1. Today I want to talk about the topic of theonomy. But before we do that, can you share abit about who you are and where you're from with my readers?
Thanks again for opportunity. I professed Christ at a young age and slowly over time the grace of God has brought me into greater conformity to His Son. I am not there yet, but am humbled that God has chosen to save a sinner like myself. I love Christ and am always awed by His gospel, the simplicity of the gospel message and how it continues to change me. I am married to my wife of 12 years, with 3 amazing young boys and lots of lego. We homeschool our boys which means mom is a very busy mom. My wife and I share a passion for knowing God and I could not ask for a better encourager and supporter through all that we have been through. We live in Regina. Where we live, our family rubs shoulders with many other families from allover the world. It is really cool. We are members of a healthy church. Our church in the process of planting a church in Regina, where our family are members. The church plant is a confessional, subscribing to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession. Perhaps relevant to the discussion here, our church remained open during the covid lockdowns. I was a pastor for a couple of years at a couple of churches right before the covid crisis. They were your typical small rural church on the Canadian prairies. You and I met within our former missions organization that sent us to our churches. Now I wash farm equipment because that is what you do with a bachelors in theology outside of the church. The last book I read was Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher. I am currently reading The Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Essential and Mediatorial Glory by John Flavel. 2. Theonomy seems to be a popular topic of discussion in some circles these days. Can you share a bit about what it is, the meaning of the word, and the history that surrounds it? Advocates of theonomy would define the theonomy simply as “God’s law.” “Theo”,Θεοςmeaning “God” and “nomos”,νομόςmeaning “law”. It is used to mean Christ is Lord over all and the way that He reigns is by means of His law. Christ’s reign is manifested wherever His lawis being obeyed. Theonomists believe we need to order all of society around the law, impacting different spheres of authority such as family, church, work, government, and art. Theonomy has a strong postmillennial eschatology. As Christ’s reign is advanced, the kingdom of God is advanced. So as our culture, which was once grounded in God’s law turns away from God’s law, it comes under the curse of the law. If we want to experience the law’s blessings, we need to bring our civil law into conformity to the law. They do argue that Christ has done away with the ceremonial laws, while the rest of the law is still binding today. According to theonomist’s the mission of the church is to “disciple the nations” teaching them to obey and do all that Christ commands. Theonomists use a very flat definition of the word law. What theonomists understand as law, historic Christianity understands as the mosaic law. They teach God reigns in His people today with the rules and regulations that were given at Mt. Sinai except for the ceremonial laws. They hold to the moral and civil laws as binding today. They see great continuity between both the Old and New Testaments as opposed to a system like dispensationalism or progressive covenantalism which sees mainly discontinuity between the Testaments. Fundamentally, theonomy is a hermeneutical (how you read the Bible) error, which seeks to wrongly apply aspects of the mosaic covenant to the new covenant. Politically, theonomists tend to be a kind of libertarian, usually stressing faithfulness to the law in the family (strong complementarians), then local, then national, while holding to small government. Within this system, everyone is accountable to Christ for their sphere of sovereignty. Not all theonomists are unified in how to apply the law to society. Theonomists area type of Christian reconstructionism, and principally a social reform movement, like the the social justice movement. So to summarize theonomy, theonomists have a strict continuationist hermeneutic of the law, which impacts their view of society and eschatological (last days doctrine) hope in the redemption of society. The history of theonomy is somewhat recent, although some try to tie it back to the Puritans. Recently, it was a man name R.J. Rushdooney (1916-2001) who published The Institutes of Biblical Law in 1973. The book is based on a series of lectures he gave at his Chalcedon Foundation. In it he argued for the law of Moses being applied to all of life here and now or specifically, the laws had been particular to the nation of Israel are directly applicable to the church and the world today. He was the one to really develop the hermeneutic or biblical theological framework of theonomy. Rushdooney took the positive precepts that were unique to the nation of Israel, to the mosaic covenant and applied it to both the new covenant and to other nations, with few distinctions. So how did this hermeneutical error get a foothold into evangelicalism? During the rise of Rushdooney’s influence, you had the rise of Christian Reconstructionism. The goal of Christian Reconstructionism was to bring Christian morals back to the culture. This was in no small part due to the passing of Roe v. Wade in the States, where abortion on demand was legalized in all50 states. Within this greater movement, Rushdooney provided a basis and goal for his particular stripe of Christian Reconstructionism. So like the Moral Majority under Jerry Falwell, theonomy under Rushdooney sought to get evangelicals engaged in politics for social change. First generation theonomists would establish themselves in evangelicalism within Christian Reconstructionism movement peak in the 1980s and 1990s.Rushdooney is the father of theonomy. Others like Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Gary Demar are part of the first generation of theonomists. Today, men like Doug Wilson, and Andrew Sandlin would carry on his theonomic legacy with their own second generation nuances. In Canada, Joseph Boot has adapted theonomy for a Canadian context and a broader audience. Why is theonomy popular today? I’ll give seven reasons. One, theonomic Christian Reconstructionism never died out from the 80s. Two, respectfully, for the past 100 years or so evangelicalism has grown ignorant of it’s theology and history. We do not know what the average catechized church member knew over a hundred years ago. The quality of men produced at our educational institutions were caught up in pragmatism to grow churches and were biblically illiterate. Third, of more recent years, with the rise of neo-calvinistic organizations, such as T4Gand the Gospel Coalition, evangelicals were rediscovering great biblical doctrines like the doctrines of grace. They came from nondenominational backgrounds and were looking to for are formed tradition home. Theonomists like Doug Wilson were ready to give them a home knowing how to use social media, where younger generations are fluent in use. Fourth, conservative evangelicalism was still contending over the lordship controversy from the 80s. The lordship salvation controversy was over differing views of sanctification. One side argued that a Christian was carnal until they made Jesus Lord over all their and the lordship side taught Jesus was Lord right from conversion. Either way, both held an unreformed views of the relationship between justification and sanctification. These views show up in the way theonomists hold to sanctification of a nation. Many within the old lordship position who held to “Jesus is Lord” are converting to theonomy’s “Jesus is King over all” position. Fifth, the covid crisis showed a hole in our theology when it came to public theology, and the separation of the spheres of church and government. Evangelicals, already weak in theology, went to a ready-made system like theonomy without examining historical alternatives. Six, theonomist fervor is fuelled by western culture becoming secular. They really believe a return to the mosaic law culturally will bring back a Christian culture. Seven, people are naturally drawn to a works-salvation for themselves and for culture. There are multiple reasons for theonomy sprouting once again. The hard part as a confessional guy is to see young men and women are falling prey to quick-fix law hermeneutic. Had our churches been clear on issues of law and gospel, their members would have not fallen prey to theonomists and their arguments. 3. Do you agree or disagree with theonomy and to what extent?I do not agree with theonomy. I reject the poor hermeneutics of theonomy and my confession prohibits theonomy. Confessional men, like Turretin, Owen, Coxe, Fisher, Flavel, Bunyan, Boston, Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and R.C. Sproul (I name key men from multiple times and multiple traditions), all held to the three key covenants: the covenant of redemption (CoR),the covenant of works (CoW), and the covenant of grace (CoG).The CoR is drawn from Christ’s statements in John where the Father has sent the Son to redeem a people for Himself for God’s own self-glorification. It is an expression of inter-Trinitarian love; the Father and Son, along with the Holy Spirit would glorify God by ordaining a fallen human race of which God would redeem a people, and then bring them into union with Himself. From this covenant would be two covenants operating in creation, the CoW and the CoG. The CoW would be defined bylaw. In the original CoW, Adam would have to keep the moral law expressed in it’s precept, do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, to enter into the glorified state. Adam sinned and merited wrath for himself and his offspring. He had to work to earn favor with God, hence the name CoW. In the mosaic covenant, the republishing of the CoW, the people of Israel had to keep 613 laws, meriting to themselves either blessings or curses to keep them in the land of Canaan. And the rest of the Old Testament is a testimony to how even Israel could not keep the mosaic covenant. The Old Testament demonstrates that no one could keep the CoW and how man could never merit eternal life with a Holy God. However, there was only one man that kept the CoW, Christ. He kept all of it’s precepts and fulfilled the law. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17). He even kept the core of the law, to love God and love neighbor. He never failed to do what was right. As agreed in the CoR, Christ would keep the CoW. He obtained every blessing promised and through the cross took the curses upon Himself for His people (Galatians 3:13).This is the foundation for the CoG. Christ establishes the CoG. The church, His elect are in this covenant, not on the basis of works, like the CoW, but by faith and faith alone, purely His grace. He fulfills the law and only bestows it’s blessings to those with faith. “But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” (Galatians 3:22). Only God will receive glory for their redemption. Old Testament and New Testament saints are both saved on this basis. In the Old, their faith is in the promised Messiah to come and in the New, it is faith in the promised Messiah who has come. All this according to the Divine counsel of God in the CoR. Unlike the CoW, which is premised on law-keeping, the CoG is premised on grace through faith in Christ, gospel. This is why the reformed tradition has held to a law and gospel distinction and not because of Greek dualism, as some theonomists argue. Many of the theonomic leaders (many who are federal visionists) argue that any covenant with God is gracious, that there is one covenant with different administrations. But common to all, the way to distinguish whether one is in the covenant or not is by their faithfulness to the covenant(covenantal objectivity as Wilson stated in his book, Reformed is Not Enough). For them, it is an obedient faith that saves, not a faith evidences itself in works as a result of faith. Men like Andrew Sandlin, teaching fellow at the Ezra Institute, is strong on this point that it is not faith alone that saves, but faithfulness (https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/podcast/the-why-and-how-of-christian-culture-building-w-andrew-sandlin/; around the 17:00 mark). Because they hold to one covenant, they blend all the covenants together and it results in a CoW that has to be obeyed to be under the lordship of Christ. This is why they repudiate the traditional reform idea of law and gospel. You can see how this practically works itself out in theonomy in the way they describe national faithfulness. A nation who is faithful to the law of God will experience blessing and a nation who is unfaithful to the law of God will fall under it’s curse. This is why they are so forceful in seeing that the law becomes law of the nation and the nation be faithful to the law, so we do not fall under it’s curse. This is nothing other than a CoW! The problem with this is that the only obedience that God accepts is a perfect obedience and no one, believer and unbeliever alike, can produce a perfect obedience. We can only merit the curses of the law. Only Christ has kept the law with a perfect obedience. It is only those who are in Christ who through faith in Christ that get blessed and not cursed. “As it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’ ‘Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.’ ‘The venom of asps is under their lips.’ ‘Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.’ ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.’ ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’ Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable toGod. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:10–20). So the theonomist’s gospel of Christ is King and He has a law for us to follow is not good news, it is not the gospel. It can only bring curses upon a people. Whereas the biblical gospel is that although we have not kept the law and have merited God’s wrath, God sent a Savior who did keep the law and all who have faith in Him become His people. “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” (Romans 3:21–22). Jesus is King, duh, but He is also a perfect High Priest and mediates perfect reconciliation between God and man, as agreed in the CoR. “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.“ (John 6:37–39). But this is not the only point which theonomist leaders error. They also on what the law is. The Bible has two main laws. First, the mosaic law which was for the people of Israel. The mosaic law had three parts: moral, civil, and ceremonial. We’ll get the moral in a second, but historically, the civil and ceremonial laws are either unique to nation of Israel or fulfilled in Christ. The second law is the moral law, of which the mosaic law is based, core of the mosaic law in it’s morals. The moral law is binding on all men everywhere, at all times. It has it’s place in all covenants because it is a reflection of who God is. The moral law is specifically referenced in Romans 2:14,15, where the Gentiles who do not have the mosaic law, have the moral law inscribed on them, which the conscience bears witness. The reason why you can go up to anyone and show them their sin against a holy God and their need for a Savior is because of the moral law. Another reason I disagree with theonomists is because of two kingdom theology. Theonomists have many misunderstandings about this traditional view of Reformed theology, which was held by the Reformers. Two kingdom teaches the Christian lives in “now and not yet,” a citizen of this present world and the age to come. This impacts how the Christian lives in this world. A Christian will uphold the moral law in the realm of the world, like government. Justice must be done, as mandated by the noahic covenant. As a regenerate man or woman, they can argue from the world around them, sometimes called natural theology (which some theonomists would reject, yet still hold to “creation norms”) or from what God has revealed in Scripture. Christians have done this for centuries and theonomists wrongly accuse two kingdom advocates of ignoring the moral law. Another point of disagreement with theonomists is on the uses of the law. The three uses of the law are summarized in three words: mirror, curb, and guide. First, the mirror. The law has a prominent place in leading us to Christ. “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:24). It shows us who we are before a holy God and shows us our need for a Savior. It is for believer and unbeliever alike. For the believer, it reminds of our need for Christ. For the unbeliever, it points them to their sin, convicts them of their sin, and makes them seek out mercy from God. The second use, curb, is the civil use. Remember how God told Noah and his descendants to administer justice? It was so man would not revert back to the great prevalence of evil from the pre-flood world. The noahic covenant limits how much evil men can sin. It brings consequence. The law as a curb in the mosaic law guaranteed that the promised Messiah would be born. The law now caps man’s sinfulness so that the gospel may go forward. This principle applies to believer and unbeliever alike. The third and final use of the law is a guide. It is for only Christians in the new covenant. How do Christians learn what holiness is? From examining the moral law. For the Christian, it is now a delight (Psalm 119). It is a rejection of this third use that makes a person an antinomian. Theonomists will often blend the second and third use of the law to be able to justify their discipling of the nations. This is a confusion of categories common to legalists. There are many parallels between theonomy and the social justice movement (ie. CRT). Social justice and theonomy both desire to reform social structures. Both have a form of a moral law to reform society. Both are seeking political power to enforce their politics. Both have an utopia that they are working towards. Both are very horizontal in their orientation. Both see the church as a kind of mini messiahs to usher in the final state. And both downplay the gospel, the great commission as the mission of the church. Clearly both are social reform movements that could only develop after the social reformer of our time, Karl Marx. I want to quickly look at just how different theonomist interpret key “theonomic” proof texts. Often when they quote these verses, they read them with a theonomic lenses. “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 2:12) Notice that this is a message from the Psalmist pleading with the peoples of the earth to seek mercy from Christ and ends with a beatitude for all who take refuge in Him. It is not a command for us to go out and impose God’s law, lest they be trampled by God. You see the heart of God who will judge they world, but still is calling men, the very objects of His wrath, to be reconciled to Himself. Look at another favorite, Psalm 110:1:“The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” Who is it that makes Christ’s enemies His footstool? God, not the church. Theonomist interpret this passage as though the church is to bring all under Christ’s dominion. Look at the Lord’s Prayer now. “Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10). Theonomists will emphasize the word “earth” and say that we have a theonomic mission to do here on earth. Back it up there. Jesus is teaching us to petition God to act. It is not a prescription for us to act to advance the kingdom, but rather a petition for the God of the universe to see to it that His will is done on earth, as it clearly is in heaven, for Him to advance His kingdom. And ultimately we see that at the end of the Bible in Revelation the new Jerusalem coming down from God (Revelation 21:1-2). He delivers the kingdom. Theonomists have it flipped putting the emphasis on what we do rather than what God does. If Christians were to examine what theonomist teach from the Bible in context, it would disarm the fad overnight. 4. What is the eschatology you ascribe to and how does that contribute to yourunderstanding of theonomy? It is probably best to describe me as an amillennialist not really holding any strong position on eschatology, except I know that Christ will return for His bride and to judge the living and the dead. Some have joked calling it a pan-millennial, meaning it will all panout. Some years ago, Paul Washer said, to paraphrase, when Christ returns we will all know how it happened, but as for the gospel of Jesus Christ, we will spend an eternity of eternities to plummet the depths of the gospel and we will not even begin to fully comprehend it at after an eternity. That is why I find theonomy such a nuisance. Here is an illustration. You buy your child the world’s greatest toy and you bring it home, take it out of the box and what occupies the child’s attention? The box. Likewise, theonomy is so caught up in the here and now of politics, the “discipling the nations” as they call it. They forget that the church has the great commission, to proclaim the gospel of reconciliation between God and men (2 Corinthians 5:19-20). If theonomy becomes the definition of evangelical, the church will become known more for our law-keeping and advocacy rather than known as a people redeemed by the gospel. It is a form of mission drift. So let’s grant theonomic postmillennialism for a moment (although theonomic postmillennialism is different from historic postmillennialism). What if theonomy succeeds? They are successful at implementing their social reforms and the nations achieve an outward righteousness to the law, is this the kingdom of God? Did God regenerate their hearts because of their obedience? No and no. No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born-again (John 3:3). My fear is if the theonomist succeed at putting the law on the books, they will create a moral society who will believe that the way to experience the blessings of God is to keep the law of God. Was that not what the Pharisees were trying to do? The postmillennial hope of William Carey and Andrew Fuller drew from men coming to Christin faith, not conformity to the law. Theonomic postmillennialism is an empty shell of promise. 5. Is theonomy a false teaching that must be marked, avoided and called out publically or can there be unity among congregations on this issue? If unity can be done in what ways can a congregational member like yourself facilitate that? I don’t know if I can broad-brush all theonomists the same. Followers are different from leaders. There are different camps within theonomy. Theonomy is still new in church history (newer than dispensationalism) and seems to attract other deviant theologies, like federal vision. I think those who are redefining the gospel as law and the law as gospel have crossed the line into false teaching. As for the average congregant who rightly and genuinely laments about the way their nation is going and then hears the theonomist’s promise of what the law can do for the nation, is different. I am sympathetic with them being swept away in the latest evangelical fad. I would encourage them to read the puritans and others in the actual reformed tradition, and not just the latest authors who claim to be reformed. Do a study on the covenants of the Bible, learn what makes one a covenant of works or covenant of grace. HeartCry just put out a small videoseries on 1689 federalism (https://heartcrymissionary.com/curriculum/series/the-progress-of-redemption/). Listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Romans (https://www.mljtrust.org/free-sermons/book-of-romans/). Read Luther on Galatians. Read Coxe and Owen, From Adam to Christ. Set your heart on studying the gospel of Jesus Christ and you will find that it never stops. If you are in the theonomist camp, you probably are wrestling with your assurance based on your law-keeping. I want to give you comfort. Your law-keeping can only condemn you and cannot merit you salvation. However, Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection saves us. He lived the life we couldn’t live. He perfectly kept the law in word, thought, and deed. When we put our faith in Him and His finished work, God imputes His righteousness to us. God gives us a new heart and new desires. We turn from our sin to serve our risen Lord. Salvation is found outside ourselves in Christ. It is not found in my perfecting of self for Christ. When you study Romans 5-8, you realize your union to Christ is dependent not on you, but on Christ’s grip on you. It has a sanctifying effect on your life (John 17:17). The Bible is not a manual on cleaning yourself to present yourself acceptable to God. Rather it is about Christ and His saving work on behalf of sinners. Then when you read the Old Testament, whether it’d be the mosaic law or the Psalms, and you realize how Christ has fulfilled the law and that the Bible is all about Jesus, you experience the life that only Christ can give. You love Jesus more. He becomes precious to you and the gospel comes to life as a daily reality as you continue to look to Christ. You will find that unity in the church comes from our love for Christ as revealed in Scripture aswe work together not to reform society, but to present Christ in the gospel! “Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and seeyou or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mindstriving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents.This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God.”(Philippians 1:27–28). You will find a sweetness in you fellowship when it is centered around Christ and proclaiming the gospel, and not trying to be another lobby group in Ottawa 6. What laws should a country have? If someone in your congregation was a politician whatlaws would you expect them to advocate for in their town, province or nation? What laws was Noah commanded to uphold in the noahic covenant? The moral law. We have two ways of knowing the moral law: in general revelation and in special revelation. We can rely on both creation and Scripture to explain the moral law. From moral law, we administer justice. There are limitations to the justice we can administer. As creatures, we can only deliver approximate justice in this world. Only God can administer exact justice. For example, if someone takes a life, nothing we do can bring that life back. Only God can do that. So even aswe administer justice, there is a longing within ourselves for the eschatological justice that only God can deliver. I will even go as far as Jesus to say that there are limits to the mosaic law in how it administers justice. Jesus in correcting the Pharisees on marriage acknowledge that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts (Matthew 19:7-8). So there is a limit to how creatures administer justice, which is why we need the God-man Jesus all the more. If someone was in my congregation was a politician, there is nothing prohibiting them from doing so They can do the work consistent with what God has revealed of Himself from nature and Scripture. As two kingdom theology rightly teaches, they are doing the Lord’s work in their vocation, even in the common realm. Yet it is the message of the gospel as it changes souls that advances the kingdom of God. That’s where a lot of confusion with theonomy lies. 7. All theology and doctrine should change how we live our life. As we come to the end of the interview, can you share with me how your stance on theonomy changes how you live your life? Theology, Scripture, the gospel, Christ, changes everything. It changes the way how I relate to the world and how the world relates to me. I am now a citizen of the heavenly kingdom in the midst of a rebellion. Jesus relates to me differently and so I must relate to the world differently as well. Consider John 17:14–15, from Jesus’ High Priestly prayer, praying on behalf of His church: “I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.” We the church have been equipped by God with the Word of God. From it we know the basics of the law and the gospel. We are here promised to be hated by the world because we belong to Christ. Times of peace are the exception to the rule for the Christian. We are still in the world, yet not of the world. These words are consistent with Jesus saying to Pilate, “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) or Jesus to the thief on the cross, “today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:42-43). Jesus’ promise is despite the hatred of the world, His church will persevere, His church cannot be stopped. It is not due to the character of the bride, but because of the determination of the Christ. Christ’s kingdom and Satan’s kingdom are along side each other till the end of the age, but Christ will not let His church fail (Matthew 16:18) and Christ will establish His kingdom at the end of the age. We are Christ’s ambassadors in a foreign land charged with the gospel, the message of reconciliation, that men can be reconciled back to God through Christ. “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:18,20).Like Daniel, who was not a Babylonian, we worked the good of the earthly empire. Notice Daniel never did a theonomic takeover, legislated away pagan worship nor impose the Jewish law over the Babylonian Empire. He was just faithful where he was and it sometimes cost him. Our faith will cost us something. So wherever God has called you, whether in your families, jobs, even government, act as what your King expects of you and be willing to suffer for it. We are promised to persevere in this world by the grace of Christ, till He delivers the kingdom. We are now called to be ambassadors of Christ. Paul speaks of a message we proclaim, not imposing a kingdom upon this earthly kingdom (if we make the gospel into something we do, are we not returning to the same error as the emerging church of the 2000s?). What is that message? The message of how God reconciled man back to God. Next verse, 2 Corinthians 5:21:“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” That’s the gospel! The gospel is about CHRIST and HIS finished work that we proclaim. It is not about us and what we do. It is through this message, that the world finds foolish (1 Corinthians1:18). Just as how God spoke in creation, the message of the gospel is what brings people into God’s kingdom. No swords, no guns, no legislation, no government party, no reform will bring people into the kingdom, except that they would be born-again, the new birth (John 3:3). We are simply Christ’s witnesses (Acts 1:8). Theonomists and social justice warriors will accuse anyone who is not on their social reform program as not proclaiming a “wholistic” gospel. This is a misnomer. The gospel does have broader implications, such as the promises and commands of the new covenant, historically called broad gospel. The core of the gospel, the strict gospel, is Christ and what He has done. Their “wholistic” gospel of cultural transformation is taking secondary effects of the gospel the main thing. In making the gospel “wholistic”, they actually miss the gospel and redefine the gospel. Theonomists may be looking for a quick-fix gospel, a law to reorder society. If we proclaim actual gospel, there is no promise of an earthly victory here and now on earth. That is because salvation is monergistic and something that we cannot manipulate, dependant upon God regenerating the hearts of sinners (John 3:8). Jesus said, “I will build my church” (Matthew16:8). Gospel work then starts on our knees petitioning the God of the universe to save our neighbor.“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’” (Romans 10:14–15).What does the great commission look like practically? Is it phoning or emailing your MP or MLA, telling them to reflect your Christian values, and to participate in a rally, OR is it to walkover to your now permanent resident Muslim neighbor, imploring them of who Christ is and showing them how they are not saved by keeping their law? The great commission is not political action. It is making Christ and His finished work known. The great commission is not “discipling” the nations, it is where we make disciples from the nations. The great commission takes a church and intentional discipleship. The mission of the church is what it always has been the great commission and not a theonomic takeover of culture. The church must preach Christ!
0 Comments
Hey Dan, it's been a pleasure connecting with you and your ministry. For those who don't know you, can you share with me a bit about who you are and how the Underground Seminary began?
Sure! I've been pastoring and teaching theology for the last 20 years or so. I really love equipping the saints with biblical doctrine and apologetics. That's what drove me to put together Underground Seminary. I was blessed to take a lot of advanced theology and apologetics courses in my Master's Program. I noticed that a lot of people dealing with doubt or who were "deconstructing" had not been exposed to the training that really grounded me. I wanted to give people the chance to see the beauty of God's truth, and I wanted to make sure it was affordable. I had friends that went off to seminary and added several thousand dollars of debt to their already high undergraduate debts. Many ended up with too much debt to take ministry jobs. Others came out of seminary ill-equipped for ministry life. There are some great seminary programs out there, but I was seeing that many were wasting time and money and were leaving men unprepared for the work to which God called them. I realized that the best thing we can do is allow academic training to focus on the truth of God (Bible, theology, apologetics, etc.) and let pastors disciple up younger pastors as Scripture teaches them to do. Underground Seminary started with me wanting to train my elders. I started pulling together content simply to equip them. Pretty soon, we opened it up to the church. Then, we put it online and started training our missionaries and other people with it. Lord willing, we hope to start making it available to churches as a package deal so that the price is exceptionally low and pastors can integrate the content into their equipping. You have a passion for equipping house church leaders in addition to ensuring every disciple makes disciples. How does the Underground Seminary play a role in that? Underground Seminary allows us to train House Church Leaders (elders) without sending them away to seminary. I can put one of our guys through the program in 18 months while he's also being discipled by another elder in the church. It makes church planting much more efficient, and it ensures that our leaders are grounded in the Word. Also, since we make it free to anyone in our church, a large percentage of our laypersons study the material too. It builds depth at every level. The biblical calibre of seminary education is pretty low here in Canada. I believe that is partly why so many churches have weak leadership and malnourished congregations. Can you share with me what it's like in the States and your thoughts on how the level of biblical literacy and training impacts your nation? This is a great question. My experience is that a lot of churches and seminaries in the US are suffering the same malnourishment you are seeing in Canada. Evangelicalism here seems to have espoused a kind of theological minimalism that gives lip service to the fundamentals of the faith but lacks any kind of robust idea of the cohesiveness of our faith or the implications God's Word has for every facet of life. Pastors think their congregations can't handle theological teaching through exegetical sermons, so they dumb down teaching and add in as much entertainment value as possible. Seminaries have, in turn, focused on "leadership" classes as opposed to any form of advanced theology. I've even noticed an attack against theological training. I could talk for a while about all that is involved in this, but it is heartbreaking to me. Pastors are failing their congregations by neglecting to teach the whole counsel of Scripture and avoiding any talk of its implications for faithful obedience to Christ as King in the face of an apostate culture and government. With this in mind, I'm noticing a lot of faithful pastors getting with the program, teaching Scripture, advocating for family worship, discipling faithfully, and doing the good work. There are a lot of churches like mine, made up of 40-50 people building faithful families, homeschooling kids, studying well, evangelizing daily, and applying the Word to the public sphere. I'm optimistic about the unseen faithful. Also, there are a few good seminaries out there doing good work. Often good Seminary education is out of reach simply because of logistic and financial reasons. Can you share how your Seminary addresses these matters? Definitely! First, our content is entirely accessible online. The goal is that you don't have to leave ministry to train for ministry. Also, we are presently uncredited (and plan to remain that way for now). We deliver knowledge. Simple as that. We avoid issues related to cost because we aren't playing the academic accreditation game. We've curated content based on what we know students need, not on what will check the box for accreditation. We offer the content as a subscription ($35-45/month per person). So, you can work at your own pace rather than in a semester format. We recommend doing one unit per month, but some people like to move slower and do one unit every 2-3 months. Others like to move quickly. In any case, you don't have to worry about the deadline or losing out on money because ministry crises got in the way of studies. You have access to all of the content for as long as you are a subscriber. In any case, most people can swing $35/month. It might mean sacrificing one meal out per month, but it is doable for most. By the way, we are planning to offer bulk packages to churches at a rate of $1,200 per year for twelve people. This works out to about $10/month per person. We are also switching our content delivery into a learning management system that will make for a really user-friendly experience. I'm excited about expanding the program and getting more churches involved at an even lower price. As we come to the end of the interview, can you share with my readers how they can access Underground Seminary? Sure! They can visit UndergroundSeminary.net to try it out for 30 days FREE! We don't ask for a credit card, so you don't have to remember to cancel later. It really is a free 30-day trial with no strings attached. If you like it, you can subscribe after that. If you are a pastor, and you are interested in the program for your church, you can contact me by email at [email protected]. I (Aimee) have been following you for a while. I've really been enjoying the stuff that you share. For those who may not know you, can you share a bit about who you are and where you're from?
Hello! Thank you so much, its been both a joy to have connected with other believers in this way. Absolutely. My name is Samantha Boswell. I was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, but moved when I was 3 to Winnipeg, Manitoba, where I spent 20 years until I met my husband, Aaron Boswell, at a Starbucks. (Well, that's the short version anyway! The long one is like a Hallmark movie, but I'll save that for another time :) ) My husband Aaron is American and moved to Canada to start a church in Winnipeg 11 years ago. We were married in 2013, and in the last 9 years of marriage, we have moved to three different Canadian cities and have also been blessed with three kids, ranging in age from 1 to 7. After our first 8 months of marriage, we moved to Montreal to plant a church and, after 3 years and helping to get that church started, we moved to Vancouver to do the same thing again. However, God had other plans, and Aaron ended up training and equipping future church planters at an established church. Throughout this work, however, he really felt a desire to plant another church that would help plant healthy churches who would plant healthy churches) and he knew exactly where - back in Winnipeg. to continue ministry there. I never dreamed God would bring us back, and I was hesitant at first, but the Lord made it clear to both of us we were to go back, and so in February 2020 we planted again, right before the pandemic hit. The Lord has done some amazing work we've been able to see over the last two years. I wear many hats - primarily wife, mom, Bible study leader, homeschooler and homemaker - but I'm also a Certified Health Coach for pregnancy and postpartum and partner with several wellness companies as brand affiliates. This year I added Podcaster to the list as I finally decided to start using my modest online platform to start speaking about cultural, political, and theological issues. It's been a totally new sphere for me, and as a recovering people pleaser and "polite Canadian" it has already grown me a ton, and I'm thankful for it! I'm intrigued by the name of your podcast - "Can't stay quiet". How did you choose the name for your podcast? Have you felt the pressure to stay quiet in the past? Before I decided if I was going to start speaking out online, I took a month off of Instagram from my public business account and also created a second private account, where I felt more freedom to share what was on my mind. I took the break from my business account because as more and more was happening in the world, every time I would share my usual health and wellness tips, it was beginning to feel more and more disingenuous to me. Not because I was unsure in the things that I was sharing, but because there was SO MUCH more I wanted to say about a hundred other more important things but didn't know if it was the place and more so what the response would be. After that break, I said I was going to decide either to quit using Instagram altogether or go all in, and share my real thoughts on real issues, things that actually mattered in eternal ways. July 2021 I threw out the rulebook of Instagram and never looked back. Erin Coates suggested to look out for you as you could be the Canadian Allie Stuckey. What has been encouraging to you by those who speak about politics and theology? Erin is so sweet. That is the highest compliment in my books! And I'm honoured that anyone would even suggest it has the potential at that. My husband encouraged me that even if I wrote and podcasted just for my own knowledge, growth and enjoyment, it would be enough. And for me, just to know and see it's helped at least one other person wrestle through, maybe for the first time, a tough or controversial issue or maybe makes one other conservative Christian feel less alone, it will have done what I hoped it would do. To answer your question, though, I have been so encouraged by women like Allie Stuckey, who stand for Biblical truth in the midst of cultural opposition. Watching women like her not let the fear of man, the fear of other's opinions, get in the way from speaking truth has impacted me immensely. I grew up, like so many, wanting to be liked, avoiding controversy, and trying to be the "nice" Canadian Christian. And there was a part of me that assumed I must either be wrong or not saying something in the right way if people still disagreed and disliked me after I explained my views (if I ever dared to do so). I would think if I could just explain it better, maybe if I used different words, they would not misunderstand me, but I've come to accept that we will be misunderstood and disliked when we stand for truth. And when we look at scripture, we see we are to expect these sorts of trouble. To see women love the Lord, love His Word, regard it as the ultimate source of Truth, and not back down even after they get trolls and hate messages, because God is their standard for Truth and their foundation in the midst of opposition has been so inspiring. In addition to recently writing about theology and politics, you are a health coach for pre and post natal. How does the gospel change how you work as a health coach? I love this question! The gospel changes so much in this line of work. First, I don't approach healthy eating or living from this constantly striving or trying to "finally arrive" at a perfect weight or state of life, or as if my happiness and content are wrapped up in how much I weigh or how I feel. Instead, I hope to give women the tools they need that can help them at every stage of pregnancy and postpartum in an effort to care for and steward what God has given them, so they can feel their best as they care for their growing baby and their children. Second, working on healthy living doesn't come from a place of stress and anxiety, as if our life is in our own hands. I lost my father to cancer in my early twenties, and for a season afterward, I viewed being healthy and making sure my. Husband also followed suit as an effort to essentially "not get a disease and die." I didn't realize it at first, but all of my healthy choices had an underlying thought of, "if we just do all these right things, we won't get sick, and we'll be ok." Needless to say, I don't view it this way anymore, and I know I can trust God with all of my days. Likewise, when I share online or work with a client, this is the view I'm weaving into any coaching. I have been warned about natural medicine leading to new age teachings. You recommend a lot of natural medicine and follow the God who made them. Can you explain to me how you reconcile these two? Also a really important question, and this would add to the last question as well. We need to practice discernment in all areas, especially when it comes to the health world. It's sad to say, but there does tend to be a lot of different, often new age, beliefs wrapped into what living a healthy life means for people mainstream. So the gospel shapes that for me by dictating what things I do or don't do and products I would or wouldn't use (or how I would use them). So, for example, I stopped doing yoga years ago. After learning more about the Hindu roots of yoga (which literally means "union") and it's purpose being to "bring spiritual enlightenment" I saw no way in which a Christian could reconcile these differences and participate. Some Christians will say that we can "redeem" practices like yoga, but as every move was created as a worship pose to false gods, the breathing techniques are meant to regulate the flow of what they call "prana," the Hindu term for life energy, and as we see no place in scripture to look for spiritual enlightenment in these ways (meditating on scripture is not synonymous), I see the two as incompatible. The natural medicine and supplements that I use most tend to be plant related, such as essential oils. God created plants, and its by no mistake that he gave them their medicinal properties, as well as their smells that work with our brains (all we have to do is imagine freshly baked bread or what Christmas memories smell like to us). Scientifically we can see their properties. For example, some are antibacterial, antiviral, etc. In Canada, their uses have been clinically studied and confirmed beneficial by Health Canada as Natural Health Products for things like coughs, colds, headaches, arthritis, cuts, and stress. So, when I use essential oils in these ways, I see them as a common grace gift from our Creator we are free to use. However, where I think people can use essential oils in ways that don't honour God is by worshiping the creation instead of the creator. They look to essentials oils, for example, to do things they were not created to do; like give us peace, hope, forgiveness or any other obscure use people would like to say they can be used for. That would be an abuse of what God created. There are so many things in the health world that we need discernment for, and so I think it's important to have these conversations. A really helpful book on this topic would be "Alternative Medicine: The Christian Handbook" by Donal O'Mathuna. I will also add that I know some things may be a matter of conscience, and that, for example, some people who have left the new age may choose to stay away from essential oils altogether as they once used them in ways they would now reject and so the smell or use affects them in ways it wouldn't others. Thanks for your time! As we come to the end of our interview, is there anything you'd like to say to encourage others not to stay quiet? Thank you so much for inviting me on the blog! I was honoured to be asked. I would encourage anyone who has wanted to speak up but feels afraid because of possible rejection they might face to do it anyway! Remember that we will face suffering and persecution in this lifetime; the Bible tells us to expect that in following Christ, but we are never alone. The Lord has good works planned for us to do, and He has given us ALL we need for life and godliness. We can trust He is good, and He will provide. It is so much better to forget ourselves - our reputation, what we think others will think of us - to throw that all aside and run the good race, live to please our King; it's He who will test our hearts (1 Thessalonians 2:4). That we would run the race marked out for us with joy and know that real love does not stay quiet, but speaks the truth in love! Thank you for coming back to do another interview. Today I want to talk about Christian freedom. Can you share with me what you believe is the difference between the freedom that Jesus offers and the freedom the world is pursuing?
It’s really quite interesting, because when we talk about freedom in Christ, we’re really talking about a kind of paradox. If we back it up, we’re all slaves to something. As sons and daughters of Adam, we all inherit Adam’s fallen nature. We, born as human beings, are born as slaves to sin. When the Spirit regenerates a son of Adam and adopts him as a son of God, we actually continue in slavery - slavery to God. It’s the kind of idea that “We always worship something or someone.” We are always slaves to something or someone, and if you are in Christ, you are His slave. Now, this is where the paradox comes in because the Scriptures don’t just mention this new life, this new birth, this new heart of flesh beating for the King as in a slave state. The Scriptures also declare us free. Free from what? Free from slavery to sin. We no longer are compelled to serve our sinful desires, and by being a slave of Christ, we are free from sin. God literally gives us the access to freedom away from sin and towards His Glory, and so we see that there is no freedom that isn’t also bound. True freedom is only offered in Christ in that we are freed from that which enslaves us towards death. We are freed then towards what binds us to life and that life to the fullest, namely a life lived to the glory of God. The world’s freedom is a counterfeit freedom. We say “counterfeit” because it mimics true freedom. While being a slave to sin, there is no true freedom to be had- only slavery. You can feel free- free to follow your sinful desires, passions, lusts, and inclinations. However, that is not freedom at all. That is simply throwing the dirt around your own grave. And so, whenever we deal with the freedom that the world is pursuing, we must remember there is but one source of freedom, and that is found by subjecting yourself as a slave of Christ! Today is Good Friday. How does Jesus’ death influence the way that you live your life, especially in regards to your stand for freedom? We must admit, sadly, we do not think we live in light of Jesus’ death as often as we should. As the Lord gives grace, we believe we are growing and being sanctified, but still fall far short. However, we do think there are profound influences that the work Christ accomplished on the cross has on how we fight for liberty. Personally we believe that there is a broader societal benefit to Christians living in light of the freedom from sin that Christ won for us. As eyes are opened to the beauty, majesty, power, and righteousness of God, that should change the way we live, and that includes fighting for freedom to increase so that we can live peaceable lives (1 Tim 2:2). We're also convinced that fighting for liberty should never eclipse the Gospel message. Pastor Jacob Reaume said something with much better articulation and force in a recent sermon he gave. But conservatism for conservatism’s sake is just as much of a man-made philosophy as anything else if it is not set on a gospel foundation. So we must evangelize those who are antithetical to the cause of liberty, but we must never forsake the evangelization of other fellow freedom fighters as well, so that they may come to the knowledge of Who is the One who can give true freedom in the first place. A slave to the world that loves liberty is simply someone stuck in the mire of death and longing for the real thing on the other side. Show them the other side, call them to repentance and to true freedom! As we know, Jesus didn’t stay in the grave. He’s alive, conquering death, and now reigns as our king and high priest. How do these truths shape the way you view life and your activity in society? The heaviest hit here needs to be to our complacency. The question itself should bring us greater hope, resolve, grit and determination to fulfill the Great Commission. The victory that Christ attained on the cross actually happened. It was a moment in time in the course of human history. We tend to spiritualize His death, but it actually happened. The victory has been achieved. We have unprecedented access to God that the Patriarchs wouldn’t have been able to fathom. The curtain is torn, the Spirit indwells us, we have not just access to the Truth, but the very Spirit of Truth with us at all times. And so this should spur us on to love and good works. This should cause us to lay down heavy fire against the Enemy in our lives, homes, churches, workplaces, and broader culture. Guys, the cross happened, yes, but so did the resurrection! Oh glorious day! If we stopped more often to contemplate the work Christ accomplished over the course of one weekend, we would be far less apathetic to the cause of Christ going out into our culture. Here in Canada, our freedoms are being slowly stripped away. I think as this is happening, we need to remember our freedom in Jesus. How do you think this reminder will prepare us for further suppression? Reading Acts and the Epistles shows us exactly what we should look like as we prepare for further persecution. I’m [Jesse] currently reading through 2 Corintians. All throughout the book, Paul talks of the cause of Christ, the sacrifice Paul has made for the churches, the persecution he’s suffered, and the comfort that he and the Apostles have experienced through it all. He opens up the book talking about “the God of all comfort who comforts us in all our affliction.” We must remember that though we may be in chains, we are free in Christ. And because we are free in Christ, we are comforted by Him, come what may. This also should speak volumes to our complacency. That we do not despair in our persecution or suppression. That the Apostle Paul was comforted by God in his affliction, and we can be too. This is so evident in the attitudes, actions, and words of men like Pastor Tim Stephens and James Coates as they were imprisoned last year. I [Jesse] remember hearing the letter James wrote to Gracelife and thinking “This sounds like an epistle!” And if the Lord sustained James and Tim and Paul and Peter and all the others, He will sustain us too when it’s our turn. As we come to an end of the interview, I’d like to ask one final question. What hope do we have as Christians because of good Friday? We have hope realized. All before Christ could but look forward in faith to the kind of freedom Christ’s death would bring the generations after His coming. Freedom from sin is an impossible task without the perfect sacrifice of the Spotless Lamb. And so, as believers, this hope is a reality. We simply need to live in light of it. Those who do not believe do not have access to that freedom like Christians do. But it is certainly available. Romans 10:9-10 states, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, leading to righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, leading to salvation.” This is true. You, too, can experience true freedom. Repent from your sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, believe in His resurrection, and Christ’s work on the cross will have your sins nailed there too. Then and only then can you experience the true freedom God has for man Hello Arron Rock. Thanks for being willing to do this interview. Many of my readers know who you are. Last year you began a podcast called Leadership Now. What has been your favourite topic to discuss so far on the podcast?
It is difficult to identify a favourite podcast, but I do especially enjoy episodes within which I can help equip people to identify both problems and possible solutions. My recent episode on The Christian Village, as well as How to Respond to Forced Jabs, Despair and Bill C4, and Christian Strategies for Relocation, Employment, Safety & Cultural Impact all fall into this category. Today I want to chat with you about training leaders for difficult times. Can you share with me the challenges you are facing as a leader and what you expect other leaders to face in the future? Because I perceive of Christian leadership as a stewardship from God, good leaders will wield their influence for the glory of God and out of a solemn sense of responsibility to honour Christ with their lives. Solid biblical preaching, role modelling, and robust discussions about current issues are all means of equipping leaders. I like to provide growing leaders with assignments and opportunities that I believe suits them and then encourage them to aim for excellence in their service. Some of the challenges we face in developing leaders is helping them gain a proper assessment of their actual strengths and weaknesses, and the stark realities of what leadership entails. Increasingly we need to re-educate new leaders to think like Christians in all areas of life, since many have placed their faith in Christ, but continue to think like non Christians due to past educational and cultural experiences. I am, however, very pleased to see a growing number of young men and women step up and lead boldly in areas that suit their individual calling. Opposition towards Christians isn’t entirely new - it’s just now more prevalent here in Canada. What qualities and convictions should we be looking for in young men to know that they will endure hard times as leaders? Young leaders are most likely to endure hard times when they are clear-minded about their core beliefs, think consistently about the Gospel’s application to every sphere and aspect of life, are sensitive to the Spirit’s convicting influence over their decisions and choices, are comfortable in their masculinity, and have proven themselves in the small, daily decisions they make. It is wise for young men to surround themselves with godly peers and older mentors who can help identify their blind spots, hold them accountable, and instruct them in wisdom. In one of your sermons, you mentioned that leadership came naturally to you, even from a young age. There are some, like myself, where leadership doesn’t come naturally. What advice do you have for those individuals? I tend to be more concerned about equipping people to maximize their influence than pursuing leadership roles per se. Not every Christian will necessarily be a gifted leader, but all Christians have the potential to wield influence over others as they steward their unique gifts and opportunities for Christ. Each will be equipped by God for varying levels of influence and must be content to maximize their stewardship without comparing themselves to others. That said, developing leaders will have the greatest amount of leadership when they demonstrate integrity, self-awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, conviction, reasonableness and wisdom, humility, and long-term perseverance. As we end the interview, I want to touch on another area of leadership - the family. God has given fathers the role to lead their own families. This is increasingly becoming more difficult in our society. I want to close with this question - what are your recommendations for training fathers to lead their families when the government oversteps? The cultural upheaval we are experiencing in Western countries has provided a wonderful opportunity for parents to proactively instruct their children in the Christian worldview. Fathers, in particular, have a prime opportunity to demonstrate courage and conviction to their children by speaking truth to lies and standing fearless and firm in the face of adversity. In many ways, it has become easier to instruct and raise children because the state overreach, wokism, and insanity that has erupted due to society’s abandonment of God is more evident than ever before, and even our children are seeing it. Words and faith are our primary weapons, and I would encourage fathers to engage in thoughtful conversations with their families about each of the issues that we face and how the Bible provides a framework to address them. Thank you, James, for being able to do this interview. I've recently read your book "The 95 Theses of Covid & Church". Clearly you've been inspired by Martin Luther. Can you share with me a bit about yourself and what motivated you to write this book?
Glad to be a part of this great ministry. It looks like you've been interviewing some great men of God from Canada. And that's where I think my main inspiration has come from -- faithful Canadian pastors like Tim Stephens, James Coates, Jacob Reaume, Aaron Boswell and others, who have remained faithful to the call of the pastorate during a time of testing. They have put steel in my spine to speak the truth in a clear and succinct manner so that we can all more accurately see the full argument for remaining truly open during Covid against government mandates. But mostly, this book has come about as a result of my own interactions with those who have questioned my view. Honestly David, I love to get pushback because it really drives me to the Scriptures to see if these things are so. Far be it from me to ever defend my view for merely being right. That is a vanity and a chasing after the wind. I want to know what the Lord says, and when I evaluate this whole situation from the word of God, I'm left wondering why 99% of churches closed down in Canada. Clearly, something had to be said, and I think the whole situation tells a lot about the state of the church here. God has used Covid to expose so much. So, in short, a zeal for the church has inspired me to write it, as well as my own interactions with numerous unbelievers who had suffered from severe depression and loneliness as a result of all these lockdowns and restrictions. If ever there was a time unbelievers needed access to a faithful church, it is now. After reading the 95 theses that you've written and chatting with you, I've come to learn that you are governed by the regulative principle when it comes to worship. Can you briefly explain what it is and how your response to how the church should operate despite restrictions has been influenced by it? This is a great question, and I think it gets to the heart of the issue, even more so than government overreach. The regulative principle of worship teaches that we must only worship in a way prescribed by the Lord Himself whereas the normative principle teaches that we must not worship in a way that goes against scripture. There is an ocean of difference between the two. The first will choose not to do livestream services as a replacement for the physical gathering because nowhere does the Bible tell us to do that, whereas the second is totally fine with livestream services because nowhere does the Bible forbid it. There is also a third view that basically teaches anything goes so long as God is worshiped with a good heart. I believe the large majority of churches in Canada operate on the second and third of these principles, and this was the case long before the government stepped in to determine how Christ was to be worshiped. As you scan your eyes across the Canadian landscape of churches that have remained open, I'd say most of them operate on the regulative principle (besides some obscure offshoots). So if one were to say they don't believe human life is valuable, it shouldn't surprise us when they announce their abortion. It's the inevitable outcome of a belief. The same goes with our view of ecclesiology. If we believe God can be rightly worshipped in a way not prescribed by Him, we should not be surprised to hear that they've shifted everything online when it becomes convenient to do so. After all, where does it say in the Bible that it's a sin to go online? Of course, this kind of question is never encouraged by scripture. Nadab and Abibu were never encouraged to ask, 'When did God tell us NOT to offer this strange fire?' Rather, there were specific instructions laid down for how to worship. That's at the heart of the regulative principle. In your book, you note that pastors are acting in such a way that they are biblically illiterate. Many of these pastors are graduates of Bible schools and seminaries. Is it true that they are biblically illiterate or are they simply interpreting scripture through a different lens? I think it's easy to misinterpret a statement like this. I'm confident that many of these pastors could run theological or intellectual circles around me and are far more equipped than I am. This wasn't meant to be a comparison between them and me. Rather, it seems that many are majoring in the minors and are simply unable to apply basic teachings. As I've noted in the book, the job description of every pastor is to tend to their flock and be in their midst. The most basic element of Christianity is that we follow Christ, not Caesar, and that we endure suffering as a good soldier of Christ. So many of my 95 theses aren't exactly profound or highly intellectual. A lot of it is just basic stuff that every Christian should know not long after conversion. I'm left wondering where many of these pastors have been trained and what their view of the church is. How easy is it to lose the bigger picture of scripture, right? We can talk about the deep meanings of Greek or come up with the most profound of illustrations all day long, but if we lose the central tenets and core foundations of the faith, we'll wind up picking lilies in the field way off yonder instead of contending earnestly for the faith in the midst of the battlefield. As you wrote this book how did your knowledge of God both inform what you wrote and in what ways did it grow? Well, first of all, I'm blown away at just how patient God is. It took me a while to come to these views (nearly a year), all the time helplessly trying to live the Christian life apart from Christ and His church. As such, I'm able to be patient with others. I've realized that it's all too easy to go along with the crowd without ever batting an eye. The people of Israel all worshiped the golden calf through the leadership of Aaron. Nobody wants to be the guy to go against that. And so God is patient, He's long-suffering, but mostly I'd say, His love for the Bride has been astounding me. Christ died for the church. He came and sought Her out, and He did so incarnationally. He dwelt among us. He told us He'll never leave us. His love ought to draw us into His presence, not away. Thirdly, I've been learning how holy God is. He is the king of all kings, the Lord of all Lords, and we don't need to assist Him in accomplishing His work. He works in His own way and on His own terms. We don't need to resort to being 'creative' or 'innovative' when it comes to worshipping Him. We don't need to bow to the government as if God's provision is dependent upon them. Pragmatism does not help God out. Fourthly, God is faithful to all His promises. He will continue to build His church one way with or without restrictions and mandates. We've seen that all throughout the pandemic. His highest concern is and always has been the church. It's Christ's mission to nourish, cherish and sanctify His Bride, so God can use whatever situation to accomplish those ends. So my growth in the knowledge of God, much more than my views of politics, has really shaped a lot of what I said in this book. One of the theses you have written says, "That by reducing Christianity down merely to the 'spiritual realm' , you have abdicated your social responbilities as a Christian in the political and social realm.' I've come to realize that as Christians, we need to become more involved in our society. In your estimation, what is our responsibility as a church in these two realms, and where do we start? I think we first need to start on our knees with both our hearts and our Bibles open. From my end, I've seen nothing but a disinterest in politics from many churches simply because, as they might put it, the kingdom of God is not of this world. The gospel should be our primary allegiance. But there is a false dichotomy going on here. The gospel compels us to love our neighbours, and one of the most practical ways of doing that is in the political realm. Again, God has been patient with me because 12 months ago, I would've emphasized the local over and against the global, and I think this is what many do. They restrict 'neighbours' simply to the local, and they reduce 'love' down to merely being nice or doing community service. I've even seen churches replace their Sunday gathering with community involvement long before Covid. While I of course appreciate the emphasis on the local, we have to remember that we live not just in a neighbourhood, but also in a city, a country and a world, and that a lot of what happens in those larger realms trickles down to the local. So, if Nelly down the road lost her job due to refusing vaccination, should we A) offer to mow her lawn every week for free, or B) call our MPs and stand up for her rights? Many would choose A simply because it's easier, more practical and apolitical. Don't get me wrong, A still benefits her, but guess what's going to benefit her way more? The church being open, for one, so that she could meet the very people of God face to face and hear about the grace of God in Christ Jesus, but two, these same Christians fighting for her rights in the streets so that she can get her job back. There are a number of ways to get involved in our communities as the church, but what I want to emphasize is being aware of the issues, both our cultural and political climate. We should also not be afraid to take strong political stances. Much can be said about that as well, but I think many pastors try to be neutral for the sake of unity. But neutrality is a myth, and it can also be destructive. For example, you can't treat abortion and homosexual marriage in the same way you treat differing eschatological views. You can't say, 'OK, you believe ripping babies limb from limb is OK, and you think it's murder. Both are fine! Unity in Christ! Unity in Christ!" So why would we then say, "Oh, you don't believe the true and proper worship of Christ is important and that you think Caesar should boss around the Bride of Christ, but the other side doesn't. Both are fine! Unity in Christ! Unity in Christ!" Rather, we need to stick firmly to what the Scriptures say. Neither the Right nor the Left are perfectly in line with scripture; that's true, but one's a whole lot closer to the other, and I don't think we need to be afraid to say that. There are so many questions that I have, so hopefully, we can do this again. As we come to the end of the interview, I want to ask about the response to this book. Have you received any feedback from pastors who have read the book and have changed their mind on the role of the government and the church? Yeah, so I've sent a free .PDF file of the book to numerous churches across Canada, and I've only got a few responses. If there were some kind of Wittenberg church I could post this to, that would be so much easier, haha. Finding pastors' emails buried on their church websites is quite the task, and I think I hit my limit at around 80-100. But in the responses I received, I haven't had one that actually dealt with my arguments. One pastor from Saskatchewan pointed out a spelling error and that my biography at the end had too big of words. He also said I was too young to have anything important to say (I'm 33, much older than guys like Spurgeon, Edwards and others whom God used mightily even before they were 20). Others were a little more respectful and simply wrote it off simply because they didn't want to quarrel over what they perceived as a minor difference. There were also charges of pride, possibly because of my strong tone throughout. But I believe the highly critical tone I took in my book was absolutely necessary. We're talking about the fact that 99% of Canadian churches closed down and offered to God worship that was not acceptable to Him. We're talking about the fact that the Bride of Christ was left to fend for Herself for two whole years. This is not primarily about masks or vaccines, as important as that is. Paul had sharp words in his letter countless times, but the one I wanted to leave us with is 1 Cor 11:22 when Paul was dealing with a theological disagreement in the Corinth church. He says, "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not". On the other hand, I've also received some encouragement as well, not least of which was from a pastor from BC who had been disciplined by his church for coming to many of the convictions held in this book. I've also had some who have reached out to me to offer encouragement through Instagram. Thank you, David, for interviewing me, and God bless you and your wife in your ministry! Thank you for being willing to do a follow-up interview. Since the last time we chatted, what new things have you learned from the peer-reviewed studies you have been looking at?
Sure! There’s a ton of research that’s come out since the interview we did. I can’t cover it all, but let’s look at a few different studies that shed light on various topics. To kick things off, here’s what an article from the beginning of the Omicron frenzy was finding: “It is of concern that 83% of cases occurred in fully or booster-vaccinated people. Whether this observation is an artefact as the major superspreading events and subsequent chains of transmission have occurred primarily in young adults, and not yet spread to children, who have not been vaccinated, is still too early to say.” “Recent results, however, indicate that Omicron significantly escapes two-doses’ vaccines, ranging from complete loss to 33- to 44-fold reduction of neutralizing activities [8,12] Sera from people who received the third dose of vaccines maintained about 10% of the neutralizing activity, and such neutralizing activity was completely lost after three months.” So, even at the beginning of the Omicron wave, there were a few facts that were emerging:
Cutting-edge Vaccine Findings This is a big one. Hot off the presses, this study took the Pfizer vaccine and put it on some human liver cells in a lab. They wanted to see how quickly the cells would absorb the vaccine and what happens on the inside of the cell after a few hours. Here’s a quote from this published peer-reviewed study: “In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.” Ok, in human language, here are some important things that the study found:
Compare this with the government of Israel’s fact-checker article on mRNA vaccines: “The cells' genome (DNA) is stored within the nucleus, surrounded by double membrane. This membrane allows large molecules such as the produced mRNA molecule to leave the nucleus but prevents large molecules from entering the nucleus. Therefore, the mRNA molecule administered by the vaccine is entirely incapable of entering the nucleus and "reach" the DNA.” We know this is false because this peer-reviewed study has found foreign vaccine-induced DNA floating around inside the nucleus! And it found a lot of it. Take another quote from the same government of Israel article: “The mRNA molecule survives within the body for a few hours” Well, look at what this pre-print study has found: “In this paper, we provide the first data characterizing the actual proteins produced by mouse and human cells in culture that had been incubated up to 30 minutes with the commercial vaccine produced by Moderna (i.e., Spikevax). The mRNA vaccine continues to produce proteins up to 12-14 days after introduction to the cells.” 12-14 days is significantly more than “a few hours.” Let’s go even further. Another recently published study indicates: “In contrast to disrupted germinal centers (GCs) in lymph nodes during infection, mRNA vaccination stimulates robust GCs containing vaccine mRNA and spike antigen up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases” In reality, if you are looking in the right place (e.g. lymph nodes), you’d actually find that the mRNA from the vaccine is still present up to 8 weeks later. This is only from the places in the body we’ve studied so far! Just to stop for a moment: these are kinds of findings that strongly vindicate people who chose to not take these experimental gene therapy drugs because of the lack of safety studies. The vaccine proponents like governments claim that these vaccines only stay in your system for a few hours. But studies are finding that’s not true at all - even up to 8 weeks later the vaccine’s “stuff” is still in your lymph nodes making your body produce spike proteins. And, if you read my last interview, you may recall studies that found the spike protein itself is harmful. Side-effects Here’s a study that found a link between vaccination and cancerous lymph nodes: “PET/CT revealed hypermetabolic lymph nodes in the axillary and supraclavicular regions draining the vaccine injection site in 36% of the subjects having received the first dose and 54% of those studied after the 2nd dose. The hypermetabolic lymph nodes were enlarged in 7% of 1st dose vaccinees and 18% of 2nd dose vaccinees. Both differences were statistically significant, demonstrating that the impact on draining lymph nodes was greater after the booster dose, confirming data from the meta-analysis above (12). Regarding the relationship with the underlying malignancy, hypermetabolic lymph nodes were considered as malignant in 5% of the patients while no conclusion regarding the malignant nature could be drawn in 15% of the vaccinees including 16 patients with lymphoma. Interestingly, in none of these studies, the possibility that the mRNA vaccines could have played a role in the development of malignant lymph nodes was considered.” So, there’s evidence that the mRNA vaccines could be causing cancer in lymph nodes, but as this case study reports, “Interestingly, in none of these studies, the possibility that the mRNA vaccines could have played a role in the development of malignant lymph nodes was considered.” Hmmm… Another study titled “The mRNA-LNP platform's lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory” finds that injecting mice with the mRNA vaccines causes inflammation and led to a high mortality rate in those mice. “Vaccines based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are a promising new platform used by two leading vaccines against coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical trials and ongoing vaccinations present with very high protection levels and varying degrees of side effects. However, the nature of the reported side effects remains poorly defined… The same dose of [lipid nanoparticles] delivered intranasally led to similar inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate. In summary, here we show that the LNPs used for many preclinical studies are highly inflammatory… Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are similar to the ones used for human vaccines, which could also explain the observed side effects in humans using this platform.” Another study titled “Four cases of acquired hemophilia A following immunization with mRNA BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine” looked at 4 people who ended up with a condition that causes your blood to not be able to clot properly. The study’s highlights were: “• Immunomodulatory effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still poorly understood. • Four cases of Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) observed after mRNA BNT162b2 vaccination • Unusually high AHA incidence in eight months in our province (total population 526,349)” Finally, here’s another study that’s from last year titled “Comprehensive investigations revealed consistent pathophysiological alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.” This study found lots of different unexpected changes to the blood of those vaccinated: “Here, we report, besides generation of neutralizing antibodies, consistent alterations in hemoglobin A1c, serum sodium and potassium levels, coagulation profiles, and renal functions in healthy volunteers after vaccination… Altogether, our study recommends additional caution when vaccinating people with pre-existing clinical conditions, including diabetes, electrolyte imbalances, renal dysfunction, and coagulation disorders.” Masking There’s just so much to cover! Around masking, I’ll let you do some of your own reading and digging. Here’s a few to get started: - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/ We knew masking didn’t work - even in 2011. The UK’s influenza pandemic plan from 2011 says it very plainly with all the specific reasons why masking doesn’t work. Check out page 37. Lockdowns It was known before this pandemic that lockdowns, restricting travel, gathering limits, etc. had great socio-economic harms for very little benefit. Here are a few documents highlighting this:
“Evidence and experience suggest that in pandemic phase 6 (increased and sustained transmission in the general population), aggressive interventions to isolate patients and quarantine contacts, even if they are the first patients detected in a community, would probably be ineffective, not a good use of limited health resources, and socially disruptive.”
“NPIs such as travel restrictions have also been employed by countries as a political or social measure to abate fear rather than a necessary public health measure. While national public health guidelines generally recommend NPIs during an outbreak to limit contact frequency between individuals and to decrease the potential risk of spread of respiratory pathogens, there is a broad lack of evidence of efficacy and a lack of understanding about secondary adverse impacts.”
Recently, John Hopkin’s research has come out and stated: “An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality. While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.” Again, this isn’t new. Our public health approaches have not been built on science, or else we would not have used such drastic and harmful measures which we already knew would do more harm than good. Last time we didn't get into the natural side of things. What have you found out about natural immunity? There’s a great collection of 150 studies on this topic here. I’ll quote a few of the studies listed: - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.” - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.03.21259976v2 “There was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.” - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3 “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…” - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected…” “The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well.” “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.” “This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” What have you found most interesting or alarming as you look at these studies? Taking the topics and studies I covered in the last interview and this one, the most alarming thing is that all these things - immune escape, harms of lockdowns, the ineffectiveness of masking and the superiority of natural immunity are nothing new. These things have been established for years and decades. What’s so alarming is that our public health officials around the world decided to ignore these things after the pandemic began. Now we are seeing the tangible results of the poor public health measures that were using harmful and ineffective policies. So why did that happen? Was it mere incompetence? Or intentional? I don’t know the answer, but nonetheless, it’s concerning. We are increasingly seeing the public, in large, now losing trust in their political leaders and public health officials for flip-flopping so much and ignoring what used to be solid science. As we come to the end of the interview for today, I want to stress the importance of people doing their own studies. Where can people start researching for themselves? There’s a handful of scientists that I personally follow. Here are some links: - https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD - https://twitter.com/GVDBossche - https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff - https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya - https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/archive - https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/archive - https://www.youtube.com/c/MedicinewithDrMoran - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF9IOB2TExg3QIBupFtBDxg I always like to start with my readers getting to know you a bit. Can you share a bit about who you are and why you have become so interested in learning Canadian law lately?
Sure! My name is Molly Broomer. I’m married to my husband Tyler, and we live just outside of Edmonton with our two lovely kids. I was born in Canada and lived here until age 6, but I spent my most formative years growing up in Texas, just outside Houston. All of my education is American, with the exception of a few courses that I took here in Canada during my bachelor’s degree. I have a degree in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute, which fuelled my desire to apply Scripture to all of life. Growing up in the U.S., I was taught the importance of civic duty and patriotism and national identity. These are values that are instilled from a young age via the education system and the community at large. When I moved back to Canada 12 years ago, I realized I really knew nothing about our governmental system or our legal system. While that didn’t sit well with me, I was definitely busy with “other things” for a long while. But in the last six years under Trudeau, as Canada has accelerated quickly toward some very concerning ideology, and particularly as I watched citizens all around me become seemingly completely comfortable with our government stripping our Charter rights in the name of “health and safety,” my interest was quickly piqued. My husband shifted into law enforcement three years ago, and we quickly got a very inside look at the justice system. I have always been attracted to studying the law and even toyed with being a lawyer for a quick minute several years ago (maybe one day, still!). Seeing the “system” from the inside made me aware of just how unaware we had previously been about what really goes on, how important it is to know your rights, and how many people actually do not know their lawful rights and freedoms. When my pastor (James Coates) was unlawfully jailed in January of 2021, I knew that I had to start taking this seriously and figure out a way to mesh my knowledge of Scripture with a deeper understanding of civic law & government. In a way, I was forced to become interested, but I’m very grateful for that. As someone who was born in Canada and raised in America, what major difference do you see between how Americans and Canadians understand the law? Well, this is a tricky question because Americans vary so much from state to state, as do Canadians from province to province. Additionally, the USA has changed a lot since I lived there, which we’ve all been watching from afar. But, I will speak to my personal experience and some broad generalities. Keep in mind I am painting with a very broad brush here. I also want to be clear that I am trying to be factual here, not necessarily assert that one country is better or worse than the other. As I mentioned previously, Americans are taught to be proud of their national history & identity from a young age. The history of the United States is a proud one. The bravery and fortitude showed by the colonies and later the Founding Fathers, to conceive of a nation so unique, fight for that vision, sacrifice for it and for posterity, and then solidify that idea in iron pen- this is the history in which Americans proudly share. If you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence, I encourage you to do so. It is full of beautiful, resolved language regarding the responsibility of a people to throw off a tyrannical government and instate a new one, which is exactly what they did. And in place of a monarch, they instated a government of the people, by the people, for the people. I believe it is because of this history and this foundational belief system that Americans tend to (generally) view their relationship with the government with healthy skepticism. The government should work for them and represent the people well, and if they don’t, they’ll do something about it. Additionally, the Bill of Rights is far more enshrined in American culture than here in Canada, and I was taught from a young age just how important those inalienable rights are to human flourishing. Now, sadly we are seeing some of these attitudes change in America, but again, I’m speaking in generalities from my own experience. I believe most adults my age and older have had a similar experience. In general, I believe Americans view the law, particularly the Bill of Rights, as their protection from the government and protection from tyranny. Now, Canadians, on the other hand, have a very different history. Canada is born from those who wished to avoid war and remain loyal to Britain, as well as those who were just simply wary of the Americans. Throughout the American Revolution, Loyalists fled to Canada, sometimes even enticed by the British with promises of land or freedom. It wasn’t until almost one hundred years after American Independence that Canada confederated and became a nation. It was not until over one hundred years after that that Canada introduced its own bill of rights (the Charter). So in a way, it often feels like we don’t really know who we are as a nation or even where we come from. I might offend a few of my fellow Canadians when I say this, but in a sense, it often feels as though the Canadian national identity is that we don’t truly have a cohesive identity, at least not in the way a country like America has. Of course, older Canadians would identify themselves very much with the commonwealth and great loyalty to the Queen. Still, we seem to know more about who we are not rather than who we are (i.e. we are not America, we are not really Britain either). On the whole, though, the Freedom Convoy marks the first time most Canadians felt a sense of true national solidarity and identity. Most of our history, political decisions and legal decisions come from avoiding war or conflict of some kind and trying to appease everyone within our borders, and often those without, too. Our Charter is only 40 years old, and it contains clauses that allow for the infringement of rights under certain circumstances. I think this comes from the fact that we are more concerned with the good of the collective than with individual good and individual rights. Lacking the same strength of identity forged in war and struggle for independence from tyranny has, I believe, led to a society that believes the government is generally good and looking out for their best interest. We don’t question our laws very often. The stereotype is true! We are very nice, passive, polite people. We are a lot more trusting of our government and less likely to assert our individual rights. Why do you think it is important to understand the laws of the land and teach them to our children? I certainly hope that all Christians are actively teaching the laws of God to their children first and foremost. And because we know that God’s law is best for all of mankind, I believe it is appropriate to stay apprised of the legal happenings in our country so that we can assess current and proposed legislation with a biblical lens. Our children need to learn this skill from us. We need to teach them to think critically about government and justice and legislation, ask intelligent questions and examine issues from all angles. We also need to teach them how to hold those earthly laws up to God’s Word and determine whether or not our country is governing within God’s parameters. I saw this with such clarity during the pandemic, as governments began to play God. Attempting to prevent death and deliver their people from sickness, they stepped far outside God’s parameters for governmental authority. Simultaneously, I watched far too many Christians blindly follow their lead, even giving up right worship and fellowship with the Body of Christ, without asking hard questions about whether what the government was doing was even legal, which it wasn’t the vast majority of the time. We need a robust theology of government & law & spheres of authority so that we can discern where we fit within our nation. Christians do have a responsibility to submit to and honour the government insofar as the government is not commanding what God has forbidden or forbidding what God has commanded. We need to know the law so we can obey it and uphold it. We need to know the law so we can fight against it at the right time, when the law is unrighteous, oppressive, or out of step with the nation’s values or God’s law. How does your faith impact your desire to learn the law? Psalm 33 tells us that God loves justice. God wrote his law on our hearts (Romans 1), and he gave us the first written law in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). I serve a God who is perfectly just, who loves and executes justice, who has promised to judge the earth rightly, and who commands that we also do justice (Micah 6:8). His laws are wonderful, and Scripture sets a clear path of rejoicing in and meditating on the precepts of God. I used to be someone who drew a dividing line between politics/law/government and my faith because I thought they were incompatible. My attitude was, “I’m never going to convince the secular world to view the world as God does, so leave them to their own devices, and I’ll be over here in the church doing my own thing.” However, as I’ve matured in faith and in life, I see that politics/law/government is exactly where my faith should be brought to bear. Fighting for truth, fighting for justice, fighting for the rights of my children and my neighbours - this is loving, and this is in step with who God says he is and the things he says he cares about. Laws have ramifications for those around me, either ameliorating or degrading. Every law will either move us closer to God’s standard or farther away - nothing is neutral. They either help or harm. Even the smallest bylaws have consequences, good or bad. If I stand by quietly while a government encroaches upon and oppresses my neighbour, am I loving them? Am I loving and obeying God if I stand by quietly while a government blasphemes God’s Word and prohibits what he has commanded (most recently in Canada, see Bill C-4)? What should we do when our government does not hold itself accountable to the laws of the land? John Knox said, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” We know from Scripture that God does not tolerate tyranny, oppression, or injustice. He will punish evil rulers and nations either here or in the end. I believe Christians have a duty to resist tyranny when we see it, not only in defence of our religious rights and such but in defence of the weak and the vulnerable. I don’t know that I believe a Christian should take up arms against his government, but I believe peaceful resistance, civil disobedience, is very much biblical and called for in these instances. The Hebrew midwives refused to carry out unlawful orders to kill baby boys because they knew that to do so would violate God’s law (Exodus 1). Daniel continued to pray publicly after prayer had been outlawed, even though he could have done it in secret (Daniel 6). Why? Because he was making a statement: My God is most powerful and most worthy, and I obey him above all others. This should be our attitude toward governments who break the law. I watched our church, Grace Life, simply continue on in obedience to God when the restrictions came down requiring them to close. They did not draw attention to themselves; they simply continued being faithful, meeting together each week as God has commanded. Eventually, this civil disobedience put them at odds with the government when they were reported, and that is when things got sticky. James Coates peacefully defied the government’s overreach by preaching God’s Word and calling the government to accountability before God, continuing to shepherd his flock in spite of unlawful mandates. When the time came, he accepted the consequences of his decision, no matter how unjust they were. He showed us that you can resist tyranny while still submitting to and honouring your government (Romans 13). I believe Christians can and should hold the government to account because the government’s authority is given by God. Their authority is also restricted by God. It is limited in scope and execution. We are well within our biblical mandate to speak the truth and live out God’s law, even if it brings us up against a government that has overstepped its God-given boundary. Our desire is not to crush the government; our desire is to obey God above all others. If that brings us into conflict with earthly powers, so be it. Thanks for your time! For those who want to learn more about Canadian laws, where do you recommend that they start? I’m very honoured that you would ask for my thoughts, David. It is a real joy to talk with brothers and sisters around Canada about these very important issues! First, begin with Scripture & the Spirit. Familiarize yourself with God’s law and his character so that you can judge rightly. Ask the Spirit for wisdom. James 1:5 says, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” Much of what we need to be good students of law & government is found in Scripture and will be illuminated by the Spirit as we study it. Ask God for his wisdom as you seek to understand these things, and he will help you. He is the source of all knowledge, after all! Secondly, just start reading laws. When you hear of a new bill being passed, go read it in its entirety. As you find terms you’re unfamiliar with, look them up. A common-sense approach will help you learn more as you familiarize yourself with how bills are written and what the language means. Think critically, and think biblically. Finally, personally, I have found these books very helpful in understanding Canadian constitution, law, and government: The Canadian Constitution, 2nd Edition. Adam Dodek The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary Government in Canada, 7th edition. Patrick Malcolmson, et al. It is helpful and formative to look at the theory/philosophy of law itself from a Christian perspective, so either of these two books by J. Budziszewski are amazing: The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man Written on The Heart: A Case for Natural Law And if you are interested in a Christian look at government and our Godly response, it just so happens James Coates has a book releasing March 1 on that very topic, which I highly recommend! God vs. Government, James Coates & Nathan Busenitz Thank you Pastor Sean for coming back for another interview. Today I want to chat with you about the conscience. So let's start with what is the conscience and what role does it play in our life?
The conscience is most succinctly defined in a little book by Andy Naselli and JD Crowley (Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ) as “your consciousness of what you believe is right and wrong.” With that in mind, the conscience provides you with the ability to make decisions and live your life based on what you believe is right and wrong. Though a person may ignore his or her conscience or may actively choose to oppose his or her conscience, everyone has a conscience because human beings were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27), who is a moral being. How can we distinguish between a theological/doctrinal matter and a matter of conscience? For Christians, our conscience must be informed by the Bible so then the more we study God’s Word, the more we learn about God and what pleases Him. The more we learn about what pleases God, which is to say what is right and wrong, the stronger our conscience becomes. The Bible provides us with everything we need to know to live a life of godliness (2 Peter 1:3-7), but obviously, it does not address every single issue or every single thing we will need to make a decision on in this life. Those things which are not addressed directly in Scripture are matters of conscience, which is to say, things about which we must decide for ourselves what we believe to be right or wrong, which for the Christian means deciding what we believe would most honour God. There are also things which are mentioned in Scripture, but Scripture tells us directly, or it implies, that they are also matters of conscience, which is to say things which Christians can disagree on, like for example, choosing to celebrate special days or not (Col 2:16) or choosing to consume alcohol or not. The conscience wasn’t something that was emphasized or talked about a lot until two years ago. Why do you think there is now an interest in this topic? Well, quite frankly, I think there should be more of an interest in this topic than there currently is among the church, but the reason some Christians are talking about it is because of the polarizing issues (e.g. vaccines and masks) that have come around which are related to COVID-19. When I say I wish there were more of an interest, I say that because I think too many churches are not thinking enough about the issue of conscience, and whether they mean to or not, they are binding individual Christian’s consciences. This happens when a church makes a matter of conscience an issue of obedience to the Lord. In other words, what you will often hear is that if you really love your neighbour, you will get vaccinated. The problem with this argument is that it cannot at all be defended from Scripture because Scripture does not command us to get vaccinated. This means that vaccination is a matter of conscience, and so instead of telling Christians they must get vaccinated, the church should instead teach Christians to apply principles found in Scripture, research the issue, speak with those they trust, pray about it, then do what they believe would most honour God (1 Cor 10:31). If the church understood conscience rightly, I think this would be happening more often, so I really do pray that the church will take a greater interest in understanding liberty of conscience and the corresponding doctrine, Christian liberty. A person’s conscience differs from person to person for multiple reasons, one of which is how it is informed. This causes tensions between people, yet we are called to have fellowship with those whose conscience may differ from ours. As a pastor, how do you navigate this? What about as a parent or spouse? You know, this has been one of the most difficult things about being a pastor over the last two years, to see difference of opinions on all things COVID resulting in so much division in the church and in the home. As a pastor, what I have done to navigate this is first, I have been sure to help my congregation understand liberty of conscience and have also helped them navigate how to discern what is or is not a matter of conscience. The second thing I have done is emphasize that as believers, our unity is found in Christ, not in our opinions on viruses and vaccines. The third thing I have done is emphasize the need to have compassion and show charity to those who come to different conclusions on matters of conscience. While in marriages and homes, there would be slightly different nuances to how they apply, the same three things are necessary, an understanding of liberty of conscience, a focus on the source of our unity, and an emphasis on compassion and charity. On conscience issues, such as wearing masks or getting the vaccine, some pastors are binding the conscience of those in the church. What is a pastor’s role in protecting the consciences of those they are to care for? Binding the conscience of a believer is a serious matter, as requiring something that God does not require is to both add to the Word of God and claim lordship over the conscience of a child of God. With that said, the first way a pastor can protect the consciences of those he cares for is to exalt Jesus as Lord as he preaches the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). This will both remind the congregation who is Lord and ensure that they know what God does and does not require of His people, which will then result in their consciences being more informed by Scripture. The second way a pastor can protect the consciences of those he has been entrusted with is by constantly calling them to a lifelong pursuit of holiness, which by necessity includes never denying your conscience (see James 4:17 and Romans 14:23). The third way a pastor can protect the consciences of those he has been entrusted with is to be confessional (because the historic confessions like the Westminster Confession or 2nd London Confession have a robust statement concerning liberty of conscience) or at the least have a section in the church’s statement of faith concerning liberty of conscience. This will ensure that churches are not caught by surprise but are rather prepared to deal with situations biblically where liberty of conscience is central. As we come to the end of the interview, I’d like to ask one final question. How does a pastor ensure Christian liberty on conscience matters? This may sound like too simple of an answer, but the way a pastor ensures liberty on conscience matters is by preaching the gospel. As mentioned earlier, there are two corresponding doctrines at play here - Christian liberty and liberty of conscience. It is because we have Christian liberty that we have liberty of conscience, which means that the more we understand Christian liberty (i.e. that we have been set free FROM sin and death and set free TO live for God), the more we will be committed to liberty of conscience. And if we want to understand Christian liberty better, then we need to understand the event through which our Christian liberty was purchased, namely, the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It’s been great connecting with you and getting to know you over the past few months. For those who don’t know who you are, can you share with me a bit about who you are and what your passions are in life?
Thank you David. It has been a great pleasure getting to know you and your family over the last few months. One of the good things that have come out of this overreach of our current government. My name is Glen, I have been married to my lovely wife Emily since 2008, and we have three great little ones. I was born in Digby county, and at the young age of 7, God revealed my lost estate before Him. I am thankful that my cry to Him was answered, and at a young age, I realized that Christ’s death was for me. I’m thankful for my growth in understanding His word even more since then and His continual correcting me when I’m wrong on an issue. My passion in life is my faith and family. I also enjoy the outdoors, and the deep wood is often the best place to talk to God. Fishing, hunting and the bushcraft lifestyle are passions that consume some of my time all months of the year. We’ve chatted about a variety of subjects, but one subject that has intrigued me is the topic of government. Personally, I believe that the Bible touches on all areas of life, including politics. How does and should the scriptures inform us on government? I agree. The Bible does touch on all areas of our life, and as Christians, it should be our first place to go to understand what is happening around us and how to respond to it. Something I have learned, and revisit it with every new thing that arises in life, is that we need to understand something by allowing scripture to explain it to us. Too quick do we look at politics and then allow the political ideologies to interpret what Christ says on a topic. It’s important to remember that we must allow scripture to interpret scripture and then apply it to our lives. This should include our views on the role of government and how we treat each other. In past conversations, we have discussed various forms of government. One form that you advocate for is Voluntaryism. Can you explain what that is and what motivated you to embrace this form of government? I wasn’t aware of what Voluntaryism even was until a few years ago. The discovery of Voluntaryism arose after trying to properly understand my role in life when it comes to participating in political events and political parties. What really started the journey was a quote I heard by a provincial professed Christian NDP leader a few years ago. He commented that he ran for the NDP, and that he agrees with the NDP platform, because he sees so much of it in scripture in places such as Acts where they sold what they had and gave to others to help (Acts 2:45) and Hebrews 13:16, where it tells us to share what we have. This sparked my interest. I bought into it until I actually read what my Bible says and realized how scripture doesn’t at all say what he said. Political parties believe they can raise taxes and introduce regulations as they see fit and proclaim that they are doing it in the name of the interest of the people and for the safety of the people. They can proclaim this if they wish, but they can’t use scripture to defend this. Every passage we find that tells us to help others is talking about the individual Christian or the church, not the government. I could go deeper into this part of the discussion, but this was the beginning of my journey towards Voluntaryism. Two main principles of Voluntaryism is Self Ownership (… “the natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one’s own body and life”) and Non –Aggression (…aggression, defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, is inherently wrong.”) A man named Auberon Herbert, who lived from 1838 to 1906, is attributed with coming up with the term Voluntaryism. He was a significant proponent for a voluntary-funded government that was only in place to defend individual liberty and property. You see this in scripture in places such as Romans 13:1-7, where our rulers are not to be terror to good conduct but to bad and who carry out. They are those who are supposed to carry out God’s wrath on wrongdoers. Or in 1 Peter 3:13-17, where we can read, “governors sent by Him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” Governments are not meant to be there to provide social programs and help people with food and bills. Throughout the New Testament, that was the responsibility of the individuals who make up the church. Another group who were originators of the voluntaryist ideology was a group who, while they had many faults (who doesn’t) called themselves the Levellers and existed around the 1650s. They preached ideas of equality, religious tolerance, suffrage and sovereignty. They debated topics such as forced tithing in the church as unscriptural, amongst other things. Voluntaryism, to me, is the idea that every action, whether with another person or with the governing body over the land, should be done on a voluntary basis. No one should be forced to do anything. Indeed we are told to pay our taxes in scripture. In Romans 13 again, you see that taxes were meant to pay for the defence that was being given by the government. In the political structure we are under today, though, you see our taxes being used for many sins that God spoke against. It is God’s responsibility, not ours, to hold our governments accountable for their misuse of money they demand from us. A Voluntary society would see our money only go towards programs we wished to fund. For example, if we wanted a police force, we could either volunteer funds towards a paid force, or we could operate a police force on a similar basis as our Volunteer Fire departments. Our Fire departments are often as well trained and equipped as paid departments. Our policing forces could operate the same way. Complete freedom without rulership typically leads to anarchy. We see this warning in the Bible, for instance, in Judges 21:25, “In those days there was no king [governing authority] in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” For Voluntaryism to work, what types of checks-and-balances would have to be established to avoid this pitfall? Voluntaryism doesn’t preach against a government in the same way most anarchists would. While a voluntaryist may see the need for a government, what we don’t see the need for is mandated programs. Programs put forth by the government that go beyond the defence of the innocent in their nation. Where the overreach of government happens, the lack of creativity also exists in the individual. Like everything in life, nothing works properly without Christ being at the forefront of it. This is why many of us who hold to Voluntaryism stick the term Christian in front of it. We use the Bible as our guide on checks and balances. But in a secular Voluntaryist society (as well as a Christian one) you would see private enterprise and the free market arise and thrive. This would lead to a number of checks and balances. Insurance companies would suddenly have their own checks and balances in place and their own inspectors. The more trustworthy and reputable insurance companies eventually would see their business grow. They would offer programs that provided oversight regarding homeownership, business ownership etc. You would also have community programs pop up to help with other things. A good example of Voluntaryist setups in our current system are things such as soup kitchens, search and rescue teams and many fire departments. They are completely run by volunteers and do very well in most areas recruiting willing participants eager to train and learn skills to help their neighbours. In relation to Judges 21:25 though, you see a look at how God felt about governments that ruled over us in 1 Samuel chapter 8. A very interesting read. God’s human government up to this point was often a person chosen by God to act as a judge before the people. By the time 1 Samuel arrived, the Jewish people wanted a king like that of other nations around them. A reading of the chapter will tell you what God thought of such an action. Everything we do ought to be in obedience to God’s Word. What do you think is God’s design for government? To answer this, I would point folks to the first seven verses of Romans 13. A government or authority figure should only be in place to be a terror to wicked things. So a punisher of those who do wicked things. Note also that these folks should be paid tribute to perform their duty. So what we would like to call a tax for a service the government is providing. Some would compare it to the role of national security - keeping the nation safe from evildoers looking to harm its citizens. Many Canadians are convinced that the role of government is to take care of our personal safety. What are your thoughts about that? This would depend on what you mean by our personal safety. While you do see in Romans 13 that there seems to be a role for government to protect the innocent from wrong doers, this doesn’t extend to the well being of individuals when it comes to work, health and overall well being. This is the responsibility of the home structure, the church and the community around us. One will be hard-pressed to find where scripture tells us governments are supposed to take care of their citizen's health, welfare or overall well-being. You see over and over again where the church, which is God’s people, is responsible for taking care of the weak - a duty we are not to give over to the government body (Galatians 6:2; 1 John 3:17; Romans 15:1; James 5:14-16.). “I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:34-35 As we come to the end of the interview, I'd like to close by asking one final question. How does Voluntaryism reflect what you know about God? This is an excellent question to end this interview on. From the beginning of the Bible until the end, you see God behaving in this Voluntaryist style with His people and all of creation. You see this in Genesis when He provided a warning to Adam and Eve to not eat the forbidden fruit, but it was left to their decision to obey or not obey. In a number of places in scripture, we can read where we have options, and often those options are followed up with the consequences of the action we chose. For every action has a consequence to that action. For example, if you decide to keep summer tires on your vehicle in the middle of an ice storm, you’ll soon experience the consequence of this action. You see this throughout scripture. Think of Proverbs 13:20 when it says: “Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.” Or when Joshua could say in chapter 24, “Chose this day whom you will serve….” Again, we can see this idea in 1 Corinthians 10:34 when Paul could say: “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up.” At the beginning of Acts, you saw the act of many followers of Jesus selling what they had to help others. You then have Ananias in Acts 5. At the beginning of this chapter, Peter tells us that Ananias and his wife had the freedom to do as they wished with this land. They could have kept it. They also could have kept some of the money for themselves. Instead, they chose to lie and deal with the consequences. The point of this is that the Voluntary action of humans is something not discouraged by God, but then we must remember that He is God. The King of kings and Lord of lords, and there will be consequences to the actions we make before Him. Then finally, the words that have echoed throughout time since Christ could say them. That wonderful invitation: “Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28) |