but our lack of kindness. We’re right, we know we’re right and we darn well want everyone else to know we’re right! And we don’t care what effect that has on others.

Sometimes, perhaps it is not our stand that gets us into trouble, but the lack of kindness in the way we take that stand. There is an unholy delight that comes from being right and proving others wrong; Paul discusses this temptation in 1 Corinthians 8:1ff. However, if someone knows that our intention is to love them, support them, assist them, come along side and help them, if we have demonstrated repeatedly a humble spirit in our relations with them by serving them (Mark 10:45) and putting their interests before our own (Phil 2:1ff), then they are more likely to receive correction. There is never an excuse for being bitter, scathing, short tempered, harsh or nasty with each other. It’s sin.

But what happens if we do everything right and the other person still won’t listen? Proverbs 9:7-9 says “He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, and he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you, reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser, teach a righteous man, and he will increase his learning.” If we won’t take criticism or correction we are fools, pure and simple. Yet all of us know too many “Christians” who cannot handle criticism on any level. And often, the worst offenders are our leaders. You know the sort, they fly into a rage if questioned and they intimidate everyone around them. They effectively isolate themselves from any kind of reproof. But since we value their gifts more than their character, we continue to support them, encourage them and work for them. Which is worse, being a fool, or following one?

Stop Digging Yourself Further into the Hole

A third principle from Proverbs is found in 10:19 says “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise.” In a conflict, many of us desperately want to state our case as loudly and as often (and to as many people) as we can. Sometimes, we need to learn how to stay quiet. Proverbs 17:28 says “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.” (The humanistic parallel is “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”). The more we open our moth speak the more opportunity we have to put a foot firmly in it. Instead of stating our case (or rehashing it in our minds) we need to learn how to listen. God may be trying to tell us something; but you can’t listen, if you’re talking.

This is especially important when the conflict is between us and one of God’s authorities. Remember Peter’s instructions to wives on how to win disobedient husbands (1 Ptr 3:1ff)? Since she is in a subordinate position, sometimes a wife’s only weapon is trust in the sovereignty of God. Knowing when not to say something may be as important as what to say. Sometimes an authority (i.e., a pastor, elder, husband, parent, boss, etc.) is dead wrong. Restraining the lips, biting back that critical word and letting the authority find out for himself that he was wrong, is sometimes the only option. It is not a matter of peace at any price, but the acknowledgment that God is sovereign. In submitting to our authorities, it is our duty to bring sin and failure to their attention. But sometimes, rather than a direct rebuke, a searching question might be the better tactic, giving them an opportunity to find out for themselves they are wrong.

Proverbs 25:15 says “By forbearance a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue breaks the bone.” There are definite tactics required when confronting authority. A direct, head to head knock down argument is seldom appropriate. (I know; someone is going to bring up the example of Nathan and David. OK, when God anoints you as a prophet and gives you direct, special revelation, then you too can go head to head with the King.) God demands respect for those He has placed in authority over us. The Apostle Paul apologized for speaking badly of the High Priest, even though the he had been unlawfully beaten (Acts 23:1-5)!

Gossips Destroy Relationships

Many Christians though will not directly confront authority (or anyone else). Instead, they violate Proverbs 11:13, “He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.” Often when some of us have a complaint against another, the first thing we do is try to recruit others. We want the approval of men rather than God. And therefore we reveal secrets. We bear tales. We talk to anyone and everyone about the problem (except the people actually involved). We get on the phone to tell everyone how badly we have been treated. Maybe we write letters and send them to the entire congregation. Perhaps we even set up web-sites where we try to make our case to the world! Congratulations! You have just become a gossip; the kind of person condemned in the strongest possible language in Scripture associated with murderers, sodomites and apostates!

Here’s a simple life principle: if you want to get people really mad at you so that reconciliation becomes almost impossible, then make their mistakes public or talk behind their backs. Not only does this make it harder for others to acknowledge their error, but like cancer, it spreads frustration, anger and bitterness throughout the body. Proverbs 25:23 “The north wind brings forth rain, and a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance.” There is a cause and effect relationship here. The more people gossip, the more discord and animosity are spread. But some people do not seem to care what damage they cause to anyone; they think they have been wronged and they will get even!

Worse yet, many of us listen to these wicked people. We forget Proverbs 18:17 “The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him.” We take an unholy delight in hearing bad things about others and then develop a negative predisposition before we have heard the facts. A minor problem soon escalates into a major conflict. Families are divided, fellowship broken, good churches ruined, all because we wanted to hear some juicy gossip about another! I admit to a certain degree of personal frustration here; I have seen entire Presbyteries adjudicate a conflict based on nothing more than rumor and gossip. I have the documents in my own case files where one man would make a false accusation to some elders, who did not rebuke him for gossip, but rather received and believed the report and then started a chain of events that destroyed innocent men. I have emails and personal correspondence from people all over the world who ask me to take a stand on some conflict they have with others; they do not want my counsel just my support for their “side” of the issue.

Instead of complaining about another, Proverbs 13:3 requires “The one who guards his mouth preserves his life; the one who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.” Too many Christians go at each other like cannibalistic piranhas over the silliest issues. But why not just let some things go? OK, your brother offended you. He sinned. Surprise, surprise, he’s a sinner saved by grace, just like you. Is the issue worth getting upset, angry, gossiping about, etc.? Proverbs 17:9 is appropriate here: “He who covers a transgression seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates intimate friends.” In the grand scheme of God’s omnipotent plan, is this something that’s really important? Every conflict involves a cost and we need to learn how to “pick the hill carefully you want to die on.” Discretion says that not every battle needs be fought at this time, at this place. Grace is allowing God to work on someone, at His time. Love is not breaking fellowship over pride or hurt feelings. And it’s time to start calling this kind of backbiting foolishness just what it is, sin, and God’s people must repent of it.

Proverbs 21:23 “He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles.” But there are some brothers, God bless ‘em, who seem to take a positive delight in being cantankerous, critical and nasty. They’re looking for an excuse to fight with someone, anyone, over anything! And often (too often) the more solidly “Reformed” they are, the more unpleasant they are to be around. They have this wonderful tool called “Reformed Theology” and they just don’t know what to do with it. They’re like a little boy with a hatchet, chopping up the furniture because it’s so much fun to see things go “splinter!” Likewise, we end up cutting each other up, as the world goes to hell around us. No wonder the Christian church is ridiculed. We so often act ridiculous!

A Gentle Answer

Proverbs 15:1-2 “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, but the mouth of fools spouts folly.” Here, is the solution to 95% of conflict and confrontation problems between believers. If we could just learn how to speak gently with each other, we could resolve most problems before pride and arrogance blows them up into major conflicts. If instead of coming out with that snapping, biting word, and instead, learn to keep our voice calm, our words sweet, our attitude humble, most conflicts would die on the vine, and even the most recalcitrant won. But we allow our anger to feed on the other’s, which feeds on ours which feeds on their’s… ad nauseam. Proverbs 30:33 says, “For the churning of milk produces butter, and pressing the nose brings forth blood; so the churning of anger produces strife.” Christians need to learn how to stop the spiral. Some of us still use school yard ethics, “but he hit me first” and think we are justified in hitting back. But God says, “Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead…” (1 Ptr 3:9). Anger is a motivational emotion God gives us to resolve a problem. It is not an excuse for strife. Our task is always to speak that which builds up, never to tear down (Eph 4:28-29).

A gentle answer is one that respects the other, that comes from a humble heart, that believes in another and will not “receive a bad report” about them. It is the manner we project and the words we use that determines whether anger is stirred up, or wrath is turned away. Expressions of affection and respect in a gentle and kind tone, will do much to make one’s rebuke acceptable. This principle works, even if we don’t get it exactly right! I remember once having an almost violent conflict with my boss at the time, a Christian leader well known for his “firm” manner. While I no longer remember what we were arguing about (except that I am sure I was right and he was wrong!), I do recall thinking it was just about time to step outside and roll up the shirt sleeves, when Proverbs 15:1-2 came to mind. I was so angry, I was still shouting when I said, “I love you like a father and I deeply appreciate all the years of friendship and guidance you’ve given me and you’re my boss and I’ll darn well shut up now and do what you say.” The silence that followed my bellow, lasted an eternity. I then noticed my brother’s cheeks getting wet. After that I didn’t see so well (must have gotten something in my eyes or something). We ended up hugging, expressing respect and love for each other. Giving a gentle answer (even in a less than gentle way!) was enough to break through the conflict so that we could talk reasonably.

Learning How to Persuade

Proverbs 16:23-24 says, “The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, and adds persuasiveness to his lips. Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.” The sweetness here is defined as pleasant words which heal. The purpose of confrontation is always to bring about healing, rather than just condemnation (or to demonstrate that we are right), (Gal 6:1ff). Therefore no matter how badly our brothers have blown it, we have a duty to make it as easy for them as we can, to repent of their error and get back on track.

Make Sure You Have ALL the Facts

Proverbs 18:13 says, “He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.” I paraphrase this as “Did you get all the facts before you tore them to pieces?” And the application is simple, before condemning, ask questions. I am amazed at how often Christians fight over such stupid things. But even more amazing is the tendency to fight even when they are agreed! But because they are more interested in opening their mouths rather than their ears, they fail to understand what the other person was really saying. Seriously! In counseling cases, I’ve often seen people scream at each other, and they were both saying the same thing! (Of course, both were rebuked, firmly, for shouting). James 1:19-20 is clear, we need to be slow to speak and slower to anger. The anger of men does not accomplish the righteousness of God.

Stiff Necks will be Broken

Finally, Proverbs 29:1 needs to be remembered: “A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy.” Some Christians just do not get it. Though a quick wit, an acerbic tongue and a condescending attitude may win arguments, they break fellowship. Often God disciplines such people with emotional, physical and even financial pain. But some people will not listen. And eventually, God will judge them, their families, their churches and their ministries.

I firmly believe that in every conflict situation, no matter what the issue, God is primarily concerned with developing within us the character of Christ (Rms 8:28-29). He could build His kingdom very nicely without us, but He is building His Kingdom through building the character of His people (1 Ptr 2:4-5). Thus in His sovereignty, He often places us in positions where our sins are exposed and we are given constant opportunities to develop into the image of His Son. Furthermore, it is through our weakness that His glory is magnified (1 Cor 1:26-31). But until we can apply the Law in the little things in life, God will never entrust us with the greater things.

_____________________

Forgiveness

(Both those in authority as well as those under authority are going to sin against each other; therefore everyone needs to be reminded of how God expects us to deal with offences. Both tyranny and rebellion break covenant relationships. The doctrine of forgiveness is what allows those relationships to be healed and restored)

Perhaps the one fundamental fact that all Christians, regardless of their other doctrinal differences can agree on, is that we are all sinners, saved by the grace and mercy of God. Furthermore, though saved from sin, we still sin, failing our Lord (and each other) every day, in thought, word and deed. And, in sinning against God, we often sin against one another.

Yet how do most Christians respond when someone upsets them? Many act shocked, outraged that someone would dare say or do something that offends them. At least this is what one must conclude after listening to the long litany of whines, moans, and complaints characteristic of the average Christian. Sure, the offense hurts, but much of the sting can be taken away if we understand and are already convinced of this esoteric spiritual truth: “sinners, sin.” Did you get that? Sinners sin. They sin against God, and they sin against each other. And we are all sinners saved by grace. And though we ought to expect growth, development and maturity in the Christian life, every single Christian is going to fall short of His glory and fail Him and each other regularly.

The issue is not so much that all sin but rather, how do we handle sin when it occurs? Sadly, this oh so basic question is seldom asked and even less frequently answered. Yes many churches pray it every week in the Lord’s Prayer. The answer to sin is forgiveness. But all one has to do is look at the average church and to see fractured relationships, bruised egos and deeply rooted bitterness to discover that most Christians do not understand or practice the concept of forgiveness.

Defining the Terms:

The Bible uses several Greek words that we translate as “forgive.” The word “aphimi” means “to send away” with the idea of not only remitting the punishment but the cause of the offense as well. Hence forgiveness has the idea that someone owes you a debt, and you don’t require them to pay it. You even go so far as to forget the cause of the debt as well. Here is the root difficulty most people have forgiving others. You see, we do not want to remit the penalty. To the contrary, we want vengeance. We want to get our own back. It is only “natural” to want to do unto others, what they just did to you.

But our model of behavior is not the twisted values of this cursed world, bur rather the unchangeable nature and character of God Almighty Himself. We have to forgive, because as new creations (2 Cor 5:17) being conformed into the image of Christ (Rms 8:29) we must put off the old way of doing things (Eph 4:19ff) and learn to act like God (1 Cor 11:1). Since He has forgiven us for our sins against Him, we have to forgive others for their sins against us!

Another Greek word (charidzomai) means to bestow a favor unconditionally. When someone has wronged us, it is grace (unmerited favor) that allows us to forgive them. Just as God in Christ has forgiven us, we also forgive others. Notice that neither Greek word says anything about ignoring the very real costs of an offense. Forgiveness is not saying, “Hey, it was no big deal.” To the contrary, the terms almost require us to recognize that someone owes us a debt. But the focus is not the debt, but our response to it and that makes all the difference in how we handle it.

Forgiveness therefore is a self-conscious decision not to hold an offense against another in our attitudes, thoughts, actions, words, and thus emotions. The objective basis for forgiving others is that we ourselves have been forgiven in Christ. And just as we must be humble before God, acknowledge our guilt and ask for his forgiveness, we also need to practice being humble towards one another. Perhaps the seven hardest words in the English language are: “I have been wrong, please forgive me.” Yet these words hold the key to rebuilding relationships, restoring fellowship, edifying our brother and preserving the unity of the family, friendships and the church. But what are these things to keeping our pride intact, our stiff necks proudly unbowed, our churches divided, our families broken and our friendships shattered!

Just as it is difficult to ask for forgiveness, some of us find it nearly impossible to give it, even though we know full well that God demands it. There is some nasty tendency in some of us to cling onto grievances like a maladjusted child with a thumb in his mouth and a grubby blanket gripped tightly in his hands. Some of us seem to like holding onto pain, worrying old injuries like that same child picking at a scab.

Many people come in for counseling who have been grievously wronged by someone. Sometimes it is someone very close, so the wound is even more painful. Often when I tell them that they must forgive, they respond, “Oh, I can forgive, but I can never forget.” Well, they never forget because they have never forgiven. The human mind is an amazing thing. God has so arranged it that if we do not keep constantly picking at something, the molecule strings that make up memory become weaker and weaker over time. One of the tricks to a good memory is constant review; the more you go over something, the fresher and more real it is to you. Hence, when someone constantly rehashes old wounds, injuries, hurts and complaints, it can form a molecular chain so strong that the event controls our lives. But forgiveness basically says, “I will not bring up this issue again, either to the offender, to others, to God or myself.” It is that commitment that actually breaks the hold that painful wrongs have over us.

Forgiveness requires letting go of the pain. It is a wonderful thing indeed when someone who has injured us comes and makes restitution. But sometimes, that is not going to happen. Sometimes they will not repent. Sometimes, they can’t (for example, they may have died). But we can still cling on to the pain. In this case, love covers a multitude of transgressions and when the memory and pain returns, we simply say, “that has been forgiven.” We tell ourselves every time the Adversary brings it up, “but that has been forgiven.” We replace the pain of an offense with the truth of God’s Word and eventually, the love of God covers that transgression and the pain will go away.

Forgiveness requires a positive attitude toward the offense rather than a negative attitude toward the offender. God is sovereign. He is in control. And as a good friend of mine says, “God is more concerned about your character, than your comfort.” Each and every injury done to us can become a tool in God’s hands to conform us into the image of Christ (cf. Rms 8:29) if we will see it that way. There will come a time, when every wrong will be righted, when every tear shall be dried, when the pains and turmoil caused by our sin will fade away. The future belongs to God’s elect. And therefore we can say with confidence, “While I don’t know why God allowed this painful thing to happen, I do know that He can only do what is right. Therefore I can praise Him, and obey Him, and trust that He will work it all out in the end.”

Forgiveness Is A Non-Optional Principle

You see, we had better develop just that attitude towards offenses, because we have no other choice. God demands forgiveness. It is “non-optional.” It is part and parcel of the salvation that Christ purchased for is. We must forgive because it is commanded (Lk 17:3 Eph 4:32, Col 3:13). Once we hold an offense, then God has an offense against us because we are disobeying His explicit command.

Furthermore, we must forgive because we are commanded to put other’s interests before our own (Phil 2:2ff). The Christian life is not lived in isolation. We are a part of the body, and a body that wars against itself is sick and diseased. God’s solution is that just as Christ laid aside His glory and dwelt among us to serve us, so also are we to lay aside our own glory and seek to serve one another. We do not have to look out for our own personal interests (Phil 2:4), God will take care of those. We are commanded to imitate Christ and serve each other’s best. Therefore, as God in Christ has forgiven us, we in Christ MUST forgive one another.

Granted, there are cases where men sin against us, and out of love for Him and them we confront their sin so that we might restore them. But do you see the difference in confronting sin so that our brother may be granted repentance and be restored and holding on to a injury because it offends our dignity? The one is done for the glory of God and the edification of our brother. The other is to salvage our own pride.

If we do not forgive, then eventually bitterness will set in. Bitterness is a sin that not only destroys the soul, but has serious physical consequences as well. Secular research demonstrates that bitter people suffer terrible physical trauma; i.e., chemical imbalances in the brain that can cause bizarre behavior, sleep deprivation that wears out the body and allows toxins to build up, and lead directly to psycho-physiological disorders such as colitis, ulcers, high blood pressure skin disease headaches, back pains, cancer, heart disease etc. It just ain’t healthy not to forgive!

As if the physical problems were not bad enough, lack of forgiveness and bitterness ruins our spiritual lives as well. The apostle John is clear, if you don’t love your brother, then you don’t love God (1 Jn 4:20). Give all the money you want, attend all the church services you like, polish your doctrine until it is theologically impeccable, but if you do not forgive others, if you hold bitterness, anger and malice towards others, then God says, in reality, you don’t love Him. And if we regard iniquity in our heart, then God says, He will not hear us (Psa 66:18).

Many people who come to me with doubts about their relationship to God often suffer a lack of assurance because of the bitterness and lack of forgiveness they have towards others. Sometimes the injuries are real, sometimes they are just thin skinned. Regardless, they hold onto the hurt and focus on how badly they were wronged. As a result, God never seemed so far away, they get nothing from the Scriptures, prayer is a dry, dull ritual, and worship like chewing mud. They are separated from God because they are separated from each other.

The simple fundamental fact is that we must forgive because otherwise we will not be forgiven (Matt 6:15). How dare we hold an offense against another, when God in Christ has forgiven us? Do we not understand the very parable given on this issue? No offense on earth can begin to compare with the unholy wickedness that is the human heart before a holy God. Yet God, loved us so much, that Christ died for us. We did not deserve it, we cannot earn it, but God graciously gives forgiveness to His elect. Therefore, for someone to claim the name of Christ, and yet arrogantly say that he will not forgive is actually to say that “My standards are higher than God’s. My rights are more important. I have been wounded more.” This is blasphemy! And if someone does not repent of his lack of forgiveness, his hard heart and arrogant pride, then he demonstrates that he does not have the Spirit of Christ.

How to Forgive Others

Since forgiveness is so vital to every aspect of the Christian life, it is crucial that we learn how to develop right attitudes about offenses. At the risk of being repetitious, we have got to understand the sovereignty of God. God is working through the actions of the offender. No matter what their intention might have been, God was there. He did not go on vacation, he was not side tracked by another issue because you were not important to His plan. To the contrary, the doctrine of the immensity of God says that He fills every point of space with His entire being. When you were being wounded, God was there. Yes, He could have prevented the hurt, if He had so desired. But God chooses to suffering as a divine tool (cf. 1 Ptr 4:12). Rather than rail against the offender, or against God, we need to see that God is working on us in every situation, but especially during the most difficult ones, doing deep heart surgery. And yes, that surgery is painful, and the recuperation time might be long. But ultimately and finally, if we submit ourselves to His grace and trust in His beneficence, He will heal and restore us.

Will we always know why we suffer? No, not always. But then it becomes an issue of trust. Is God our father? Is He sovereign? Does He have our best in mind? Do we want to be vessels by which He is glorified? Let us never forget that to a certain degree, the pagan Roman Empire was won to Christ as the martyrs marched into the arena singing His praises.

Therefore, bitterness is not an option. If we are embittered by the wrongs we suffer from others, we are in effect, blaming God. We ought to be willing to suffer for doing right (1 Ptr 2:19) and in so doing, we have the strength of Christ to forgive, even as we are forgiven.

Secondly, we need to develop right responses when offended. It is not mindless pietism to thank God in faith for His sovereignty for whatever happens in life. We all know Romans 8:28, and the “all things” certainly includes the slight, the harsh word, the betrayal of trust, or whatever it was that offended us. We need to remind ourselves that EVEN THIS will work out for good according the God’s providence. It is not our responsibility to know what the good is, just to trust in God that He will do what He has said He will do.

It is never inappropriate for us to try and discern what character traits God is trying to build in us through hurtful situations. God is working on our character, and usually the offense that hurts the most, is right where we need character work the most. Hence, offensives must be seen as opportunities. God wants us to develop the character of Christ (Rms 8:29) and here is one more opportunity He has given us to do exactly that! We must learn to say, “Lord you are sovereign, you allowed this to happen, what do you want me to learn, what Christ-like character trait to develop, what sin to forsake?” If nothing else, let the pain of an offense drive us deeper into God’s arms, in child-like trust that our Heavenly Father can and will make all things better.

A fundamental Biblical principle, almost universally violated in dealing with offenses and forgiveness is found in 1 Ptr 5:9 “do not return evil for evil or insult for insult, but give a blessing instead.” Their sin is never justification for similar sin on our part. Yet usually, when someone sins against us, we then feel justified sinning in return. Hence, when someone shouts at us, we shout back. If someone insults us, we feel justified in insulting back. If others hurt us, then the gloves are off and we think we can hurt back. However, in God’s economy, His elect are commanded to respond to people in certain ways. We must not return evil for evil. When we are insulted, we give a blessing instead. We are controlled, not by our emotions, but the Spirit of God.

And one of the wonderful, unexpected side benefits of obedience here is that our conscience is then clear to do both do and feel as we ought. Psychologists have long noted a relationship between what we say and do, and the emotional effects it has on us. Attitudes follow actions. If we do what is right, our feelings will come into line. Therefore, before a conflict, argument, spat, or disagreement becomes convoluted with sin, by simply refusing to return evil for evil, but instead giving the other person a blessing, we guard our own hearts from allowing bitterness, anger and malice to grow.

Fourthly, we need to make sure that we have a clean conscience by being willing to assume responsibility for our own sin ( ). Let us be honest, none of us is ever 100% right. Even if the other person was 95% wrong, we still must take the responsibility for our 5%. When we are right before God, we can then go with the right spirit and right attitude to our brother. This has the advantage of breaking down barriers. Vulnerability is often hard to achieve in human relations, yet is essential for developing intimacy. By acknowledging our own guilt, it helps to bring our brother to repentance. True, there are some people so hard hearted, so ungracious, so mean spirited that at every evidence of vulnerability they will turn on us like raging animals. But then they stand self condemned and God Himself will deal with them. But if our hearts are clean, and we are humble, then we can confront offenses in a Biblical manner (Mat 15:18, Gal 6:1 2 Tim 2:23 etc.).

Forgiveness is not just ignoring sin. Out of love we are commanded to go to one another, in gentleness and humility and confront our brother’s sin. It may be that in God’s providence we are the means by which God will restore him to Himself. But confrontation is never a super-spiritual way of getting back at someone. Our goal is to restore our brother, not revenge ourselves (Rms 12:19ff). We confront the offender privately first then with witnesses who can then verify the truthfulness of the offense (cf. Matt 18:15ff). We do not allow confrontations to degenerate into quarrels because we have already worked on our own attitudes first. Instead, we are kind to all (1 Tim 2:19ff) and patient knowing that only God can grant repentance. We can afford to be gentle and patient, because we are fore armed with the knowledge that God is sovereign, that He is working in our brother’s life, just as He is working in ours. We can give grace, because we have received grace.

And if our brother does not repent, then we tell it to the Church and let the church exercise it’s adjudication powers. If we have been slow to anger, allowing love to cover a multitude of transgressions, patient, even tempered, kind and gentle, then God will work. Sometimes, evil churches only show their true colors under the pressure of godly rebuke. But we can still forgive them, and allow God to judge them. But usually, if we approach the issue in the right way, with the right spirit and right intention, God will bless.

Conclusion:

People will frustrate you, hurt you, forsake you, disappoint you. Expect it, get used to the idea and when they do, the shock and pain will be less. Forgiveness requires us to say to God, and our brother, “I will remember your sin no more.” Therefore, do not dwell on the offense, talk to others about it or mull it over in your mind. When the hurt and pain arise, pray for that person, ask God’s grace and blessing for them. In the meantime, always treat the offender kindly, gently, lovingly. If you are in the right, God will judge the offender. We can afford to give a blessing, because we have inherited one.

Finally, the basic, fundamental principle that ought to govern all our relations with each other is “love covers a multitude of transgressions.” Does God smite you hip and thigh for every single violation of His Law that you commit every day? No? Then if God who is only holy and righteous can forbear your sins against Him, how can you forebear your brother, granting forgiveness even before he asks?

Granted, there are sins against God that require church discipline. Granted there are hard hearted people who are factious and divisive and Scripture requires us to separate from them (Titus 3:10). But even so, we mourn for them, we pray for their repentance and we seek for their restoration. If we would just forgive each other, and be kind to one another, then the entire world would line up to see this great miracle in their midst. And we would be ready to inherit the earth.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Christian Eschatology: The Irrelevance of the Modern Nation State of Israel to Biblical Prophecy
2. The Nature of Church Unity
3. Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation