Written By Aimee Hanson Many Christmas hymns you have been singing for years say that Jesus is king. It is pertinent to know what you are singing. Did you know what you are singing promotes theonomy? In Greek, theos means God, and nomos means law. It is defined as a society or government that is governed by God's law. If Christ is king, then God's law is what God uses to rule over His kingdom. The big question is: what did the hymn writers believe about God's kingdom? Let's start with Isaac Watts' hymn, Joy to the World: "Joy to the world! The Lord is come, Let earth receive her king!" Isaac Watts seemed to believe that Jesus was king over the whole world. That would mean the entire world is subject to God's law. Now where would he get that idea? I've learned that the hymn may have been based on Psalm 96 and Psalm 98. Psalm 98:4-6 recognizes that God is king over the earth. Another familiar song sung during Christmas is John Hopkins' We Three Kings. This hymn is about the wise men or magi who are also referred to as kings. Which we know came to worship Jesus as an infant. Each of the stanzas represents a particular magus who brought the corresponding gifts. The first magus sings these words: "Born a King on Bethlehem's plain, gold I bring to crown Him again, King forever, ceasing never, over us all to reign." John Hopkins believed that the wise men viewed Jesus as king over them who were gentiles, which obliviously comes from Matt 2:2. Another Christmas carol that carries the theme of theonomy is Hark the Herald Angel Sing. Charles Wesley wrote this hymn. Several Bible verses are believed to be the inspiration for this hymn. There are a few parts of this hymn that emphasis the kingship of Jesus. Check it out! In verse 1 "Hark! the herald angels sing, 'Glory to the newborn King' peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled!" In verse 2 "Christ by highest heav'n adored, Christ, the everlasting Lord! Late in time behold Him come, Offspring of a Virgin's womb Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, Hail the incarnate Deity Pleased as man with man to dwell Jesus, our Emmanual. And the chorus! "Hark! The herald angels sing, 'Glory to the newborn King'" Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 are prominently in view here. The one who would bring peace on earth also had the government on his shoulders as king. His government will increase as people submit to God's law (Is.9:7). Charles Wesley also wrote Come Thou long Expected Jesus. The second verse begins, "Born thy people to deliver, born a child and yet a King, born to reign in us forever, now thy gracious kingdom bring." One source I read noted that Charles Wesley had Psalm 145 in view as he wrote this hymn - which refers to God as king.
So you can see, everyone is a theonomist at Christmas! Or at least we sing as if we are. As we approach Christmas this year, take time to consider what you are singing. But better yet - live them!
0 Comments
Recently Pastor James Seward contributed an article to The Gospel Coalition entitled "A Word to American Christians from a Pastor in Canada." In that article, he pleads for American Evangelical Media to stop broadcasting stories about Billy - renegade Canadian pastors who go against the collective consensus and instead preach "jarringly candid sermon[s] that defies the law." Currently, there have been two excellent articles written in response to Seward's. One is from Jesse Gruber, an American pastor and podcaster who has been supporting and encouraging Billy. The other is from Jacob Reaume, a Billy who has been speaking out against the unlawful, immoral, and unjustified mandates that the government has been imposing (among other things). You can read their articles here and here, respectively.
I've been deciding whether to weigh in on this discussion or not. There are pastors and ministry leaders in Canada who are more articulate, reasoned, and experienced who have and no doubt will weigh in. I'm simply another voice joining the crowd. But God has given each one of us a voice, and we need to use it to glorify Him. Mind you, we don't want to muddy the waters any more than they have been. I pray that the words that I write will help the discussion and not hinder it. As a former Canadian pastor, I have a bit of experience in what it is like to minister in a Canadian culture. In the article, Pastor Seward rightly describes Canada as a sparsely populated country with a lack of cohesion and a scarcity of robust conventions, seminaries and denominations. This is an issue I have seen for a while. The biblically robust schools and conferences are in the states with schools such as Masters Seminary and conferences such as The Shepherd's Conference, Ligonier Conference, and G3. As a pastor, I always wanted to take part in these conferences to grow in my faith and be better equipped in my ministry. So yes, this is an area that is lacking and needs to be addressed. But the solution to this is partnering with our neighbours down south and starting biblically robust seminaries and conventions. But even if things began here, we do indeed have a different culture. Again this is something I agree with Seward about. However, I see that Canada is not simply more liberal but more apathetic towards God and His Word. There aren't robust Bible schools, seminaries and conferences because, to put it plainly...we don't really desire that. So before anything happens regarding starting new conferences and schools, we need to be made alive and become hungry once again for God and His Word. We need revival to spread throughout Canada. And this is what is slowly taking place through the opposition that we are encountering. People are being challenged to understand what God's Word says. They are starting to ask hard questions and are demanding real answers. They are done with fluff and want meat. I know because this is my story. During the pandemic, I decided to take a pragmatic approach. Like many pastors, I went the way of online church. We would "gather" on zoom for worship. And I continued this for a bit, even after seeing the hurt that it caused my wife. That is until one of the Billy's by the name of James Coates was arrested. A pastor was daring to stand for his convictions and pay the consequence. This grabbed my attention. What happened next drove me to ask the tough questions. A trial date was set, Hinshaw was supposed to make a case as to why she implemented the mandates, but she was given a pass because she needed more time for gathering evidence. In my mind, the gig was up. There was no justification for the mandates. And now I had to figure out what to do. Do I continue to go along with fake church, or do I begin to ask the hard questions and see what the Bible had to say about what God requires of the church? Through different Billies, my wife's influence, and our family worship times, God led me to dig more into the Bible. These Billies aren't renegades. They are catalysts to revival. They are spurring on others to dig deep into God's Word and ask the tough questions that need to be asked. Without the Billies, the Canadian church will continue its fall into apostasy. We need to be awakened from our slumber. Now let's get into the heart of the article. Pastor Seward has gone on the offensive and characterized our southern neighbours, especially the American Evangelical media that supports Billy, as a 50lb weight throwing us off balance as we walk a tightrope in Canada. What an image, eh! What is this "tightrope" that Seward is referring to? There are indicators throughout the article that informs me Seward has in mind the balancing act of ensuring collective unity. He mentions that one of Canada's issues is cohesion due to being sparsely populated, making it hard to work together. He then describes Billy as a pastor with a history of divisiveness that "mocks our Canadian commitment to process" (which refers to the slow and fragile coordination to a collective response). There's a theme here, isn't there? Unity. Which is the golden calf of evangelicalism. Seward refers to a collective response that is shaped by the unique culture and government in Canada. This is the unity many pastors strive for. One that doesn't submit to the supremacy of scripture but to the influence of culture. It's a unity that seeks to please man and take its cues from what our neighbours think about our actions. Seward, along with many Canadian pastors, are walking this tightrope and he doesn't like how Billy and the American Evangelical Media is throwing off their equilibrium. He characterizes their actions as being a 50lb weight that the tightrope walker now must carry. This brings me to another question. What exactly are these Americans doing? Ministries such as Carpe Fide, Grace To You, Crosspolitics, the Dividing Line and others such as Owen Strachan are encouraging biblical obedience, not renegade anarchy. They are spurring us on to follow through with Hebrews 10:24-25. Isn't that what they should be doing? As brothers and sisters in Christ, should they not be encouraging and strengthening us to Biblical obedience? The answer is - Yes! (cf. Eph. 4:1). Unity is Seward's golden calf, and he doesn't want anyone disturbing it, especially the "American evangelical bullhorn." But here's the thing about unity – it's not always biblical. Those who built the Tower of Babel were united…but they were united in a cause that was in opposition to God. Sometimes we need Billy to stand up, go against the collective, speak the unadulterated Word of God, and call others to do the same. And Billy needs teammates…fellow Christians that will come alongside him, encourage him, and strengthen him to continue standing for what is right. This is what the Americans I mentioned are doing. Those who do this should never be considered a 50lb weight. Sure, Billy will cause people in churches across Canada to start asking the hard questions. But, shouldn't you expect that as a pastor? And shouldn't you have a reasoned response for what you have decided? Unless, of course, you are simply following the crowd or, worse yet, sacrificing your convictions on the altar of unity. Pastors, remember that the Bible warns about being "conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2). We are not to fit the mould of our culture. Our culture is fallen, our government is corrupt, and striving to be faithful to God will look counter-cultural today. If this worries you, perhaps it's time to step aside and let the men of faith lead. Get out of the way and let Billy stand and declare the truth in the public square. Stop pointing judgemental fingers at those in the south who support Billy as he confronts darkness in high places. Destroy the golden idol of evangelical unity and seek to please Jesus as His servant. Or, to put it another way – repent Do we have the right to own private property and use it as we see fit? This seems like a simple question to answer, yet it is crucial to consider. Why? Not only has our government been encroaching upon what we can do within our property, but Marxism stands in fierce opposition to private property. In his book, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx argued for the abolition of private property – more specifically, bourgeois property. He reasoned that owning personal property alienates people and causes oppression (ie. those with the wealth rule over the poor). The solution? All property is to be publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. By publicly owned, what is meant is owned by the state government. Some believe that this is a fair system. Some even go so far as to say that it's a biblical model. Those who believe this justify it by using Acts 2 and 4 as their defence, claiming that the church held all their property in common. What they fail to consider is the fact that those same passages indicate private ownership. They not only had the right to sell their property and give to those who were in need (Acts 2:44-45), but they also had the right to dictate how much to give (Acts 5:1-3). Maybe before we proceed any further, let's define the word property. Its most basic sense refers to something owned or possessed by a person, business, etc. (e.g. resources, land, houses, buildings, businesses). On a side note, a church building is typically considered private property since it is owned by a group that has purchased it. This detail may help you as you wrestle with the government's overreach over the church. But I digress. Private ownership of property is found throughout the Bible. A good case starts with the Ten Commandments. The seventh commandment, which forbids stealing (Ex. 20:15), implies private ownership since stealing is the action of taking another's person's property without permission or legal right. The tenth commandment is even more explicit. "You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17) To covet is to desire something that belongs to another. Yes, that's right…personal ownership of property is biblical! It's supported and protected by God and His law. God makes all attempts to take someone's property without permission or divine right a criminal offence (Ex. 20:15). Such ways include decree (1 Kings 21), force (Gen. 26:12-17) and fraud (Deut. 19:14). God even commanded that the boundary markers were not to be relocated since this would be theft (Deut. 27:17; Prov. 22:28; 23:10-11; Job. 24:2). God further ensured that personal property stayed within the family through the laws regarding Jubilee (Lev. 25:10) and the rights of redemption (Lev. 25:25; Jer. 32:7). God truly cares about family owning personal property. God is protective when it comes to personal ownership, the same can't be said about Marxism. Though Marxism tries to present itself as a solution to end oppression caused by the owning of private property, it is through the abolition of property that they seek to bring this about. Let's call it for what it is - theft! Those who embrace this philosophy seek to remove all boundary markers and take away property through government mandate, force and fraud (e.g. the promise of a better life). And since they specifically want the abolition of bourgeoises property – like Robin Hood, they seek to steal from the rich to give to the poor. So the first part of the question, therefore, has been answered. Do we have the right to own private property? Yes. But here's the thing – we don't have an absolute exclusive right to our property. Consider this verse: "The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers" (Psalm 24:1-2) Since God created all things (Gen. 1:1), He alone has absolute ownership over everything. That means none of us has total ownership over anything. We are limited by what God decrees and desires. In practice a Marxist government would hold to the belief that they have the absolute ownership over a person's property by taking it away. How else would they think they have the right to take away the property of the bourgeoise? So again, Marxism stands in opposition to God's word. Worse yet, a Marxist government puts itself on par with God's exclusive right of ownership. The disturbing thing is, we are already seeing this to some degree, and our society is going along with it. Many have been acting as if the government has absolute ownership over our home and business over the past eighteen months. How? By permitting them to place unlawful and unjustified mandates on who can open, how many can gather, and who can enter without objection. This is merely the beginning of something far worse. So how is it supposed to work? Well, lets think through this a bit more. When God created us, he appointed us as stewards of His property. Yes, there are ways in which we rightfully acquire property, such as through work (Prov. 10:4; 14:23), purchase (Gen. 23; Prov. 31:16), inheritance (Deut. 21:15; Prov. 19:14), trading (Prov. 31:18) and investment (Matt. 24:14-28). However, we are still only stewards of that property since it all belongs to God. God is the one who gives us the right to own property; it is the government who incrementally takes away that right. This is something we are warned about by God in the Bible. When Israel opted to have a king rule over them instead of God, God told the nation that the king would take away their property and put them into servitude (1 Samuel 8:10-18). Is it just me, or does that sound like what would happen under a Marxist government? God is a giver, and He has given to us not simply the right to own property but to exercise dominion over that property (Gen. 1:27-30; 2:15). This is the reason why God is protective of personal property. He desires that we reflect Him and exercise rule over the earth. Walter Kaiser Jr notes, "Private property is both a gift and a certain type of power God has entrusted to humanity as stewards. It was God's intention that mortals should be equipped with this gift and power and that under God they should exercise dominion over the earth". But what measure of rule do we have? Can we do anything we see fit to do with our property? We do indeed have freedom in how we use the property we have been given (Mt. 20:15). We can even defend it (Ex. 22:2-3), decide whether to sell it (1 Kings 21:3; Acts 4:36-5:4), and use/invest it to make a profit (Mt. 25:14-12). But are we completely free to do anything we desire? Let's think of God as the landowner and ourselves as the steward. With that picture before us, we know who ultimately is the one who decides what should happen with our property. The landowner is the one who establishes the rules and parameters, and the steward is accountable for carrying out and managing the land within those instructions. These rules and parameters have been handed to us by our master in His Word. So, what are some ways in which he wants us to use what we have been given? Well, as we flip through the scriptures, we see that he wants us to:
Some embrace Marxism because they see it as being more generous and caring to the poor and those who don't have the means to get ahead in life. Remember, Marxism believes that private ownership leads to oppression because the wealthy often takes advantage of the poor. But the abolition of private property is not the solution. The solution is using our property as stewards who seek to honour our master. Our master desires for us to be active in using what he has given us to bless others. Marxism impedes this and robs us of being an active agent of blessing to others. Instead of having to intentionally think about how we can care for the poor and show hospitality and generosity towards others, the government decides for us by taking away all ownership and spreading it around as they see fit. Let's wrap up. God has made every one of us stewards of His property and given us the right to exercise dominion over the property we have been given. God, not the government, is the one who dictates how our property is to be used – since absolute ownership belongs to Him as the creator of heaven and earth. For Marxism to promote the abolition of private ownership is to undermine God's authority and design. |
AuthorHello! I'm glad you found my blog. My name is David Hanson, and I am a concerned Christian who desires for the church of North America to become aware and begin to think biblically of what is happening around them in society. It's time for the church to awake and speak into the current events of the day. We alone have the truth to navigate life effectively. That truth is the Word of God. Archives
May 2022
Categories |