Moved to new locations

You can find my new blog on Homeschoolblogger at www.homeschoolblogger.com/briannash
or my Book Stores Blog Site at www.upperroomchristianbooks.com/blog

Reformed Royalty: The Strength of Queen Jeanne d'Albret

While updating My Christian Bookstore tonight I came across a book that will be available later in the year Monday March 13th to be exact. Wings Like a Dove: The Courage of Queen Jeanne d'Albret

It tells the story of a courageous young Queen who stood up against the Papacy and helped to defend the Christian Church. This book will be available for $17.99 Canadian on Bookstore's web site or simply by clicking here For those wanting to learn more before ordering the book I found and am posting a great article about her life by Marilyn Manzer who has a B.A. from the University of California, Irvine, and is an instructor of Latin and English at Newport Christian Schools. (At least she was at the time of this writing in 1990) The original article can be found at http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n2/ant_v1n2_royalty.html

Reformed Royalty: The Strength of Queen Jeanne d'Albret

"My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:9).

Jeanne d'Albret (1528-1572), though little remembered today, is one of the great heroes of the French Reformation. Luther had posted his ninety-five theses in Germany years before, Calvin was preaching in Switzerland, and Knox in Scotland, and Jeanne d'Albret was furthering the cause of the Huguenots in France. Strength and weakness, power and helplessness -- these extremes characterized the life of so remarkable a woman. She did not possess physical strength. In fact, always frail, she died of tuberculosis at the age of forty-four. She did have some political strength as the highest ranking Protestant in France, but beyond that, she possessed a strength of will and a strength of character that held her up when she seemed the most helpless. Above all, however, was her reliance on God and the strength of His power to preserve her which bolstered her beyond measure when her situation seemed the most hopeless.

Early Life

First there was Jeanne's political strength -- or potential political strength, anyway. She was born in 1528, the only child of Henry d'Albret and Marguerite of Navarre. Her father, Henry d'Albret, Vicomte de Bearn, King of Navarre, held the small kingdom of Bearn near the Spanish border. Although the family called themselves "kings" of Navarre, "only the rump of that kingdom remained in their hands since Ferdinand of Aragon had conquered the larger portion to the south in 1512" Henry was always working to regain this lost territory. He was an extremely well liked ruler, forthright, equitable, skillfully handling the grievances of his subjects.

Jeanne's mother was Marguerite de Valois, Queen of Navarre, the sister and devoted companion of no less than Francis I, King of France. Marguerite herself is a fascinating character. Prominent not only at the court, but throughout Europe, she "occupied an influential position in the intellectual movement of the day" by speaking out against the abuses of Roman Catholicism. "Marguerite was intensely interested in humanistic studies, was deeply religious, was strongly impressed by Luther and Calvin... [but] while dissenting from much in the Roman Catholic Church, never became a Protestant." In Bearn she granted asylum to Protestants persecuted in France, and on more than one occasion used her influence with her brother to keep them from harm.

Regarding Jeanne herself, little is known of her childhood. She spent her first nine years in Lornay in the Norman countryside. Although not in the limelight with her mother at court, Jeanne's upbringing was far from humble. She was under the care of some twenty servants, ranging from a tutor to a groom and three footmen to a pastry-maker. Concerning her education, again, although little is known, the typical child of French nobility would have been brought up in the literature of his own country as well as of the Latin authors. Beyond that, " [t]here is no doubt that Marguerite's daughter was given an education designed to implement the humanist ideal, that is, the development of both character and intellect through absorption of the classic writings which were the models for the Renaissance." Jeanne was sensitive and learned quickly. She had a keen intellect which, coupled with a strong spirit, would later cause her opponents no end of trouble.

At the age of nine, Jeanne was moved closer to the court. Up to this point, she had experienced only the benefits of her position, but she was soon to feel the helplessness within it. Henry, always seeking to restore the Spanish Navarre, was seeking a marriage between his daughter and the King of Spain's son, Philip. The King of France, however, hoped to use Jeanne in his own foreign policy. After years of negotiations, a marriage contact was drawn up between Jeanne and Germany's Duke of Cleaves.

And it is in this betrothal that the strength of Jeanne's will first (historically) asserts itself. Even after her parents had resigned themselves to the King's wishes, Jeanne strongly protested the marriage. She complained bitterly to all, even writing a formal letter of protest to the King, but to no avail. Finally in June of 1541 at the age of twelve, she was wed. "The Princess wore a golden crown, a cloak of crimson satin trimmed with ermine, and a gold and silver skirt trimmed with precious stones" and had to be taken by the collar and carried forcibly to the altar.

Their union was to last only about three and a half years. The alliance with Germany became unpopular, the marriage, therefore, was no longer necessary, and an annulment was easily obtained in 1545 on the ground that the marriage had never been consummated, that it had been made under Jeanne's compulsion and against her pro-testations.

Marriage to Antoine de Bourbon

Three years later Jeanne was again the pawn in a political alliance. Her father was again seeking a compact between her and the Spanish Prince Philip, but again, the King of France, now Henry II, had other plans. To help consolidate the territories in the north and south of France, Jeanne was wed in 1549 to Antoine de Bourbon, Duc de Vendome, First Prince of the Blood. Although just as helpless in deciding her fate, this time she had no complaints. "Antoine was a dashing cavalier, handsome, courageous, affable, gracious, altogether charming." He was recognized by all as a remarkable soldier and general. He was very close in line to the succession of the French throne. What more could Jeanne want?

The two lived happily for many years. She bore two children, Henry and Catherine. As they ruled in Bearn, Jeanne proved to have her father's skill in administration and maintained great popularity among her subjects.

Religion was to cause their breech. Religion was the impetus to show Jeanne's strength yet again, this time her strength of character. Calvinism had been spreading throughout France from the mid 1530's to the 1550's. The Reformers insisted that they were not bringing in a new gospel but returning to the gospel preached by the apostles. They challenged the people to open their Bibles and to prove it to themselves. Ministers were sent from Geneva, and, despite the work of the Counter Reformation, the number of French Protestants was increasing daily. Despite legislation, "they held their prayer meetings, fed on solemn sermons preaching predestination, issued a fire of pamphlets on the abuses of the Church...and held a general synod in Paris (May 26, 1559) under the very nose of the King."

The new King, Charles IX, was a minor, and so the Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici was named regent. Her sympathies seemed to be with the reform, as well. She had listened to those whom Calvin had sent and even allowed Protestant services alternated with Masses in the Royal Chapel. Calvinism was in vogue at court. Nobles brought the ministers into their own apartments to preach. And support from the nobility was exactly what the Calvinists needed if the movement in France was to be considered anything more than a rebellion. "If the Reform won the aristocracy, it would have a nation-wide power at its back."

Conversion to Calvinism

Antoine and Jeanne listened to the reformers. Indeed, Jeanne had heard them all her life because of her mother's interest in the "new teachings." As early as 1555 Jeanne showed her leanings towards Calvinism in a letter to the Victomte de Gourdon. " [A] reform seems so right and so necessary that, for my part, I consider that it would be disloyalty and cowardice to God, to my conscience, and to my people to remain any longer in a state of suspense and indecision."

While still officially Roman Catholic, Antoine and Jeanne attended sermons preached by the ministers of Geneva. Upon visiting Bearn, one such minister reported to Calvin, "Preaching is open -- in public. The streets resound to the chanting of the Psalms. Religious books are sold as freely and openly at home." Jeanne's conversion was not publicly announced until Christmas Day, 1560. Once she had made a public profession, however, Jeanne never looked back. "For the remaining twelve years of her life she would be singled out as an enemy by the most powerful movement in Europe, the Counter Reformation."

The passage of time showed that Antoine did not really share in Jeanne's zeal for reform. In fact, what time did show was Antoine's inconsistency, his constant vacillating. He was notoriously unfaithful in his marriage, and in all else as well. It became increasingly obvious that his religious views were contingent on his chances for political gain. Catholic or Protestant, he would go back and forth in deciding which might afford him the greatest advantage. After the death of Jeanne's father, Antoine took up the effort to recover the Spanish Navarre. Also, as First Prince of the Blood, he and his heirs stood to gain the throne of France if he proceeded with care. When the Huguenots seemed to be gaining, he would join their offensive; when the Catholics had the upperhand, he would withdraw. At last, threatened and coaxed in turn by Spain, the Papacy, and finally the French court, he renounced all dealings with the reformers and declared himself once and for all a Roman Catholic. The gravity of this stand cannot be overstated. Besides his royal ties, Antoine was France's Lieutenant General and was known for his amazing military prowess, but he lacked the vision to see beyond his own ambitions. "Antoine's reversal shifted the balance. Had he, the First Prince of the Blood, made himself at the juncture the head of the Huguenot party, Calvinism might have become the religion of France."

It is necessary at this point to say a few words about France's foreign and domestic affairs during this period. The royal families of France and Spain (the Valois and Hapsburg respectively) had been in constant rivalry since the 1490's. The country of France was slowly led to bankruptcy in a series of wars that had lasted well through the 1540's. An uncomfortable peace ensued. The financial status caused great dissatisfaction, to the point of threats of a civil war among the French people. The spread of Calvinism brought into the country still more unrest. Catherine had now to deal not only with the threat of a Spanish invasion but with the displeasure of the Papacy, as well. Beginning in November of 1561 the Catholics issued their counter-attack. "From Parisian pulpits inflammatory sermons aroused the congregations against the royal family and the crown's officers as well as the Huguenots....Destruction of Huguenot property, assassination, and other violent incidents were occurring all over France." The Papacy also let it be known that it lent its support to the King of Spain. Though sympathetic to the reform, Catherine's first priority was to keep control of France.

Antoine's Betrayal

Antoine and Jeanne were at court when Antoine at last sided with the Roman Catholics. Many nobles followed his lead. This, in turn, forced Catherine's hand. She reinstated conservative Catholic tutors for Charles IX, forbade discussion of Calvinist doctrine, and her lenience towards those arrested for religious reasons ceased. Still more nobles placed themselves within the Roman camp.

Jeanne, however, could not be dissuaded. Her conversion had been motivated by neither politics nor fashion, and she would not bend. The strength of her will, this time put into service for God, was unflinching. While others cowered back to the Mass, Jeanne had Protestant services in her apartments "with all the doors open" as exasperated observers pointed out. Others followed Antoine's lead, but Jeanne called to him to remember the true teaching they had received. Antoine demanded that she go to Mass, but Jeanne flatly refused. "When the Queen Mother tried to persuade her to accommodate her husband, she finally replied, rather than ever go to Mass, if she held her kingdom and her son in her hand, she would throw them both to the bottom of the sea. This was the reason they then left her in peace on the matter."

As fellow Calvinists saw the price Jeanne was paying for her stand, her strength strengthened them. Already suffering from tuberculosis, she was so ill at this time (1562) that doctors were unsure if she could recover. Antoine had made her all but a prisoner in her apartments, had taken away their son, and was threatening divorce. Finally, both Antoine and Catherine wanted her out of Paris. Catherine had even promised that after Jeanne's departure, no Protestant services would be permitted at court. This in itself should speak of Jeanne's influence. On March 6, 1562, Jeanne left Paris to return to Bearn. She left without her son (she was permitted to say goodbye and to enjoin him never to go to Mass), still very ill, and under fear of being kidnapped along the way.

Jeanne as Supreme Regent

In April 1562, the first civil war (the first of three that would occur in Jeanne's lifetime) broke out while Jeanne was still en route to Bearn. The Huguenots were under the command of the Prince de Conde and Admiral Gaspard de Coligny. The Catholics were led by the Duke de Guise. Jeanne herself was not involved in this or the second civil war, but rather concentrated her efforts on her own kingdom. Upon her return, "Jeanne devoted herself primarily to local administration and to foster the Reformed faith in her domain." She could not escape the war's impact, however. First, being so close to Spain, she needed to prepare herself with military defense. Secondly, some months into the war, Antoine had been wounded fighting on the Catholic side. Although Antoine had summoned his mistress in his convalescence, when word of his injury reached Jeanne, she immediately made herself ready to go nurse him. But the infection spread, and Antoine died before Jeanne could obtain permission to enter enemy lines.

Antoine's death forced the surrounding powers to deal with Jeanne directly. Her son was still to be a hostage at court for the next four years, but she was able to reinstate Protestant tutors for the boy to oversee his education. Her husband's death also put her in sole control of Bearn, and she worked with great energy, against great obstacles, to strengthen and reform her domain. "Her reorganization of the economic and judicial system was so sound it remained in force well into the 18th century." Theodore Beza, Calvin's right hand man in her request, sent her more than a dozen ministers to preach the gospel. Laws were passed to protect these ministers, she abolished public processions, purified the churches of images, and suppressed the Mass in some parts of her kingdom. A synod was formed and there were plans for a Protestant Academy. Her achievements led one reformer to say of her, "The Queen of Navarre has banished all idolatry from her domains and sets an example of virtue with incredible firmness and courage."

Meanwhile, the King of Spain, now Philip II (the same Philip to whom her father had hoped to marry Jeanne), tried to persuade her to marry one of his sons. Ironically, the union with the Spanish royal family that her father had so wanted in the past would now have cost Jeanne everything -- her kingdom, her independence, and her faith. She saw this but felt compelled to reopen the negotiations with Spain that had stopped at her husband's death. Sending an ambassador, Philip demanded she cast aside her religious policy, calling it evil and threatening that he would not tolerate Calvinism "so near to his subjects." The ambassador related Jeanne's reply, characteristically sharp when she was provoked. "Although I am just a little Princess, God has given me the government of this country so I may rule it according to His Gospel and teach it His Laws. I rely on God, who is more powerful than the King of Spain." Philip's reply is menacing. "This is quite too much of a woman to have as a daughter-in-law. I would much prefer to destroy her and treat her as such an evil woman deserves." Quite too much of a woman, indeed.

The Papacy, too sought Jeanne. Pious IV sent his own ambassador and his own set of threats. She was warned that her subjects would not stand for reform, that Spain would not stand for it. She was ordered to restore the churches and to cast off the heresies that he for a time "seduced" her. She was implored "with tears to return to the true fold." Her reply did little to hide her annoyance, "You appeal to your authority as the Pope's legate. The authority of the Pope's legate is not recognized in Bearn. Keep your tears for yourself. Out of charity I might contribute a few." There followed a plot to kidnap her and deliver her the the Inquisition in Spain. She was summoned to appear in Rome upon penalty of excommunication, confiscation of goods, and a declaration that her lands would be open to the first taker.

This last claim troubled Philip of Spain who did not want just anyone to take over Navarre. It made Catherine furious. She resented the Papacy's presumption in disciplining Jeanne over the head of France. It was a dangerous game Jeanne was playing, pitting the larger powers against one another while her kingdom and her life were held in the balance. Meanwhile, she continued with her reform. There were plans to carry out "the total suppression of idolatry." The Calvinist Academy became a reality and ecclesiastical wealth was confiscated and given to the poor.
Spain and the Papacy were up in arms. "It was disturbing enough that John Knox had created a Calvinist establishment in Scotland, but if it were allowed to develop in Bearn, it might spread throughout France, a far more serious challenge to the church." They put pressure on Catherine, Catherine put pressure on Jeanne, Jeanne was evasive. She had returned to court for a time to appease Catherine who was confident of her powers to control people near her. Reform went on in Bearn in spite of Jeanne's absence. She was able to return with her son Henry, at last.

Fleeing Navarre to Greater Service

When the third civil war broke out in 1568, Jeanne could no longer concern herself with her domains alone. Catherine could no longer protect her because a moderate faction no longer seemed to exist. Jeanne's life was now threatened by Spanish and French Catholic troops. She and her son took flight to La Rochelle, the Protestant stronghold and threw in their lot with Coligny, Conde and the other French Protestants.

It is in La Rochelle that the strength of Jeanne's service to her God -- and His strength at work through her -- is best seen. While staying in touch as best she could be with Bearn, she also proved invaluable to the Huguenot cause. As Minister of Propaganda, she wrote manifestoes and requests for aid to foreign princes. Under her direction fell such concerns in La Rochelle as "finances, fortifications, discipline (except in the army), and, in part, intelligence."She contributed her wealth, even offering her jewels as security in foreign loans. She supervised the care of the tens of thousands of refugees that poured into the city. She did not confine herself within the city's walls, however. At even critical points in the fighting, she would accompany Coligny, inspecting the defences and rallying troops. When one Huguenot captain, La Noue, hesitated to have his arm amputated after it had been crushed, Jeanne held his hand in support during the surgery and was praised for the care she took of him in his recovery.

A college was established in La Rochelle under direction, to be "a seminary of piety and a center for the education of the holy ministry." She brought to it some of the most learned men of the Reform. The better part of their salaries was paid by Jeanne herself. She was working at such a frenzied pace, perhaps realizing that she did not have long to live. Her body grew weaker, but her determination was stronger than ever.

Jeanne was at her height; the Huguenot cause was at its height. It offered its terms of peace. Jeanne wrote to both the King and the Queen Mother, but when the terms were denied and the Huguenots were told that the condition of peace was that they lay down absolutely all their arms, Jeanne answered, "We have come to the determination to die, all of us, rather than to abandon our God, and our religion, the which we cannot maintain unless permitted to worship publicly, any more than a human body can live without meat and drink."At last the Peace of St. Germain was signed by Charles IX in August of 1570, granting the Huguenots more than they had ever before been granted: "freedom of worship except in Paris or near the court, full eligibility to public office, and, as guarantee that these terms would be honored in practice, the right to hold four cities under their independent rule for two years."

Peace was uneasy. The Catholics were outraged by the King's concession. Charles was himself trying to assert his independence from his mother, and under Coligny's council was considering war with Spain in an attempt to unify his people. Catherine had her own plans for unity. She suggested the marriage of Henry of Navarre to her daughter Marguerite. This would unite the Bourbon and Valois families, it would unite Jeanne and Catherine, Protestant and Catholic, it would unite France. Both factions had strong supporters of the marriage, each side thinking it had the most to gain. Other Protestants were quite critical. Jeanne herself was in agony. She greatly feared that her son would return to Catholicism, and that would break her heart. On the other hand, she feared for France and took it to heart when it was suggested that her stubbornness in the matter would be at the cost of the Reform.
She arrived in Paris in January 1572 to begin what would be months of negotiations concerning the marriage. Horrified upon her arrival by the court's decadence, she wrote to her son:

[Marguerite] is beautiful, discreet, and graceful, but she has grown up in the most vicious and corrupt atmosphere imaginable. I cannot see that anyone escapes its poison... Not for anything on earth would I have you live here. Therefore I wish you to be married and to retire -- with your wife -- from this corruption. Although I knew it was bad, I find it even worse than I feared.... If you were here you wold never escape without a special intervention from God...
You have doubtless realized that their main object, my son, is to separate you from God, and from me...you can understand my anxiety for you.... I beg you, pray to God.

Feeling herself powerless to stop the marriage, Jeanne nevertheless made certain demands. "She insisted that Cardinal de Bourbon should perform the ceremony, not as a priest but as a prince, not in a church but outside it, and that Henry should not accompany his wife into the Church to hear Mass."Catherine reluctantly agreed.

Jeanne's Death

Jeanne had been in poor health for year, but when she collapsed on June 4, 1572 on her way back from a shopping trip, everyone was surprised. Both enemies and friends had thought her unstoppable. She lay in ever-increasing pain for four days. Her ministers were permitted to attend her, constantly in prayer, reading at her request Psalm 31 and John, chapters 14 through 18, exhorting her, and reminding her of God's mercy to the faithful. Having fought all her life, she did not have the strength to fight any longer. She resigned herself and prayed, "O God, my Father, deliver me from this body of death and from the miseries of this life, that I may commit no further offenses against Thee and that I may enjoy the felicity Thou hast promised me."
She died on June 9, 1572.
Jeanne's story, like those of all great men and women, does not end at her death. While Spain and the Papacy rejoiced, the Huguenots felt a terrible loss, finding comfort only in the fact that she was with her Lord.


Subsequent Tragedies

One wonders if Jeanne could have prevented the remaining events of 1572 had she been alive. The marriage of Henry and Marguerite went on as planned on August 18th. All of Jeanne's demands for the ceremony were kept. Tension filled Paris as the most powerful Protestant and Catholic leaders were present for the festivities. Catherine saw her chance to suppress the Huguenots once and for all, thus regaining some favor with the Catholic forces. Six days after the wedding Catherine sanctioned the brutal, brutal assassination of Coligny and the other six Huguenot leaders on August 24th, St. Bartholomew's Day. This was only the beginning of a weeklong slaughter of Huguenots in Paris and the provinces. The total number of deaths estimated in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew ranges from 5,000 to 30,000.

Many French Protestants accepted conversion rather than death but later renounced the oaths made under duress. Within two months of the massacre the fourth civil war broke out, and La Rochelle and other towns were resisting siege. "On July 6, 1573, Charles signed the Peace of La Rochelle, guaranteeing the Huguenots religious liberty. Politically the massacre had accomplished nothing."

One wonders also if Jeanne could have prevented some of Henry's future dealings had she been alive. Catherine had protected him against the massacre, forcing him, however to return to Catholicism. For almost four years he was again all but captive at court, but in February of 1576 he made his escape. "His first act, once clear of pursuing royal forces, was to return to his mother's faith; the second to rally the weakened followers of her Cause, and the third, to restore her legislation in the kingdom he had inherited from her." Henry III succeeded Charles IX. When Henry III was assassinated, Henry of Navarre suddenly became Henry IV of France. He remained a Calvinist for four years after becoming King, but at the end of the fifth, sixth, and seventh civil wars, he returned once again to the Catholic church. He saw no other way to unite France. Known for his dry wit, he is reported to have quipped that "Paris was worth a mass." Jeanne surely would have disagreed. Although his Edict of Nantes (1598) fulfilled all of the demands for which Jeanne and the Huguenots had fought, he proved in his personal as well as political life that he was merely sympathetic to and not a part of the Reform.

These last events -- The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, Henry's religious pliability, and the ultimate failure of the French Reformation -- are a sad epilogue to Jeanne's story. Because they come here at the end, they seem to overshadow the great events of her life. They really cannot overshadow her, however. She gave all to her God -- her wealth, health, kingdom, and life, her heart, soul, strength, and mind -- for the furtherance of His gospel. History bears out the fact that Calvinism reached its height in France from about 1559-1572, those years in which Jeanne was a part of the movement. And she left behind a great legacy, first to her own kingdom, where, she would say, "God has always granted me the grace to preserve this little corner of Bearn, where, little by little, good increases and evil diminishes." Her legislation and reform in Bearn outlived her by many, many years. But she has left behind a legacy to all those of the reformed faith who find in the memory of her service to God the sufficiency of His strength.

Copyright © by Covenant Community Church of Orange County 1990

A Testimony Worth Sharing

Dr. Richard Ganz was born in New York City, and raised in a Jewish home. He graduated from the City University of New York with a degree in Psychology. He then earned his master’s degree and his Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at Wayne State University. After a year’s internship in the department of psychiatry at Wayne State University Medical Center, in Detroit, Michigan, he followed that with a year of Post-Doctoral study in the department of child psychiatry at Upstate Medical Center, in Syracuse, New York, where he was later on the Clinical Faculty of the Department of Psychiatry, as well as teaching at Syracuse University. Following his conversion to Jesus Christ, Dr. Ganz went on to receive his theological training at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he received his Master of Divinity degree. Dr. Ganz has lectured at major secular universities and Christian Seminaries around the world such as Tokyo University, Moscow State University, Harvard University, University of Maryland, The Free Evangelical Theological Academy in Switzerland, The Institute Biblique in Belgium, The Free Theological Academy in Germany, etc. He has also had an extensive conference and seminar ministry in many countries around the world. He is the Senior Pastor of the Ottawa Reformed Presbyterian Church and the President of Ottawa Theological Hall, where he is Professor of Biblical Psychology and Counseling. He and his wife Nancy, the author of the “Herein is Love” Old Testament commentary series for children have four daughters and live on a farm in the Ottawa valley. Some of his books are available at my Christian Book Store.

The Following is his testimont taken from http://www.shalom.org.uk

In my youth I spent every afternoon studying the Hebrew Scriptures, five days a week, and on Friday night and Saturday I worshipped. As I grew older I worshipped for a time each day in the synagogue morning and evening. I would rise before dawn and before going to the morning service, in obedience to rabbinic tradition, I would put on tefillin - the boxes containing God’s law - on my forehead and arm.

Then one cold, clear midwinter night my life was shattered. My father had a heart attack and I ran for comfort and hope to the one place I thought I would find it - the synagogue. The doors were locked and as I hammered on them I looked up into the New York night sky, cold, crystal-clear and filled with stars and I cursed God. "I am through with you!" I said. But that night, as I turned away from the God of Israel; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, little did I realise that he was far from through with me.

The next twelve years of my life were not lived in the synagogue. In my rebellion I went so far as to renounce the covenant name given at my circumcision -Elkanah. I modified it a little, so that I was no longer Elkanah but Kanah.

In the Bible there is nothing accidental about names. Abram means, "Exalted father" and Abraham means, "Father of a multitude". When he was 99 years old and Sarah was 90 and they were promised a son they laughed at God. But God said he would give them a son and they named him Isaac, which means, "laughter".

When Jacob and Esau were born and Jacob pulled at the heel of his brother he was named for that action; the name Jacob means, "the grasper" and all his life he grasped. He grasped after the blessing and the birthright. He lived up to that name and when he met God and wrestled with him he said, I want your blessing. God said, What is your name? You want a blessing, grasper? No longer is your name "Grasper"; you have grasped with God and you have prevailed. Your name is, Israel - he who has wrestled with God and prevailed.

The Hebrew name Elkanah means, "Possessed by God" but I changed it to Kanah, translated Cain in English versions of the Bible. Cain means, "Possessed"; and for the next twelve years of my life I was possessed with the world and with what it offered; I was possessed with getting ahead in life; I was possessed with Rich Ganz. I led what appeared to be a very laudable life. I moved ahead in what I desired to do. I went through university and graduate school, from which I graduated top of the class. Following my internship and a year of post-doctoral study, I was teaching at a medical centre at a major university.

THE TWILIGHT ZONE

During my year of post doctoral studies, the realisation hit me one day at a staff meeting that psychoanalysis - the area I thought provided the answer to life - was nonsense. Until that point I had been searching for some form of therapy - individual therapy, group therapy, hypnotherapy or some other kind of therapy through which I could discover the meaning of life: what we we’re all about and why we’re here. Instead, I discovered that it was all rubbish. But instead of looking for the answer to life elsewhere I cynically told myself that although psychoanalysis was meaningless I was going to become very rich practising it. If life was meaningless at least I could have fun by being wealthy in a meaningless life. All I had to do was sit in a chair listening to my patients, nod my head every few minutes, and charge $75 an hour.

To celebrate my selection from 212 applicants to that position at the university medical centre my wife and I took a trip to Europe into a series of unbelievable situations. We had tickets for Athens scheduled but the night before we picked them up my wife suddenly sat bolt upright up in bed saying, "We can’t get out of Athens! We can’t get out of Athens!" The next day when arrived to pick up our student-rate tickets we were told that the tickets would get us into Athens but not out! Nancy became terrified. She thought she was in the Twilight Zone; something, supernatural had happened and the only interpretation she could place on it was that it was something evil. We changed our plans and found ourselves being drawn inexplicably and inextricably in a direction totally contrary to our agenda.

We ended up in a little Dutch town looking for somewhere to stay. No one knew of any hotel or inn. Night was falling, we were on the banks of the Rhine, it was getting a chilly and my wife was frightened. She then did something she hadn’t done since she was a child - she prayed. It was a very simple prayer: "God, if you are there, please find us a place to stay". At that moment , out of the darkness of an alley walked a man of average height, very pale, with long blond hair and blue eyes. "Ask him", she said.

"TELL THEM BUCK SENT YOU."

He told us to go three blocks down, turn right, walk another three blocks and we would see exactly where we were supposed to stay: "Just tell them Buck sent you", he said. It seemed bizarre but we followed his directions until we came to a co-operative for the students of the last gold and silver making school in Europe. During the next two weeks we saw all the people who had told us there was no place to stay. They were all friends with the young people who lived in this house but there was one person we didn’t meet again; for two weeks we searched for Buck. No one in the town had ever heard of him or recognised our description of him. A year later I was receiving letters from students who were still trying to find him.

On the last day, as we were leaving, someone handed me a slip of paper with an address and told me there were "some really beautiful people" there. I knew I was being drawn in a certain direction and it seemed as though every step was being taken for me and it was predestined.
We arrived at L’Abri at about five on a Saturday afternoon. I had prepared a careful explanation as to why we were suddenly turning up on their doorstep. However, before I could say anything, the door opened and we were greeted: "You’ve arrived! Welcome.".

"ANYONE AT THE CROSS COULD HAVE WRITTEN THAT!"

The next few days were interesting. They were full of religious discussion. But as a man with no sense of God, seeing myself as a chance accumulation of molecules in an absurd and meaningless world, I listened and talked to these people, questioning and mocking their beliefs. Then one day a man asked me if he could read something from the Bible to me. I consented, and this is what he read.

Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled
and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred
more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; so shall He sprinkle
many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; for what had not been told
them they shall see, and what they had not heard they shall consider.

Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been
revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out
of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no
beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of
sorrows and acquainted with grief.

I’d heard that expression "Man of sorrows" and "acquainted with grief" before, though I wasn’t sure where. But at that point I suddenly understood what was happening: they were reading to me about Jesus. I thought, Do they know what they are doing, reading this Christian stuff to a Jew? But I told myself to be patient.

Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions...

Images of Renaissance paintings leapt to my mind. I wasn’t an ordinary Jewish guy; I had a doctorate; I was cultured; I’d seen paintings with crosses; I knew that their guy had been pierced. They were trying to read me stories about Jesus and I felt the anger rising in me.
He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Jesus just bore your sins! I couldn’t stand it. That was just a cheap way out of long term psychoanalysis. What they were telling me was "the Catholic way". From the age of seven, when I had walked into a Catholic church I thought Jesus was a Catholic: Scandinavian, perhaps, very delicate, tall, thin - slightly anorexic - with long silken blond hair and piercing blue eyes. I had got as far as the vestibule of the church, looked at one of the statues and thought that the ground was going to open up and swallow me; that I was unalterably damned for having done that and I ran eight blocks home to get away from what I considered an unpardonable sin.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgement, and who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked -- but with the rich at His death...

I remembered pictures of Jesus on the cross and the two thieves, one on either side of him. Three crosses - I knew that stuff; they weren’t going to fool me with their rhetoric.

...but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days...

There was the myth about the resurrection. They get it into all their literature, don’t they. They can’t accept the fact that once a person is dead, he’s dead. Grow up! Put away your infantile neuroses and realise that when you’re dead, you’re dead; that’s it.

...He shall see the labour of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

When he finished reading, he looked at me and said, "What do you think?"
I was, of course, keen to give the benefit of my insights. They were obviously quoting to me from their New Testament and I responded without a moment’s hesitation: "Anyone who was there at that cross could have written that stuff! What does that prove?"

He handed me the Bible and in a millisecond of receiving it, my life was changed. The name that I saw at the top of the page was Isaiah! They had been reading from my Bible, my Hebrew Scriptures and I felt as though someone had taken a sword and cut me to pieces. When the man who read it told me it was written 700 years before Jesus was born, I felt dead. Why couldn’t it be Krishna? Why couldn’t it be Buddha? Why does it have to be him? I knew at that instant that if Jesus wrote history about himself in my Bible - if the Gentile God was the Jewish God and he was truly God - then I had to submit everything to him for the rest of my life.

A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF THE BIBLE

During our stay at L’Abri, someone gave my wife Nancy a tape by Edith Schaeffer called, A Bird’s-Eye View of the Bible, an overview of the Scriptures from Genesis through to Revelation in 40 minutes, dealing with the theme of the Lamb of God. From her earliest days until her confirmation she had been familiar with the phrase, "Behold the Lamb of God", and always wondered why Jesus was given that name. Just as I had learned from Isaiah that Messiah was to be a sacrifice for sin, Nancy discovered the same truth from that title given to Jesus. After listening to the tape she went out to the apple orchard at L’Abri and surrendered her life to Jesus Christ.

FOUR LITTLE WORDS

When we returned to the United States I was given a patient at the medical centre who hadn’t spoken an intelligent word in four and a half years. My assignment was, "Get Immanuel to speak four or five words coherently". He came into my group therapy session, sat down and began to hyperventilate and writhe around. He said, "I’m Jesus Christ!" I pulled out a Gideon New Testament and read from the 24th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel: "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it ...For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be".

Silence.
"Where did you read that?"

I threw the Bible to him, "In the Gospel of Matthew. Read it."

And for a month he was silent, then he came to my office: "Dr. Ganz [I was impressed], I want to become a Christian."I took Immanuel into my office, shared the Good News of Jesus with him and, with tears, he received Christ. The next day the director of my department called me into his office. "Rich", he said, "I have been here 31 years and I’ve just heard the craziest story. Immanuel has been running around the ward telling everyone who will listen that he’s saved."
I interrupted at that point: "How many words did it take him to say it?" I was hoping they’d realise what great success this was.

"And that’s not the worst of it, Rich", he said, "he’s attributing it to you. Many people wanted your job, Rich, and I’ll tell you what we’ll do. If you promise never to do this again - do it after work if you must - but if from nine till four you leave Jesus out, we’ll forget this ever happened."
I asked for a day to think and pray about it and the next day I said, "Howard, I’m going to share with you what I believe", and I summed up by saying that I must obey God and could not keep Jesus from my patients. I was fired and Immanuel left the hospital with me and went to Bible College where he prepared for missionary work.

I couldn’t believe what had happened. Psychoanalysis was all I knew; I couldn’t do anything else with my life. If I went to another hospital or another university the same thing would happen. I thought everything was over.

Someone suggested that I go to Westminster Theological Seminary where Dr. Jay E. Adams, the author of a number of books on counselling was a professor. I spent the next four years studying at Westminster and working with Dr. Adams at the Christian Counselling Centre. Through this God led us in a very unusual way into something I never would have chosen to do or to be involved in - pastoral ministry. The years have not seen me smiling and happy all the time. Daily breaking and humbling by God has been excruciating in some ways. God had called me to preach his Son and, as Paul of Tarsus put it: "Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel."

Through my story I have tried to preach the gospel to you so that you also may come to believe in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and in his Messiah, Jesus.

The Feminist Flaw

Another Article to share with you all.

The Feminist Flaw
by J. Daryl Charles

Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:43-45).

In a recent batch of personal mail, I received an announcement for the upcoming Institute of Biblical Research annual meeting to be held in Kansas City in November. IBR is a society of Christian scholars, most of whom are professors of theology or Biblical studies at universities and seminaries across the U.S. and Canada. The annual meeting normally consists of a Friday evening banquet and speaker, followed Saturday by several seminar presentations. One of the Saturday presentations scheduled for this year's meeting is by a self-professed "Biblical feminist" who teaches at an evangelical seminary on the East Coast. Her topic: "God as Mother, Not Mother as God: A Biblical Response to the New Feminism."

This speaker doubtless views herself as providing a great service to the convening IBR members, hoping to adjust the focus of what she believes to be a distortion of theology. Even with a brand of feminism which is perhaps less shrill than that of her non-religious counterparts, she is nonetheless one among many who have adopted prevailing social currents in the realm of theology.

Several months ago I was asked to edit a chapter of a book written by a well-known evangelical leader. This excerpt was being published separately in booklet form by a prominent evangelical publishing house in the Midwest. The editorial staff, without notifying the author, had taken the liberty of changing numerous words (mostly pronouns) -- I counted approximately forty such cases in this short booklet -- in order to conform to a more "inclusive" canon of language. The author, from whose best-selling book this chapter had been excerpted (with permission), was appalled to learn after the fact that such editorial license was taken without so much as a phone call or letter of request. While not altering the author's basic thesis, the gelding of the text had effectually, in the opinion of the outraged author, changed the tenor and force of his argument. Evidently, his language was deemed by this evangelical publisher to be "politically incorrect." The ethical implications of such aggressive and unsanctioned editing, to say the very least, are disturbing.

What these two instances underscore is the extent to which the feminist mindset has penetrated Christian, indeed evangelical, circles. With the full incursion of feminist thought into the evangelical world, one is forced to consider the driving impetus behind this phenomenon. The stridency of feminist conviction, to be sure, is not confined to religious feminism. However, with minimal interest in Biblical literature, the Church has good reason to scrutinize a construct of feminism which purports to have "Biblical" justification, since whatever prevailing social currents are at work in modern culture will inevitably come to roost at the Church's doorstep.

Historically, challenges to orthodox faith were viewed as matters of "heresy" and met with a Christian apologetic; today, they are accommodated as being in step with the times, and any counter-response by the Church is vigorously condemned as socially "reactionary" and obscure. The whole debate over "inclusive language" may serve to illustrate this point. At stake is not merely an issue of linguistic precision. Rather, the aims of the "inclusivists" are ideological. It can be argued that the problem has even less to do with the Church's understanding of ministry, important as that is, than with its understanding of the nature of man and the nature of God Himself. Indeed, the doctrines of the Fatherhood of God and the Sonship of Christ are the fundamental beliefs upon which historic Christianity rests.[1] Thus, for the feminist, a process of doctrinal reconstruction must be applied to the very heart of Biblical revelation itself. In the end, the question comes down to this: Are we prepared to receive God's revelation of Himself? Writing in the late 1940's, C.S. Lewis noted:

Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or...quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable; or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. [2]

Due to the sheer volume of literature feminists are publishing, whether secular, religious, or so-called "Biblical" in orientation (discussions of oxymorons aside), I cannot hope to examine the available literature in the scope of this essay.[3] In general terms, however, what is perhaps most striking about feminist dogma is the stridency with which it promotes itself. It is incumbent upon the Church to consider not only the nature of the arguments feminists set forth but also the spirit in which such arguments are couched. Sadly, the great majority of feminists drive their impetus from a reaction against something: they are, by and large, driven by an overriding sense of hostility. Reduced to its essence, feminism would appear to be a "chip on the shoulder disguised as a philosophy, a misguided conviction that rage is the proper response to...society...."[4]

By cultivating anger and self-pity, not tolerance and Christian service, the feminist aims to create a consciousness which can shed the shackles of oppressive patriarchy. One feminist is explicit: "How," she asks, "could feminist consciousness have developed without anger? ...To submit to the guidance of traditional religion is to become vulnerable to a kind of spiritual rape."[5] The feminist, then, fights the battle of the sexes in deadly earnest. "It is hardly possible," notes a feminist writer, "to call to mind a single feminist theologian, whatever her phase of development may be, who does not find the image of the Father-God a challenge and a direct confrontation."[6] Indeed to perceive or acknowledge God as Father would confirm the status quo of "patriarchal" society. It is this fundamental dilemma which gives birth to the feminist response illustrated by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenze in her book In Memory of Her, [7] in which the New Testament undergoes a curious "reconstruction." [8]

Thus, in analyzing the resultant antagonism which undergirds the feminist mindset, one is left to question the spirit with which feminists aggressively promote their agenda.

Before the advent of deconstructionism,[9] meaningful communication stressed the significance of not only what was being said but also how it was being expressed. Such basic rules of dialogue, of course, are not limited to the interpretation of literary texts, nor are they confined to "professional counseling" techniques; indeed, they govern the whole of normal discourse. In writing to the Christians at Ephesus, Paul admonished the Church to "speak the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). The fundamental idea expressed by the Apostle is not that love and truth stand in a tension, rather that they facilitate one another. Truth expressed through love, i.e., in an appropriate Christian fashion, allows truth's application to be most effective. Thus, how we communicate is an evidence of the validity of our argument as well as the level of our maturity (Cf. Eph. 4:13-16).

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion

Central to any feminist presentation, whether religious or secular in character, is the language of "rights" and entitlement. Even according to the more "benign"[10] forms of religious feminism, the message is clear. Women have been deprived of their share. Curiously, religious feminists, many of whom would ordinarily reject the authenticity of the Pauline epistles, harken madly to Galatians 3. They commonly argue that Christ has removed any prejudicial distinctions between male and female. [11] On this score, feminists, regardless of their personal view of Scripture, are partially correct. Prejudice indeed has been dealt with by God at the cross. That role distinctions are obliterated by Christ, however, is not found in the Galatian epistle.

Broadly speaking, there is a tendency among "Biblical feminists" to utilize a flawed hermeneutic. Texts which do not seem to suit their philosophical aims are conveniently -- and often conspicuously -- avoided, or they are dismissed as cultural anomalies. Such is practiced, for example, by Gretchen Gaebelein Hull in her book Equal to Serve: [12]

Everything I know about God indicates that He is indeed love, so loving that He came Himself to die for me. Therefore, I put to one side passages like the Imprecatory Psalms or the Canaanite Wars that I do not understand. But I do not throw out the truth "God is love," simply because some passages about the nature of God puzzle me.

So we should also treat the three "hard passages" about women [I Cor. 11:2-16; 14:33b-36; 1 Tim. 2:8-15], which we find in the New Testament and which appear to place specific restrictions on women only. To these we could add Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22-23; and 1 Peter 3:1-6... Therefore we may legitimately put these Scripture portions aside for the very reason that they remain "hard passages" -- hard exegetically, hard hermeneutically, and hard theologically.[13]

A very typical feature of the "Biblical feminist's" hermeneutic is her handling of Galatians 3:28. This will more than likely entail an uncritical reading of Paul's thought in Galatians 3,[14] predicated on the faulty premise that role distinctions, leading to male "domination," were introduced first as a result of the fall,[15] not at creation.[16]

We can grant that forms of sexual bias, and hence, forms of discrimination, are affected by the atonement. Precisely how the Cross applies to the sexes in bringing about unity and equality is in need of further definition. Let us consider, then, the basis for this unity and equality. [17] How has Christ achieved such? And what is to be our (men's and women's) response?

"Rights" and the Self-life

Underlying much of Paul's theology, in Galatians as well as in his other letters, is a psychology of the atonement. That is, the Apostle sets forth the very constituitive nature of propitiation, forgiveness, cleansing and justification. The individual who confesses Christ's lordship has bowed his (her) knee at the cross. For the apostle, the Cross represents the place of total brokenness, for it is at the Cross that the self-life is acknowledged and abandoned. Thus Jesus, in presenting the cost of discipleship, could speak of taking up one's cross and denying himself (herself). Christian discipleship is nothing less than forsaking one's personal claim to rights on his (her) life; this, then, is following Christ as Lord.

The implications of abandonment of the self-life were very real for Saul of Tarsus. He could state autobiographically that he had thoroughly died to Christ (see, for example, Phil 1:20-21 and 3:10). Anything of the flesh which was formerly dear to him was laid at the foot of the Cross. This was no sentimental journey down memory lane for the Apostle. It meant total brokenness in everything intimately associated with his personhood. Moreover, death to the self-life for Paul was an ongoing process (I Cor. 15:31 and Col 3:5).

In the letter of I Corinthians, a notable thread running throughout much of the epistle is the discussion of personal freedoms. The Corinthians prided themselves conspicuously on their inherent "freedom" in Christ. This posed, however, difficulties for the community as a whole. Individualism, at the expense of corporate edification, was destroying the collective life of the Church. Many in the Corinthian church deemed individual liberties more precious than the building of the whole Body of Christ. In the midst of his impassioned correspondence, Paul injects a very transparent piece of testimony. Chapter nine records the Apostle taking great pains to describe the process in his own life by which he had laid aside various claims to apostolic "rights." Legally, at least in the courts of heaven, any personal rights or privileges inherent to his office were justifiable. Practically, however, Paul was moved to forego some of these rights for the sake of others.

The force of the Pauline polemic aimed at the Corinthians was designed to offset the strident libertinism characteristic of that community. Rather than be obsessed with "rights" and personal liberties, the Corinthians were to humble themselves, seek the interests of others, and strive to edify the whole church. In short, this would entail a dying to self. The material found in 11:2-16 is a window into the clash between individual rights and corporate edification which was taking place in Corinth. Paul, while assuming and acknowledging the ministry of women already operative within the assembly (note, for example, 11:5), admonishes the church nonetheless to honor a traditional social norm and thus maintain the highest degree of unity in the body by preventing distractions based on sexual liberty which resulted from unloving insistence on rights.

Paul's own convictions about "rights" are instructive. They square with Jesus' teaching on servanthood. Servanthood is foreign to the human spirit. Rights are inherent to the self-life, a life which, for the Christian, is initially crucified by an act of faith and subsequently requires ongoing recrucifixion in response to the demands of Christian discipleship. This understanding is integral to Jesus' imperative of taking up one's cross. For Christians, the "cross" of discipleship which we carry is not our sexuality or our identity; rather, it is how we handle our sexuality, how we represent Christ through our lives in the context of a fallen world. Moreover, Jesus' Cross is not our Cross. He bore sin and injustice; [18] we do not. We are to rest in His salvation, otherwise we run the risk of negating his atoning work. Historic Christianity, it should be noted, while it always freed men and women from the bondage of sin, never eradicated distinctions of sex roles. It is because of human alienation from God, not patriarchy, that the Cross was necessary.

It is also highly instructive that modern feminism was not born in African, Asian, or East European cultures, where the plight of women, viewed in relative and global terms, might seem appalling.[19] Rather, it emerged initially in western culture some twenty-five years ago, gaining a foothold formally in the social sciences and subsequently spilling over into other domains. As is characteristic of the disciplines of theology and Biblical studies, which tend to embrace prevailing cultural trends often ten to fifteen years subsequent to their introduction in the secular realm, feminism has in recent years become a "major hermeneutical player." Religious forms of feminist thought, following suit ideologically with their secular counterparts, have imported the totalitarian language of rights and entitlement. "Biblical feminists" argue that women's ministry has been suppressed by the traditional male-dominated Church.

Servitude or Service?

An important observation needs to be made at this point. The vast majority of lay women in the Christian Church are not striving after rights. They are not seeking to establish within the Church a caucus for power politics. Rather, they recognize, and are operating in, their "rightful" ministry as women liberated at the Cross from the bondage of sin -- liberated to serve Christ and others by the power of the Holy Spirit. [20] This is the liberation of which Jesus spoke. And this is the liberation to which all true disciples are called. John 13 affords us a portrait of bona fide discipleship -- a call to lay down one's rights and serve. Such entails no less than a dying to self. The call to Christian discipleship which takes seriously the crucifixion of the self-life and its accompanying demand for "rights" most assuredly will not fill up auditoriums with crowds seeking a feel-good religion. Nor will it attract the multitudes worshipping at the altars of self-affirmation.

Although in the eyes of the world servanthood is demeaning and hence to be absolutely loathed, in the eyes of God it is a state of exaltedness. Servanthood, properly seen, is the ultimate expression of true freedom. Whereas preoccupation with self will necessarily breed a fixation with rights, a healthy preoccupation with the theology of the cross will liberate us from politicizing the purposes of God. In their critique of precisely this "politicization," Brigitte and Peter Berger comment:

Sexist language is an invention of the feminist movement...[It] is a theory that elevates infantile misunderstandings to the level of hermeneutics... What matters...is that the theory legitimates a linguistic offensive that is part of a general political strategy. In this strategy, every pronoun purged from a text, every insertion of "person" as a general suffix, constitutes a symbolic victory in the larger struggle.[21]

It is precisely from this politicization -- a profaning of creation and the divine economy[22] -- that feminism must be saved. Surely the result will be dramatic. Rather than vying to see who will be leading the Church or exercising power, we will be far more concerned about serving one another.[23]

---

NOTES

[1] The issue is not whether traits which we normally describe as masculine or fiminine are inherent to the character of God. By virtue of the fact that both sexual characteristics have been granted by creation, this is a given. Rather, it must be emphasized that throughout history, God has revealed Himself as male. In the Old Testament, He stands in counterdistinction to creation, which in the language of revelation is understood as feminine (see, for example, her personification in Proverbs 8, especially vv. 22ff). The nation of Israel, God's own peculiar people, is presented as female in the magnificent nuptial imagery of Song of Songs and Hosea. In the New Testament, God's identity is foremost that of the Father. In becoming flesh, the eternal Logos is incarnated as the image of the Father. Jesus speaks and acts in the authority of the One Who sent Him -- the Father.

The Church, as the full expression of the people of God, is viewed similarly to the Old Testament covenant community -- in nuptial terms (Eph. 5:22-23). She is described as being prepared by and for the bridegroom (Eph. 5:26-27; cf. also John 3:29). As a virgin, the Church is to be obsessed with the love of her Spouse, for Whom she awaits with great anticipation, and in Whose name and identity she derives her deepest satisfaction.

[2] C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, (London: Macmillan, 1979) p. 90. For an excellent treatment of feminist dismantling of Biblical revelation, see William Oddie, What Will Happen to God? Feminism and the Reconstruction of Christian Belief, (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988).

[3] Several feminist works which have served as "primers" for religious feminism include Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father; Towards a Philosophy of Women's Liberation (Boston: Beacon, 1973); Rosemary Radford Ruether, New Woman, New Earth, (New York: Seabury, 1975); idem, Womanguides: Readings Toward a Feminist Theology, (Boston: Beacon, 1985); Letty Russell, The Liberating Word, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions, (Boston: Beacon, 1979); Carol P. Christ and Judith Plaskow, eds., Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion, (New York: Harper & Row, 1979); LInda Clark et all., eds., Image-Breaking, Image-Building, (New York: Pilgrim, 1981); and Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, (London: SCM, 1983).

Among Christians who argue for a vitually complete uniformity in sexual roles are Letha and John Scanzoni, Men, Women and Change, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976); Aida B. Spencer, Beyond the Curse, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985); Gilbert Bilezikan, Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985); idem, "Hierarchist and Egalitarian Interculterations", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 30 (1987) pp. 423-24; Patricia Gundry, Neither Slave Nor Free: Helping Women Answer the Call to Church Leadership, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); idem, Women Be Free! The Clear Message of Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988); and idem, Heirs Together: Mutual Submission in Marriage, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988).

Added to this list are egalitarians who assume that Paul is in conflict with himself in various texts -- e.g., Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, (Philadephia: Fortress, 1966); Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); and Viginia Mollencott, Women, Men and the Bible, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1977).

[4] Katherine Kersten, "What Do Women Want?", Policy Review, (Spring, 1991) p. 4.

[5] Fredricksen Landes Paula, book review, Signs: A Journal of Women and Culture, 6/2 (1980) pp. 328-29.

[6] Catherine Halkes, "The Themes of Protest in Feminist Theology against God the Father". God as Father, (eds. J.B. Metz and E. Schillebeeckx: Concilium 143; (New York: Herder and Herder, 1981) p. 103.

[7] (London: SCM, 1983).

[8] It is a notably rare occurence to encounter a feminist who comes from a home environment in which there was to be found a firm and loving father. This familial element is frequently coupled with pressure from professional peers to adopt current prevailing social trends. It would seem, based on the proliferation of "Women's Studies" programs in the last ten years, that the academy provides the ideal environment in which feminists can pool resources to begin reconstructing society.

[9] An intellectual sleight of hand, deconstructionism seeks to "dismantle hierarchies" in literature and life. In entails a sort of devil's advocacy taken to the extreme -- and perhaps beyond. Deconstructionism had taught a generation of literary critics that there is no "text" apart from the subjective interpretation of the reader, that the author has no more authority than the reader. The movement believes there is so little connection between words and reality that meaning is absolutely up for grabs. Historians have also discovered that history as well can be decontructed. Gertrude Himmelfarb, the distinguished professor emeritus of history at the City University of New York, aptly notes: "In one discipline after another, the deconstructionists promise to do what Marxists before them tried to do: to 'demystify' received truth and liberate us from the tyranny of 'facticity'" ("The Right to Misquote", Commentary, [April 1991] p. 34.).

In some institutions, deconstructionism is past its prime; in others, it is only now coming into prominence, achieving in some intellectual circles almost talismanic status. The movement initially appeared among French pseudo-intellectuals, before being brought to America by Jacques Derrida, who presently teaches at the University of California at Irvine.

Any connection between deconstruction and feminist thought is not incidental. Endemic in feminist and deconstructionist thinking is a hostility toward "hierarchical" structures. Paramount to both is the quest for freedom from patterns of authority which involve some sort of subordiantion, whether of ideas or human beings. This very striving for autonomy is what makes feminism -- in its more secular and religous forms -- so antithetical to the Christian tradition. Structures of authority, whether in the political sphere, the church or the family, are not to be abolished but redeemed.

Deconstructionists hold all texts to be equal; thus, we cnanot make value judgments. Any attempt at a value judgement is consequently to be viewed as a play for power and position. Literary criticism, then, can easily be converted into a litmus test whose only purpose is to uncover "sexist" evidences. So throughgoing is deconstructionist scepticism, that it tends to silence all of language, thereby destroying meaningful communication. The resultant intellectual void must be filled with some type of belief, and often a greater degree of intellectual and cultural oppression will ensue.

[10] In truth there is no relatively "benign" form of feminism., in light of its foundational assumptions -- non-differentness, cultural determinism of the sex roles and certain changeability (see Michael Levin, "The Feminist Mystique", Commentary [December 1980] p. 25). These unswerving tenents form an uncompromising empirical doctrine leading to social action which is intended to transform culture.

[11] The core assumptions of contemporary feiminst thought are that male oppression of females governs all of social intercourse and that patriarchal social institutions (of which the church is a prime example) inhibit women from attaining a just and egalitarian world. In contradistinction, the Bible does not accord the status of demonic to either sex -- male or female. Rather, both sexes, are fallen and in need of redemption, stand indicted before a holy God.

[12] (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1987). The title itself is a bit odd, since genuine servanthood does not look over its shoulder to monitor fairness.

[13] Sadly, such an approach to the Scriptures is irresponsible, at the very least, and dishonest, at worse. To dispute some passages which are "hard" and conveniently set them aside as unauthoritative in the formulation of Christian sexuality, and hence, not worthy of Christian obedience, is to overthrow the truth of God.

[14] Paul's argument in Galatians 3 is not that Christians will treat each other identically in some sort of mechanical fashion. Rather, all qualify as heirs of God in Christ; all are Abraham's offspring. The error of a feminist reading of Galations 3:28 is that social theory is imported to the text. Paul is not saying that all in Christ are homo-sexual. Galations 3:28 must square, for example, with I Peter 3:107.

Evidence would indicate that the feminist minimization of sex role differentiation contributes to a confusion of one's sexual identity. Given this disorientation, it is not uncommon for individuals who have grown up in more conservative evangelical traditions eventually to affrim homosexual relationships. See, for example, Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighebor? Another Christian View, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978). Along similar lines, the October 3, 1986 issue of Christinity Today contained an article reporting a split in the Evangelical Women's Caucus over the question of whether there should be "recognition of the presence of the lesbian minority" ("Gay Rights Resolution Divides Membership of Evangelical Woman's Causus", Christianity Today, [October 3, 1986] pp. 40-43].

[15] Modern fminists have expunged the rather bothersome notion that all human beings, not merely males, are inherently flawed and hence incapable of producing a truly just society.

[16] Sin, not distinct sexual roles, has falsified human sexuality. In addition to feminism's disregard for collective human fallenness, it denies divinely given (and limited) attributes. To deny the discinctiveness of the sexes is to deny the richness of God and His creation. Human sexuality, from the very beginning, is sacramentalized in the balance of the masculine and feminine. The words of Genesis before the fall emphasize the distinct role of the sexes: "God created man in his own image and likeness... Male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). The irony of feminism is that its proponents adopt characteristics which traditionally have been considered masculine, not those considered feminine. In countering the libertine spirit in the Corinthian church which was inhibiting corporate worship, Paul reminded his readers that bearing the image of God sexually was based on the creation model (11:7-9). For the Apostle, that model was still standing firm and bearing on the context of public worship in the Corinthian assembly.

[17] It should be noted that even the duties and practices of Chirstian husbands and wives, between whom there exists some overlap in terms of responsibilities, are not purely identical or interchangeable (see, for example, apostolic teaching in Ephesians 4, I Corinthians 7, Colossians 3 and I Peter 3). A mature Christian marriage will manifest neither a domineering spirit nor egalitarianism. Husbands will be seeking to minister uniquely to the needs of their wives as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church, and wives will be seeking to love their husbands unqiuely as the Church loves Christ.

If a woman is subodinate to a man, a man is subordinate to Christ, Who has voluntarily subordinated Himself to God the Father (see 1 Cor. 11:3 an d15:24-28). None of these "hierarchical" relationships are demeaning. We are speaking here of a subordination wholly consistent with the unity and equality of the nature existing between members of the Godhead. yet such an understanding of equalty, as William Oddie (p. 58 [see n.2]) notes, requires that we distance ourselves from any merely human or emphemerally political understanding of the Word. Our relationships are to be viewed "in Christ". Based on the overwhelming affirmation of sexual distinctions throughout the Bible, the "Christian feminist" faces a dilemma: how to live out this distinction (acknowledged or not) against the background of a culture whose proclivity is to obliterate all human distinctiveness.

[18] That men and women have differing roles in the liturgy of the Church does not constitute "injustice".

[19] Many Communist societies -- notably the Soviet Union, China and Cuba -- have shown themselves to be truly abismal regarding the plight of women, despite their rhetoric of sexual neutrality. In practice, they turn out to be more "patriarchal" than most western nations! The simple fact is that a genuine matriachy does not exist anywhere in the world -- it never has, and this is based on universals rooted in creation. The closet model of egalitarianism to which feminism has looked for the purposes of articulating utopian expectation is the Israeli Kibbutz. For a discussion of feminist research findings pertaining to the Kibbutz, see Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism, (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1988) pp. 233-34, and David J. Ayers, "The Inevitiblity of Failure: the Assumptions and Implementation of Modern Feminism", (unpublished paper), pp. 14-18. On biological and psychological aspects of the egalitarian question, see Stephen Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriachy, (New York: William Morrow, 1974); James C. Neely, Gender: The Myth of Equality, (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1982); and Nicholas Davidson, Gender Sanity, (Lanham: University Press, 1989).

[20] What is inspired by the Holy Spirit is not driven by coercion, rather it is led and gently prodded. On this count, feminism fully disqualified itself based on fruit alone. There are two types of wisdom, according to James: the earthly variety, which breeds envy, ambition, disorder and a denial of truth (3: 14-16), and a heavenly conterpart, which is pure, peace-loving, considerate, submissive and full of mercy (3:17-18).

[21] The War over the Family, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983), p. 48.

[22] It should not be surprising that sexual revolt is the most profound expression of human rebellion. In creating us male and female, God has made human sexuality integral to our very being -- a reality which is owing not to the fall, rather to human creation itself. And this creation is the very crown of divine handiwork. Our human and sexual indentity, which entails both equality and distinction, is proportional to our acquiesence to this glorious fact. For this reason, Paul can write that a distortion of human sexuality constitutes the ultimate in rebellion against God's authority (Rom. 1:18-32). To deny the realities of male and female sexual identity is to mock the Creator and languish in the futility of a darkened understanding (1:21), resulting in the exchange of truth for a lie and ultimate depravity (1:25-28).

[23] For an excellent discussion of the interconnection between the institutions of the family and the church, see Vern Poythress, The Church as Family (Wheaton, Il.: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1990). Assuming that Ephesians 5:22-33 presents us with a permanent model for irreversible roles in marraige, Poythress attempts to demonstrate that such irreversibility carries over into the context of the life of the church. Precisely the converse can be argued as well: if, in fact, distinct roles exist in the life and function of the chruch, then they exist as well for the family. The theme of family relationships is particularly prominent in Paul's first letter to his "son" Timothy. The interconnection between family and church is assumed in 3:2-5, especially v. 5: "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"

---

J. Daryl Charles is a Lecturer in New Testament at Chesapeake Theological Seminary and Scholar-in-Residence at Prison Fellowship Ministries, Washington, D.C.

January Book Store Specials: It's all about C.S.

January Specials at My Christian Book Store

CS. Lewis: The Story Teller by Derick Bingham Regular Price: $7.99 Sale Price: $6.99

Adventures into another world, stories of mystery and wonder, these are what fascinated and excited Clive. He was just a boy but would sit for hours writing stories where animals came to life and lived and spoke just like human beings.

This little bot grew up to become the world famous writer C. S. Lewis. However throughout his life he preferred to be called Jack. The reasons for this peculiar change of name and other interesting facts and stories about C. S. Lewis are retold in this book. It was written in the centenary year of his birth in this is a reprint.

This book takes you into the life of C. S. Lewis, the child, the scholar, the husband, the writer and the believer in God.

Derick Bingham has researched this book thoroughly and has lovingly retold the story of this great storyteller.

A Family Guide to Narnia Regular Price: $21.00 Sale Price: $19.00

Author: Christin Ditchfield with Foreword by Wayne Martindale

This book serves as a simple and practical companion to The Chronicles of Narnia
for those who want to discover its biblical and Christian roots. This book will
help them quickly locate references to familiar passages of Scripture and
encourage deeper understanding and appreciation of C. S. Lewis's masterpiece, as
well as the Word of God itself.

Description

Do you read The Chronicles of Narnia sensing that the stories are full of
biblical parallels, even if you’re not always sure what they are or where to
find them? This user-friendly companion to The Chronicles of Narnia is written
for C. S. Lewis readers like you who want to discover the books’ biblical and
Christian roots. Read it, and you’ll find that this chapter-by-chapter,
book-by-book examination of The Chronicles will widen your spiritual vision.

“This cohesive and easy-to-follow guide serves as a fantastic parental teaching
tool on a subject that kids love. . . . Every child who loves Narnia needs to
have a copy of this guide to help the stories of Aslan come alive in a
biblically relevant way.”

--Ellie Kay, best-selling author of Heroes at Home

“This is a wonderful exploration of the biblical themes woven into The
Chronicles of Narnia, with lively and helpful introductions and an uncontrived
use of Scripture throughout.”

--Paul McCusker, dramatist of The Chronicles of Narnia Radio Theatre

“Christin Ditchfield’s love for children and reverence for the role of parents
is evident in A Family Guide to Narnia. She gently, yet effectively, shines a
light on God’s truth, so we can all be better teachers to our children.”

--Vicki Caruana, America’s Teacher™, author of Apples & Chalkdust and The
Homeschooler’s Guide to...

“This is an important book that will help families learn more from the Bible and
The Chronicles of Narnia.”

--Lyle W. Dorsett, Professor of Christian Ministries, Wheaton College, and
author of The Essential C. S. Lewis

About the Contributors

Christin Ditchfield is the host of the syndicated radio program “Take It to
Heart!” heard daily on stations across the United States, Canada, Central and
South America. She is a popular conference speaker and author of more than 40
books. Her articles have appeared in numerous national and international
magazines, including Focus on the Family, Today’s Christian Woman, Sports
Spectrum, and Power for Living.



Wayne Martindale is Professor of English at Wheaton College, Ill., where he
regularly teaches classes on C. S. Lewis. He has edited and contributed to books
on Lewis and is co-editor of The Quotable Lewis.

For Whom Was God's Law Intended?

The following article is available from http://www.reformed.org I believe it is an interesting article worth reading that can give an understanding on a Christian Perspective of Law and Morality.

For Whom Was God's Law Intended?
Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen

When God promulgated His moral will through the Mosaic law, how much of mankind did He consider accountable to keep that law? From Paul's standpoint the answer was obvious: "Now we know that whatever things the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world maybe brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19), God declared His righteous standards to Israel, and through Israel to all the world, thereby stopping every mouth and bringing all men, Jew and Gentile alike, under judgment. "Whatever things the law says," therefore, it says to the whole of mankind. Precisely for this reason Paul could "lay to the charge both of Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.... There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (vv. 11,23).
Considering the nature of God and the nature of His righteous standards, the preceding Pauline perspective ought to be self-evident to us as Christians. But we live in a confused day where even the obvious is obscure to many believers. Theological opinions are poorly thought out or accepted with little thought at all. Viewpoints which would have bewildered the apostles are conveyed and readily endorsed as gospel truth in churches and Christian organizations all the time -including the idea that God's law was never intended for the Gentile world. Such thinking solicits scrutiny,

A Spirit of Scrutiny

In order to realize a resurgence of full-orbed, life-transforming Christian faith in our land -- a Christian commitment which listens to the whole of God's word, from cover to cover - we must hope and pray for a general increase in the theological stability and maturity of professing Christians in America. This, in turn, will require God's people to become more responsible in their handling of His holy word and in the way they arrive at their personal theological convictions about what it teaches. To put it briefly, we need a revival of "Berean nobility."
Luke the physician was a travelling companion of the apostle Paul and the author of the book of Acts. In Acts 17:11 Luke records the apostolic commendation of the believers in the city of Berea that, in contrast to the Jews at Thessalonica who resisted "reasoning from the scriptures" (cf. v. 2), the Bereans "examined the scriptures daily whether these things [taught by Paul] were so." Understandably, Luke remarks that the Bereans were "more noble" than Paul's opponents at Thessalonica.

The nobility of the Berean attitude and method takes a willingness to overcome intellectual inertia and to resist common preconceptions -- even if they are advanced by a well known or favorite Christian teacher. it fosters the "Protestant spirit" which compares whatever we are told with the infallible teaching of God's word -- something which entails careful reading, hard work and detailed investigation. The noble probing of Berean Bible study will scrutinize shallow and simplistic slogans, aiming to reach clear and faithful Biblical conclusions.

A Slogan to Scrutinize

It would be entirely appropriate to apply the Berean method to a notion which is often voiced, but rarely substantiated -- despite the fact that it is a pivotal premise for determining how much of God's word we should attempt to proclaim and apply to our society today. This nation, which we will soon find to be suspect, is that the moral laws of the Old Testament were intended only for the ancient Jews. That is, when God revealed His commandments through Moses, He placed only the Israelites under obligation to the moral demands of those commandments.

Though instances abound where this misleading notion is set forth, it was very clearly and recently enunciated in the July/August issue of the Fundamentalist Journal (for 1988), in Norman Geisler's article "Should We Legislate Morality?"

Along the way to reaching his conclusion that modern civil legislation should be neither secular nor specifically Christian, Dr. Geisler used the following premise as a stepping stone: "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." According to him, the Mosaic law was intended only for Israel, and on that basis he categorically declares "God no more holds today's governments accountable to His Divine Law to Israel than present residents of Massachusetts are bound by the Puritan laws at Plymouth." Such an idea finds popularity with many people today for its usefulness in dismissing the obligation of modern civil magistrates to enforce specific scriptural commands which are not to our liking.
But the slogan that God's law was intended only for Israel will not survive Biblical scrutiny. In this article, let us examine Dr. Geisler's claim that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." To the contrary, we find that it happened all the time.

It Even Happened Before Moses

One of the most conspicuous illustrations that Gentiles were condemned for breaking the law of Moses comes from a time long before Muses lived or delivered God's law from atop Mount Sinai -- which only drives home the truth that the same moral code published by Moses is clearly known by all men, whether they are exposed to the written books of Moses or not. Even the conduct of Gentiles who lived prior to Moses was condemned by God according to the standards which He would later reiterate through Moses.

We see this most dramatically in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which the apostle Peter held up as "an example unto those who intend to live in an ungodly manner" (2 Peter 2:6). This was no special case, but an exemplary one. And what did it exemplify? That men -- Gentile men -- who engage in unrighteous, wicked conduct are kept under divine condemnation or punishment (v. 9) and will be utterly destroyed by God's wrath. Peter describes the wicked conduct of the Sodomites whom God destroyed with fire and brimstone as "lawless works" which daily tormented the soul of Abraham's nephew, Lot (v. 8). The same word, "lawless," which is used by Peter is found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation) of Genesis 19:15, where God's angels hastened Lot's family out of Sodom, lest they be destroyed "with the lawlessness of the city.''

The Sodomites were condemned for behaving contrary to the law -- God's law, of course. They had demanded homosexual relations with the guests staying in Lot's home (Gen. 19:5-9), having given themselves over to fornication and strange flesh (Jude 7). God's law through Moses clearly prohibited homosexual relations as an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22). God's law specified that those who committed such an abomination shall have "their blood upon them" -- that is, should "surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13). And even prior to the promulgation of His law at Sinai, God held the men of Sodom accountable to what His law through Moses later declared. Yet Dr. Geisler says "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Muses." In fact, they were being condemned for such behavior before Moses was on the scene! As the apostle Paul later wrote, even the Gentiles "know the ordinance of God that those who practice such things are worthy of death" (Romans 1:32). It is precisely "the ordinance [statute] of God" which condemns Gentile sinners.

Gentile Condemnation and Moses

During the historical period when God specifically revealed His statutes through Moses, the Lord clearly declared that He would, at that very time, bold the Gentile tribes of Palestine accountable to the same law Moses brought to the Israelites. That is, Gentiles would be condemned for not keeping the law of Moses.

Consider what we read in Leviticus 18. The chapter begins with God speaking to Israel through Moses and prohibiting the Israelites from doing the kind of things which are done in Egypt and in Canaan: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, you shall not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan where I will bring you, you shall not do; neither shall you walk in their statutes. You shall do My ordinances, . ." (vv. 3-4). God then issues a series of specific prohibitions of things done by the Gentile Palestinians. He commands the Israelites that they must not engage in incest, polygamy, adultery, child sacrifice, profaning Jehovah's name, homosexuality, or bestiality (vv. 6-23). The Mosaic law forbade all such conduct and severely punished it.

Immediately following the long list of prohibitions, God's word in Leviticus 18 goes on with these pointed words:

Do not defile yourselves in any of these things for in all these things the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; and the land is defiled. Therefore, I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land shall vomit out her inhabitants. You therefore shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations... (for all these abominations have the men of the land done that were before you, and the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, even as it vomits out the nation which was before you (vv. 24-28).
Why were the Gentiles which dwelt in the land of Palestine prior to Israel's conquest of the land under the wrath and curse of God? Because they engaged in the abominable actions which God's statutes through Moses condemned. The very law which God was revealing to Israel was the same law which concurrently brought divine punishment upon the Gentiles for transgressing it. Israel and the Gentiles were under the same moral law, and they both would suffer the same penalty for the defilement which comes with violating it -- eviction from the land.
Dr. Geisler's statement that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses" is oblivious to this quite evident counter-example. God's word is unambiguous about the accountability of the Gentiles to the law of Moses: "because of the wickedness of these nations, Jehovah thy God does drive them out from before you" (Deuteronomy 9:4-5) - the wickedness which is forbidden to Israel in the Mosaic law (cf. Deuteronomy 12:29-32; 18:9-14).

Gentile Accountability in the Psalms and Prophets

It was characteristic of the Jewish (and later Christian) perspective that the revelation of God's law which the Jews identified with the law of Moses was not simply a matter of narrow, tribal morality. The Mosaic law was their wisdom in the eyes of the Gentiles (Deuteronomy 4:6-8), and the justice of God's law made Israel a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 51:4). Because Jehovah created all men and nations, because He was their Governor and Judge, all nations were subject to God's holy word and direction -- and liable to be punished for violating it. God's law was universal in its application, This premise was presupposed by David's desire to speak God's law before the Gentile kings (Psalm 119:46) and his declaration that God chastens the nations out of His law (Psalm 94:10,12). According to David, Jehovah "will judge the world with righteous ness, and the peoples with equity" (Psalm 98:9).

In Psalm 119:118-119 David did exactly what Dr. Geisler alleges was never done. Geisler's claim is that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." However, under inspiration David did not hesitate to condemn "all the wicked of the earth" who "stray from [God's] statutes" (119:118-119). The "law of Jehovah" which Psalm 119 extols cannot credibly be thought to exclude the law of Moses, either the Torah in general (v. 1, etc.) or the moral precepts and statutes in particular (vv. 4-5, etc.), and "all the wicked of the earth" (v. 118) cannot reasonably exclude sinners who are Gentiles, So Geisler's claim stands against David's own words.

The Old Testament conviction that God's law was universal in its demand led J. H. Bavinck to note:
It is striking how frequently the other nations are called upon in the Psalms to recognize and to honor God, and how complete is the witness of the prophets against the nations surrounding Israel. God does not exempt other nations from the claim of His righteousness; he requires their obedience and holds them responsible for their apostasy and degeneration (Air Introduction to the Science of Missions [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 19601, pp. 12-13).
The universality of God's law was presupposed by Ezra's praise of Artaxerxes for having God's law taught and enforced in lands exceeding the boundaries of Israel: "And whosoever shall not do the law of God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed upon him with all diligence, whether it be unto death or banishment or confiscation of goods or imprisonment" (Ezra 7:14-26). Far from disapprobating this as inappropriate -- on the Geisler hypothesis that Gentiles were no more answerable to the law of Moses than present-day citizens of Massachusetts are accountable to the Puritan laws of Plymouth -- Ezra said "Blessed be Jehovah, the God of our fathers, who has put such thing as this in the king's heart. . ." (v. 27).

The universality of God's law was presupposed in the preaching and writing of the Old Testament prophets. Born along by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Peter 1:21) the prophets longed for the Gentile nations to turn unto, hear and submit to God's law ("the Torah") as it would be proclaimed from Jerusalem to all the world (Isaiah 2:2-3). The law of Jehovah was, accordingly, recognized as the standard by which God would "judge among the nations [Gentiles]" and bring them to the way of international peace (v. 4). Isaiah's authoritative declaration here cannot be squared with Dr. Geisler's idea that responsibility to the Mosaic law of God was quarantined from the Gentiles. Nor can it be squared with the denunciation of Gentile sins by the Old Testament prophets, for they understood the wisdom of God's word that "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). The Jews well understood that the standard which defined sin was the law revealed through Moses (as we later see in Paul's words "I had not known sin, except through the law," Romans 7:7). Accordingly, God's prophets did not hesitate to hold the Gentiles all around them responsible to this same standard. Consider just a few examples.

The prophet Amos opened his prophecy with a series of divine indictments ("for three transgressions, yes four") against the Gentile nations which surrounded Judah (Amos 1:3-2:3) -- represented by Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab. In each case the Gentiles were condemned for brutality and cruelty (which in itself transgresses God's holiness by indulging in the malice which the law of Moses forbids at, e.g., Leviticus 19:14, 17:18; Deuteronomy 27:18). Notice three concrete illustrations. Amos condemned the Gentiles (1:6) for engaging in slave trafficking, which is forbidden in the law of Moses (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). The law of Moses grants special protections to pregnant women (e.g., Exodus 21:22-23), yet the Gentiles violate this moral principle by ripping up pregnant women, for which they came under prophetic condemnation (Amos 1:13). Amos likewise condemned the Gentiles for the defiling of a corpse, and in so doing disobeying the teaching of the Mosaic law that even the bodies of condemned criminals are to be treated with respect (Deuteronomy 21:23).

The prophet Nahum preached against the wickedness of the mighty city of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire. His indictment included denouncing the specific sin of witchcraft (Nahum 3:4) which the law of Moses repeatedly condemned many years before (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:21; 20:6, 27). Similarly, in the prophecy of Habakkuk we read a moral indictment of the Babylonians. Chapter 2 of the prophecy details the sins of these Gentiles: dishonesty, exploitation, violence, debauchery, idolatry. But the prophecy contains noteworthy, specific condemnations of things which are defined as sinful by the law of Moses. For instance, Habakkuk censured the Gentile practice of making graven images (2:18-19) which is forbidden in the Mosaic law (e.g., Exodus 20:4-6; Leviticus 19:4; 26: 1; Deuteronomy 4:16; 27:15).

Another specific sin calls for special attention. Habakkuk condemned the Babylonians for violating the Mosaic law in the particular matter of pledges (2:6; cf. Exodus 22:25-27; Deuteronomy 24:6, 10-13). Geisler claims that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses," but the remark is not very convincing after reading the prophecies of Amos, Nahum, or Habakkuk (among others).

Gentile Lawlessness Condemned in the New Testament

Continuing in the spirit of the Bereans, we want to examine the scriptures of the New Testament as well, wondering whether it is safe to subscribe to Dr. Geisler's published opinion that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." The preaching and ministry of John the Baptist belie such an idea. For instance, in Mark 6:18 John explicitly condemned the Gentile, Herod, for his violation of the law of Moses, in particular for transgressing the Mosaic law's restrictions on the degrees of acceptable marriage. Herod Antipas was a Gentile (an Idumaean) who married the wife of his half-brother, Philip. John the Baptist openly confronted this sin by declaring "it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" -- thus doing the very thing that Geisler says is never done in the Bible, namely condemning a Gentile for not following the law of Moses. John's words are pointed that Herod's behavior is contrary to what is "lawful," despite the fact that he was a Gentile,

Dr. Geisler's claim that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses" does not comport with the words of the apostles when they described the epitome of a wicked Gentile ruler -namely, "the Beast" spoken of in the book of Revelation. Here John tells us of a Gentile tyrant whom the Lord will punish for trying to replace God's law with his own (13:16-17; cf. Deuteronomy 6:8). The exact point of Paul's condemnation of this Gentile ruler was that he behaved as a "lawless" man (2 Thessalonians 2:3 -- the very essence of sin, I John 3:4). It is precisely this which ushers him in to conflict with those who "keep the commandments of God" (Revelation 12:17; 14:12). God's judgment rests upon the man of sin, despite the fact that he is a Gentile, because he will not keep the law of God -- which both John and Paul recognize as revealed through Moses.

A Slippery Escape

We have found that a detailed reading of God's word turns up many instances where Gentiles are held accountable to the moral obligations of the Mosaic law revealed to Israel. Dr. Geisler's key premise is thereby refuted, and he has no scriptural, theologically reliable basis for dismissing modern civil magistrates from the relevant dictates of Biblical law.
However, Dr. Geisler might imagine that he can slip out of this refutation of his position. How would he try to do so? By claiming that each of the illustrations offered above can be accounted for in a different way -- in a way which does not place the Gentiles under the specially revealed law of Moses, but merely under natural revelation. Geisler would attempt to explain away each case by alleging that what the Gentiles are therein condemned for breaking is not the Mosaic law, but rather the moral dictates of general revelation (which Geisler sometimes mixes up with "natural law"). That is, he would maintain that the illustrations offered above in this article do not show the application of Biblical law to the Gentiles, but simply the application of laws from natural revelation (which in these particular cases happen to coincide with and overlap the laws of special revelation).

Of course the answer to this line of thinking is simple and plain: Namely, all of the Mosaic laws (in their moral demands) are reflected in general revelation. The moral obligations communicated through nature and conscience are identical with the moral obligations communicated through special revelation. The ethical overlap of the two is total. Scripture never suggests that God has two sets of ethical standards (or two moral codes), the one being an abridgement of the other. Rather, He has one set of commandments which are communicated to men in two ways: through Scripture and through nature. Therefore, any of The Biblical laws which are applied to the Gentile world will, in the nature of the case, also be laws which are known from general revelation.

This observation nullifies Geisler's attempt to escape refutation. His answer to the counter-illustrations is simply a trivial truth, one which applies across the board to all of God's laws. And because all of them can be found in Scripture and in general revelation, all of them may be legitimately applied to Gentiles of all times and places. "Now we know that whatever things the law says, it says to those who are under the law so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19).

To save his position Geisler has only one tack to take. He must demonstrate two things: (1) that not all of the moral laws of Scripture can be learned from natural revelation (i.e., that the two revelations do not totally overlap each other in ethics), and (2) that each of the illustrations offered in the article above can be justified from natural revelation (in a way that the other moral laws of Scripture cannot).

In order to accomplish this task, Dr. Geisler would first need to become clear about how any moral obligation is learned and justified from nature, He has not explained bow this is done, nor has he ever done it. But until we can be satisfied that there is a general, objective, and predictable method by which moral obligations could be proven from nature, we can have no reliable way of evaluating Dr. Geisler's particular attempt to demonstrate that the illustrations previously offered in this article can be justified from nature (apart from Biblical revelation).

Merely saying so does not make it so.

Just here Dr. Geisler's attempt to escape refutation becomes especially slippery. He must take descriptive observations about people or the natural world as premises and somehow use them to prove prescriptive judgments about how people should behave. That is, he must argue from what is the case (naturally) to what ought to be the case (ethically) -- thereby committing the infamous "naturalistic fallacy." Just what kind of argumentation would Dr. Geisler utilize to prove from nature alone that homosexuality, or idolatry, or adultery, etc. are immoral? Trying to get specific answers to such crucial questions from Dr. Geisler is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Break Over

Well it's a new year so I have new thoughts to share and I should be back to working on this regularily now

I have a few personal notes. I have a new online business selling Christian Books, man of these books are not available in main stream Christian Book Stores in Canada. My site is located at http://upperroom.vstore.ca and teh store name is "The Upper Room Christian Books" My goal is to provide affordable christian books. The selection of books I carry are biblically sound and worthwhile reading.

I'll be providing more book reviews as well as some tips for Christian Small Business owners on this blog as well as my usual topical commentaries on Politics, the church, Christian living etc.