CHAPTER SEVEN
MOSES, LAW, AND CULTURE

Does C&S’ social theology use a Reformation based paradigm that finds trans-culturally valid principles in biblical law? Or does it perhaps use a social paradigm more similar to the Radical Reformation to develop its socio-political and religious blueprints? There is no neutrality. Every system has an implicit or explicit blueprint for socio-cultural transformation, even if it claims not to. This dissertation chooses to base its social theology and social ethics upon principles explained in the preceding chapters and the principle of universal equity.

Definition of Universal Equity

There is no suggestion that the following definition is the only one demanded by either the Belgic Confession or Westminster Confession but merely that it falls within that which is allowed by their language. The final test of all doctrine, training in justice and righteousness, and moral correction is Scripture, not a human confession. However, the author is convinced the following definition is what Scripture teaches in its entirety, both Old and New Testaments.

Universal equity is that which is moral in the case laws. These principles are eternal. The morality of the law of God is based on (1) God’s creational design-norms, which remain constant to the end (Jer 33:20-25; Mt 5:17ff), and (2) upon his character, which is unchangeable:

The general (universal) equity of the judicial law is the moral law applied to concrete cases clothed in changing cultural details. Universal equity consists of the cross-culturally valid principles of charity, moral justice, and impartial even-handedness found in every judicial command. These can be discovered by Scripture enlightened reason but are universally "suppressed" by the unregenerate mind (Ro 1:18-31).

Universal equity is transculturally valid. The Westminster Assembly used the eight rules of question 99 of the WLC to discover this transcultural moral equity. In addition, both the Westminster and Heidelberg catechisms taught that the civil penalties attached to the violations of at least the Decalogue (except the Sabbath law) are binding upon all cultures and every magistrate as the ultimate penalty. However, universal equity has built in principles of mercy and compassion for the victim so that many ultimate penalties can be commuted (Nu 35:31; Kaiser 1983, 1985, 1987; North 1990c). According to Reformed standards, the magistrate, church, and family are to enforce both tablets of the law with different "tools" for enforcement.

In this wise and gracious enforcement, the culture-bound details in which the morality of the judicials were enclothed can be ignored. The culture-bound details are those which can not be grounded in the creational design and the norms derived from that design as explained throughout the whole Scripture.

Wisdom and the administration of civil justice are closely connected in Scripture (Dt 1:16-18, 4:6-8; 1Ki 3:9-11 and 2Ch 1:10; Pr 8:12-16; Jas 3:13-18). Wisdom and the "righteous decrees and laws" of Moses are also closely coupled (see Dt 4:5-8; Ps(s) 19:7-9; 119:97-104; Pr 24:23-29, 28:5). Thus wise administration of civil justice and the wise application of the universal and eternal in the law are closely intertwined.

Universal equity is founded upon four levels of abstraction within the biblical ethic’s definition of sin and criminality (see Jordan 1984; Kaiser 1983, 1987).

1. Love is the capsulation of the moral law defining sin and righteousness, which in turn, summarizes the Decalogue (Mt 23:40; 7:12; Ro 13:8ff; Gal 5:14ff; 1Ti 1:5-11; Jas 2:8ff).

2. The Decalogue summarizes the abiding principles of the moral law’s definition of sin. It outlines what love looks like in thought, word, and deed (Rom 13:9-10).

3. General equity, or the universally applicable principles of justice and equity found in every law of Moses, specifically flesh out the Decalogue’s outline. They are thus subpoints under the Ten Categories of moral law.

4. Culturally particular, non-creational forms bound to the now expired Jewish civil-political order and its culture.

The only culturally relative aspects of this whole four level system of ethical summarization are the Hebrew cultural forms in the fourth level. Examples of these cultural details not tied to creation design are for example, (1) ancient flat topped, versus the modern peaked house, construction; (2) threshing with oxen (versus machines); (3) death penalty through stoning versus hanging or by the sword (see Ro 13:4); (4) distinctive Hebrew male and female dress customs versus distinctively male and female modern clothing (Dt 22:5 - transvestitism being universally sinful); (5) cities of refuge in Israel.

C&S and the Law of God

Using this outline of how to derive specific ethical instructions from biblical legal material, C&S must come under examination. To its credit, C&S does speak about the law of God in several paragraphs. However, upon close examination, it seems to mean by the law of God only vague, broad guidelines, not the laws as specific models for building the social, political and economic spheres of life. C&S rejects the classic Reformed claim that biblical covenant law gives such models. This would "reduc[e] . . . the Word of God to a contemporary recipe book with instant solutions for all human problems" (C&S, 18).

C&S forthrightly writes off the clear testimony of the universal equity of the Mosaic judicials and any claim that the biblical law can give specific blueprints: "The Bible as proclamation of God’s Kingdom is not a textbook on, inter alia, sociology, economics or politics" (C&S, 19).

As discussed in "The NGK and Scripture" (chapter three), all this is certainly true, if the meaning is that Scripture is a detailed anthropological, political or economic textbook. However, that is not, it seems, what is meant here. C&S clearly states that the Bible is merely a spiritual book with a spiritual message for a "kingdom people." The universal equity of biblical law, together with several other important doctrinal loci, does not provide a paradigm or blueprint for transforming specific political and social problems of this world.

If this is so, C&S’ social ethical tendency is moving away from the position of classic Reformed confessions. Because God’s righteousness is unchanging and eternal, his justice and his good law, as a reflection of his character, is unchanging, a model for all times and all peoples (see Dt 4:6-8; Ps(s) 111:18, 119:89, 152,160; Ro 3:31, 7:12,16).

Too often in history, when segments of the body of Christ or the institutional church as a whole have rejected biblical definitions, they absorb humanistic, cultural definitions of these terms. For example, sectarians, Christian revolutionaries, and especially the Radical Reformers often redefined key biblical terms using extra-biblical presuppositions.

Reconstructionist David Chilton gives a summary of this process and a proposed biblical solution:

C&S also, as shall be seen, uses such terms as "injustice" (onreg), "righteousness" (geregtigheid), "human dignity" (menswaardigheid) but never defines those terms in the light of the specifics of the universal equity of biblical law.

Social Democratic Justice Opposed to Biblical Justice

Socialist Phenomenon, a monumentally important work by former Soviet-Russian dissident Igor Shafarevich, demonstrates how humanists have also consistently redefined the concepts of equity or justice (Shafarevich 1980). This redefinition underlies humanistic definitions of the role of government and its enforcement of just economics and civil rights.

Justice as equality

For example, the socialist, or socialist-like movements throughout history, Christianized or not, have all redefined these terms to mean "equality." "There shall be no peace without justice and no justice without equality" (ANC slogan). As seen in the chapter concerning the Trinitarian key, this means that such justice opts for the collective whole of the community, whatever that may mean in the specific socialistic ideology. Thus nothing should divide the unity of the social whole. Shafarevich summarizes this principle:

Social Democratic Justice Examined

The basic assumption of a Social Democratic model of societal justice is that social inequality is more or less evil and the cause of such social problems as crime and illegitimacy. Evil is thus more or less based in socio-economic structures that cause and perpetuate wealth inequality. The solution to this evil is for the state to pro-actively redistribute income and privilege, though not with the comprehensive totalitarianism of a Marxist state (see Schlossberg 1983; Nash 1983; Chilton 1985b for Christian analysis).

Justice is normed by the Word alone

On the other hand, as Chilton stated, biblical justice and equity can never be separated from the specific principles found in every word proceeding from the mouth of God. Scripture and the classic Reformed standards thus define "justice" as that good which conforms to the demands of divine moral law and the universal equity of the judicial law. This applies both to the magistrate in his official capacity as the wielder of the judicial sword and to the individual in his personal righteousness.

Social and personal righteousness come from the normative word of the Lord. Hear what Calvin states:

Magisterial justice is restorative, retributive, and impartial

Introduction. This dissertation contends that among the several biblical contextually determined definitions of justice, magisterial justice always includes impartiality. If this is true, then the socialist definition of justice and that of Scripture are mutually contradictory.

Second, again in preview, the Decalogue gives mankind five basic covenantal or contractual rights and corresponding responsibilities. These legal duties also give protections against

criminal action, thus they become a legal right to be enforced in a regular court of law. To the basic Decalogue rights/duties, several others can be attached as corollaries (see discussion below). These responsibility-rights are to be zealously guarded by magistrates in courts of law.

Goal of justice is restoration and retribution. It is certainly true to Scripture, then, to claim that

Magisterial righteousness or biblical social justice, then, is restorative and retributive. It restores both the wronged and the wrong-doer, who pays restitution.

Justice is impartial. Furthermore, clearly the universal equity of the law commands the state to be absolutely impartial in its administration of justice, like Yahweh is. This is true throughout Scripture (see Ex 23:8; Lev 19:15; Dt 1:16-17, 10:17, 16:18-20; Pr 24:23-25; Ro 2:5-11; Col 3:24-4:1).

Summary. E. Calvin Beisner summarizes:

God’s zeal for his justice

God is actually very zealous for his impartial justice. When the poor and helpless are unjustly robbed of land and goods, or deprived of God given legal rights in court through bias or bribery, or robbed of contracted wages, etc., God is angry against that injustice. All of these examples are specifically mentioned in the case laws (see Dt 24:15; Ex 22:21-27; see also Isa 10:1-2; Jas 5:4). However, he is also justly angry when rights, land and goods of the more wealthy are illegally confiscated through partial Social Democratic redistributory taxation and entitlement welfare programs. Though this may sound harsh, remember even the compassion of the ungodly is cruel (Pr 12:19).

It is true that the loving God does good and gives good gifts to evil men. Believers are commanded to do the same, to love their neighbor as themselves (Mt 5:43-48). Yet, at the same time, paradoxically, God and just men hate even the person of the wicked (Ps(s) 5:5-6, 31:6, 119:158, 139:21-22; Ro 9:13). This includes the widow and orphan who despise him and his good and just law. He puts them under a curse and destroys them from the land (see Isa 9:17; Ps 1; Pr 2:21-22; Eph 6:2-3; 1Pe 3:10-12).

God does not take a partial option on the side of the poor and oppressed merely because they are poor:

It is absolutely true, on the other hand, that the righteous citizens (Job 31:16-40) and especially just magistrates of a righteous civil order must bend over backwards to ensure that the powerless receive impartial justice. Indeed, the Scripture teaches that a just magistrate must pro-actively protect the marginalized classes against oppression (see Job 29:16-17; Ps 72:1-4, 12-14; 82:1-3).

Personal and family wealth does involve a strong moral obligation to share with the genuinely needy and oppressed. The Bible is full of this obligation (see Lk 12:13-21, 31-34; Pr 21:13, 14:31, 19:17). However, man does not live by bread (redistributed money) alone but by obedience to every word that proceeds out of the Creator’s mouth (Mt 4:4; Dt 8:3). No man has a right to add to the covenantal rights that God has listed in his law. An entitled right to Social Democratic welfare largess is not one of them.

Evidence of Social Democratic presuppositions

In contradiction to C&S’ first definition, however, another type of justice seems to be implied when C&S later states:

The above quotation must be understood within the context of the whole document. It seems to mean economic structures that lead to economic and social inequality must be controlled and/or removed. In their place, state controlled "income leveling" structures must be built into the socio-political system. This is exactly as revolutionary as Marxism-Leninism in the long run. There is, however, one difference. Social Democracy chooses to use gradual state coercion to overturn social structures providing for inequality instead of catastrophic violence as do Marxist-Leninists.

In some passages, the C&S, though often ambiguous, implies that a person who is poor has an injustice done to him because he is poor. In other words, a poor person has an entitlement to the wealth of society. If he remains poor while society is rich, he is being unjustly stripped of an entitled right.

If C&S genuinely uses these assumptions, it assumes a poor man is poor because the rich have unjustly kept back some material good that the poor man has just right to receive. Thus, a poor man is poor solely because the rich have robbed his wages, land, rights, and/or just social welfare benefits, etc. If this is the correct interpretation of C&S, the Marxian assumptions of Social Democracy have crept in stealthily. Let C&S speak for itself:

If the preceding paragraphs (C&S, 148-149) were dealing with basic covenantal rights equally available to all through open access to regular courts of law and impartial justice in those courts, the thoughts would be biblically accurate. It seems, however, that C&S is setting the stage for the community represented by the state to exercise compassion defined as "justice."

The question remains, what is C&S’ definition of state sponsored justice for the poor? Is it an active, yet still impartial, application of the universal equity of biblical law or a partial redistribution of wealth and privilege to favored classes?

C&S clearly opts for the second definition in line with a Social Democratic bias. It therefore opts for injustice as defined by Scripture.

C&S, 151-152 and following immediately state that justice is more than impartial application of the universal equity of biblical law:

In this context the question arises, Does every person have "the ‘right’ to a decent living" merely because he has mishpat-rights and is "[c]reated by God and bear[s] his image" (C&S, 152)? The marginal notes cite several verses (Dt 10:8 [sic: 10:18], Ps(s) 17:2, 26:1, 35:23f, 72:2, 140:12; Lk 1:46-55, 6:19:31). Not a single one of these passages can actually be interpreted to mean God demands that a person has an entitled right to money derived from the state coffers taken from taxpayers with threatened state violence.

Clearly, instead of man-invented, social democratic "entitlement-rights," the passages speak about the king of heaven providing both compassionate love as father of his creatures and impartial justice to those who call upon him as impartial magistrate and judge. This he perfectly did at the cross (Ro 3:24-25) and continues to do in his providential reign over the earth through the Son. God’s justice does not result in partial and biased group privilege for the poor just because they are poor. See the beautiful balance:

Men, reflecting the dominion image of God when serving as state agents, are to give impartial justice to all and especially the vulnerable and oppressed. However, in their personal capacity as individuals and families, and in the corporate capacity in the church, people are to give compassion to the genuine, deserving poor who cry out to God for help.

To make all the poor a new privileged group as C&S does is another sort of racism. This racism, instead of being biased to one ethnic group (the Afrikaner), has instead taken a taken a consequent and partial "option for the poor." All the "race" of the poor somehow deserve superior treatment and thus must be benefited by Social Democratic state endowments. This partiality is unjust.

Therefore, both the apartheid bias for the Afrikaner and Social Democratic affirmative action bias for the poor are evil and unjust. In neither case is there equal and impartial protection of one law as biblical equity demands.

Further evidence of Social Democratic justice in C&S

Is the C&S genuinely statist and Social Democratic in its view of justice? C&S, 153 verifies this interpretation. It claims rightly that the responsibility for biblical justice is everyone’s. However the primary responsibility, it states, is that of the "governing authority in the person of the king" (the state). Couple this with the definition of "justice" as state-sponsored kindness to the poor (alongside of individual kindness), and C&S would support a redistributory ethic.

C&S, 155 and 58-63 explains the state’s redistributory role in justice. It further claims that the church must cooperate with and encourage the building of such a state:

It seems clear. The several quotes above must mean that every person has entitled right to coercively taken (i.e., "redistributed") income to help him live a "full life." This violates the fundamental, God-given right of property: "You shall not steal. . . . You shall not covet".

Biblical Covenantal Rights Versus Human Rights

The universal equity of biblical law gives mankind five fundamental covenantal (i.e., contractual) rights and corresponding responsibilities. The Commandments are legal duties that also give protections against criminal action. Thus as lawful protection-requirements, they become legal rights for the wronged, to be enforced in a regular court of law. When a commandment is broken (e.g., adultery or theft) God’s peace and justice are violated. Justice (mishpat) and a legal restoration of harmony and peace (shalom) are to be sought in court.

The court then restores the violated peace and justice by enforcing restitution in the case of theft or enforcing the various other penalties such as death, caning with a rod, banishment, or imprisonment. Therefore, mishpat-justice or legal rights and duties are inseparably connected to the specific details of the universal equity of biblical legislation (see Lev 26:46; Nu 15:16; Dt 4:8, 17:11; 33:10; 1Ki 2:3; 2Ch 19:10, 33:8; Ne 9:29; Hab 1:4; Mal 4:4).

To these basic, Decalogue rights/duties, several others are constitutional corollaries. No other rights can justly be added to the rights found in biblical law as the law itself testifies (see Dt 12:32, 5:32).

Examples include (1) innocence, and therefore no punishment until proven guilty (see Ex 23:6; Pr 17:15, 24:23-25; Ac 23:3); (2) no detention without impartial, speedy trial and speedy execution of sentence (Ecc 8:11); (3) no double jeopardy (see Bahnsen 1975-1976; Montgomery 1986, 298, n. 326; Na 1:9);(4) no pardon for unrepentant, convicted criminals (Pr 18:5; Lev 19:15); (5) no judicial fiat on sentencing, therefore the victim’s right to negotiate with criminal for monetary ransom in place of capital punishment in most if not all cases except pre-meditated murder (see North 1990b, c); (6) free association to hear the truth; (7) free press to publish the truth.

Responsibility-rights are covenantal

These biblical correlative responsibility-rights are covenantal or contractual. In other words they are not rights inherent in humanity as autonomous man. They are derived from the covenantal Creator-creature relationship.

The image of God in man is never spoken of as the source of rights in Scripture. Instead the image is the reality of a relationship, broken or unbroken, between God the source of all, king and sovereign law-giver, and man the vicegerent or dominion-image of God on earth (see Kreitzer n.d.).

Inalienable and alienable rights

This mean then that biblical rights are alienable with respect to God and his covenant law. At the same time, they are inalienable with respect to man. Man cannot add to or change the conditions of the covenant obligations and freedoms nor can man change the covenantal sanctions or stipulated punishments (see e.g., Gal 3:15,17).

Therefore, human courts, parliaments or executive officers have no moral authority to arbitrarily change these God-stipulated covenantal freedoms/obligations (i.e., rights).

On the other hand, because a right is covenantal, that right is abrogated when a person is convicted in a regular court of law of breaking the conditions of the covenant-contract. For example, a thief forfeits the rights of private property and perhaps also freedom (liberty) when convicted in a regular court of law. That individual is then liable to involuntary servitude to work until the debt is paid back. Furthermore, a murderer forfeits his right to life. An adulterer forfeits the right of protected family resulting in at least divorce, if convicted and the victim sues for divorce.

Responsibility-rights enumerated

The following five rights and obligations are derived from the Decalogue.

1. Liberty: The responsibility-right of liberty of individuals and a people from involuntary servitude so that they may freely worship the one true God and base their law, worship, education, politics, economic system, etc. on his Word (1st, 2d, and 4th Commandments).

2. Life: The responsibility-right of life from conception to natural death for all who follow the external constraints of the law of God and do not commit one of the capital crimes specified in it (6th Commandment).

3. Property: The responsibility-right of private property that is inalienable except in payment of restitution as stipulated in God’s law. This is a specific limitation on the state, which cannot thus confiscate any property except for that taxation which is necessary for the one function of civil government: retributive-restorative justice (Ro 13:4ff; 1Ki 21) (8th and 10th Commandments).

4. Family: The responsibility-right of family, protected by strict penalties from personal and state interventions except when members of a family break the biblical common law (5th and 7th Commandments).

5. Truth-Contract: The responsibility-right of truth and free contract, protected and enforced in regular courts of law (3d and 9th Commandments).

Conclusion: Civil government and responsibility-rights

The state, therefore, is limited by Scripture to the one task alone: active and impartial retributive-restorative justice (Ro 13:3-5; 1Pe 2:13ff; Ps(s) 72, 82, Dt 1:16ff, Lev 19:15, etc.). In effect, this means that civil governors must only be involved in praising and protecting the innocent and actively punishing the law-breakers. Taxation is authorized for this one impartial purpose alone: "This is why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing " (i.e., according to the standard of verses 3-4: Ro 13:6 NIV).

Therefore, a just civil government must not take a partial and biased "option for the poor and the oppressed." Nor must it take the biased option for any other group such as the Afrikaner or the historically oppressed blacks. Such an option always results in oppressive taxation and wealth redistribution to favored classes and groups.

No specific word in the Scripture nor even a single general principle in Scripture can be correctly interpreted to mean that the state must take care of the poor through coerced (i.e., stolen) taxpayers money. There are other family, church, and private alternatives for the mandatory obligation to aid the elderly, poor, and marginalized.

As discussed in the "NGK and Scripture," there is a strong bias against the factuality of the creation account of Genesis in NGK theology faculties. Adam and Eve as the historical first pair are ignored. Still to its credit, C&S gives a fairly good summary of the biblical doctrine that every human person is created in the imago Dei (image of God).

Therefore, all people possess equal dignity because "he [mankind], and he alone, has been created in God’s image." This provides man with his "unique place . . . in God’s creation" (C&S, 165). That image remains even after the Fall because Genesis states that the image "has not been completely lost [Ge 9:6]." "The fact that he bears God’s image . . . is precisely the reason for the prohibition concerning the shedding of human blood" (C&S, 173).

The following conclusion is also true:

Human dignity: Unsuitable basis for NGK’s human rights dogma

However, again C&S’ application of the principle of human dignity (menswaardigheid) is ambiguous because the document rejects universal equity of biblical law:

It is unfortunate that the second section above, though warm-hearted, is so ambiguous. Virtually any humanistic meaning can be read into "human dignity."

This ambiguity leads directly to C&S accepting the man-made standards and concepts of the human rights movement in the next major sections. Humanity’s "basic rights as a human being" (C&S, 183), founded upon this ambiguous "human dignity" doctrine, become the standard for state coerced charity.

Attempt to justify human rights from Scripture. In developing human rights, C&S first attempts to justify it by the Bible:

As shall be seen, these inherent rights of a human being to have a full life and destiny on earth become a mandate for state entitlements.

However, first C&S seems to appeal to biblical specifics to build a rights doctrine.

1. C&S claims that it might deduce "in a derived sense" human rights (C&S, 188) from "man’s various relationships and the mandates and calling he has from God" (C&S, 189).

2. C&S speaks about general principles that "God [has] determined as conditions essential to the fulfillment of man’s "true destiny." These are "the most emphatic general biblical demands" of

Actually, however, C&S grounds the concept of human rights in a doctrine of the dignity of "man as the image of God." This, it claims, is "especially important" (besonder belangrik: translated "very important") in developing a doctrine of rights. However, there is little exegesis of any of the biblical passages in which the imago Dei concept appears.

Maslowian psychology read into human rights dogma. As a result, the concept of the imago Dei is described using Maslowian, psychological terminology, e.g., "full realization of his humanity and destiny" and "[human] potentialities and essentials for human existence." To its great credit, C&S correctly observes that man has no rights in himself but that the rights are derived from God and from biblical mandates. Second, it correctly notes that all rights come with corresponding "specific obligations."

Note the refusal to discuss any specific biblical equity to give concrete content to "general biblical demands":

Significant deletion. It is very significant that C&S, 179 from the 1986 edition, the exact parallel to C&S, 184, is deleted in the 1990 edition:

University of South Africa law professor, Johan Potgieter is correct in his comment on the above paragraph:

Conclusion. Potgieter is certainly correct. The original C&S was right. Human rights as an ideological concept is completely and thoroughly humanistic. It cannot be reconciled with the Christian belief system. Scripture gives a dynamic alternative as discussed above.

Specific, universal equity or "most emphatic general demands"

Therefore, it is true that rights can be biblically derived as C&S admirably claims. However, these can be derived from the specifics of the universal equity of biblical law and not "the most emphatic general biblical demands" of "love, righteousness, justice, compassion, and truth" (C&S, 187). These general demands, of course, are indeed part of the universal equity of God’s truth. However, they are only one part of the God-breathed Scripture that is applicable to training in societal justice and personal righteousness.

It is also certainly true that a systematic "ready-made model" for a Bill of Rights such as is found in the first ten amendments of the American constitution cannot be directly discovered in Scripture (C&S, 189). However, C&S here seems to be contrasting "emphatic, general principles" with specifics to be deduced from the universal equity of biblical law. This would destroy the possibility of any positive, specific biblical blueprint for rights based on careful exegesis, deduction, and application of biblical legal material. This again leaves a vacuum into which rushes a complete statist, Social Democratic, human rights blueprint as Potgieter warns.

Rights become human entitlements. C&S, 190 and following demonstrate that this warning is valid. Equal "human dignity" implies a God-given right to a full and complete life on this physical earth. The only earthly institution with power sufficient to coerce such equality of the means of life is the state. Every person’s "human rights" are provided for through mandatory and coerced, taxpayer-financed, welfare programs.

Scripture gives more kind and just alternatives. In contradiction to this, C&S implies that any irresponsible or wicked person who refuses to find help in his family and who hates the church, has an entitled right to ask the state to coerce welfare moneys from others to support his existence: "As for a man as a created being is concerned, he has the right . . . to a fully human existence: life, food, clothing and protection" (C&S, 190).

Freedom of religion

C&S states that every Muslim, Hindu, New Ager, and Mormon, every homosexual or Satanist Priest or Wicca witch, and every Goddess Gaia, Allah, and Jah worshipper has the same inherent human right of "freedom of religion" as Christians. C&S states: "As far as the practice of his religion is concerned [man as a created being], . . . has the right to . . . freedom of belief, religion and worship" (C&S, 192-193).

This is not the classic Reformed understanding of religious freedom (see Bavinck 1888/1992). The Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, article 36; chapter 19 and 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and other Reformation documents specifically cite the equity of Mosaic judicials and Romans 13 as justification for prosecuting open and practicing anti-Christian idolaters. Though this has not always been done biblically or justly, as discussed, it is still mandatory.

In this paragraph, C&S is actually speaking about United Nations-defined religious equality, not religious freedom for the various orthodox Christian churches.

To advocate total religious equality is to deny and reject the first two commandments of the Decalogue, which state that there is only one God, one faith, and one law (see also Ro 3:21-31). All other law-and-belief systems are hostile to God and therefore actively work to subvert a Christian law order (Ro 8:7). Tolerance of more than one God is anti-Christian, actually polytheistic.

State-provided education

C&S says that every person, because he is created in the image of God, has a state guaranteed "right" "to schooling, education and training" (C&S, 197). State financed public education is thoroughly humanistic in concept, financed by state coerced moneys, and ultimately anti-Christian. The goal of humanist "equal education" is to create a new secular/social man, who has broken from the exclusivistic "sexist, racist, parochial ethnic and creedally bound" past. Education is the sole right of the parents and Christian organizations (with the church).

Freedom of speech and movement

C&S states that every person has the right to "freedom of movement and speech" (C&S, 201). Unfortunately this is not biblically limited. There is absolutely no justification in the Scripture for the unqualified freedom of speech. That would include pornography, Muslim anti-Christian blasphemy, slander, and so forth.

Slander causing financial injury and perjury in court are prohibited by the third and ninth commandments as well as the judicials that apply them (see Ps 50:19-20). The Scripture states that a man who looks at a woman with lustful intent has committed adultery. A woman or man selling her/his body photographically is the etymological meaning of pornography (i.e., pictured or written prostitution). This principle has led Christian states to prohibit pornography because it is a form of prostitution.

There are again no biblical qualifications or limits to the "right" of freedom of movement as it is stated in the C&S, only a repetition of humanist human rights dogma. As the right is now written, the RSA could not impose immigration controls against AIDS infected Malawians or impose any influx controls against internal migration in the subcontinent (including Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Swaziland).

Freedom of association

C&S states that every person has the right to "free association and participation in cultural and labour contexts" (C&S, 203). In the United States, the courts have interpreted this right to mean that no club or association can be ethnically exclusive and that every group must be open for women. Even the showers after a football game are not legally off limits to American female journalists. Homosexuals are now testing the laws to see if the courts will give them a right to work for any church or Christian school.

The Christian basis for the common law right to free association is the responsibility-right of liberty under God. The logical corollary of this right is the liberty to freely gather to hear the truth. Humanism, however, has reinterpreted this common law right to mean that no association can be gender, ethnic, age, sexual orientation, or social class exclusive.

This interpretation, however, not only violates the right of liberty under God, but also violates the right of property. The eighth and tenth commandments protect property, contract, and commercial rights absolutely (see WLC, A. 141). The only exception is where property rights are used as a cover for evil purposes defined by the other four basic rights cited above. In that case "restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof" is enjoined (WLC, ans. 141, citing Lev 6:2-5; Lk 19:8; see WCF, 26.3; BC, 36). Significantly, property rights are not cited by C&S. That is one of the five basic foundation stones of political and economic freedom according to biblical law.

Right to a just socio-economic system

C&S states that every person has a right to "the fruits of his labour, amongst others, in the way of fair compensation" (C&S, 204) and "to an equitable socio-economic order" (C&S, 205). These are described in vague terms, opening the door to oppressive state regulations denying the basic biblical rights to have private oaths and contracts and private property enforced in regular courts of law. This understanding would certainly allow for state expropriation of property (see 1Ki 21: Ahab’s theft of Naboth’s property; Isa 5:8-10; Eze 45:9ff).

Examples of this type of law are closed shop labor union regulations oppressing unemployed "scabs" willing to work for less than the union dictates. These regulations unjustly benefit union members with partial, state created monopoly privileges. Another example is state created minimum wage laws, which oppress the able poor who wish to work but cannot find work at the set minimum wage. These laws are cases of the state taking a biased option for one group over another instead of enforcing one impartial law, equally protecting all groups and individuals. These laws always lead to higher unemployment in the long run because employers lay off workers they cannot afford at the minimum wage or at least refuse to hire new workers at the unprofitable union or state mandated wage.

Furthermore, there is no biblical right for the state to arbitrarily determine what is "fair compensation" and "an equitable socio-economic order." State intervention destroys both the biblical responsibility-right of property (eighth and tenth commandments), the responsibility-right to contract by written or verbal oath-promise (third commandment), and the responsibility-right of liberty. These responsibility-rights protect employers and employees from involuntary servitude to the state and unions. It grants freedom to employers to freely negotiated contracts between themselves and individuals and/or themselves and non-coercive, non-closed-shop labor unions.

The state instead must pro-actively protect these responsibility-rights in the market place, especially by protecting the weak, the marginalized, and the alien. Only in such a private property based, free economic system can compensation be mutually agreeable to both the employer and employee.

Therefore, C&S, 204-205 can only be interpreted to mean coercive state redistribution of wealth to provide "free" schools and universities (see C&S, 196), amenities, very likely housing, but also, certainly basic welfare such as food and clothing (C&S, 190).

Lovingkindness and Compassion

Lastly, C&S’ definition of lovingkindness and compassion must be addressed. C&S, 156-159 gives a generally excellent definition of compassion. However, because it does not discuss compassion in the context of discipline, purity, responsibility, and discernment as Paul carefully does (see 1Th 4; 2Th 3; Phb 1:9-11), it leaves the door open for more Social Democratic, state-coerced compassion.

In Scripture, love and compassion can never be divorced from the specifics of the universal equity of biblical tôrâh-wisdom. Jesus and the Apostles say that the Great Commandment and its compassion are merely the summary of the "law and the prophets." The summary cannot destroy that which it summarizes.

Without biblical righteousness as the integral part of love, compassion becomes cruel: "The compassion of the wicked is cruel" (Pr 12:10 NASB). Why? Because godless, statist "compassion" gives someone else’s money away to chosen recipients without coupling that gift with accountability and personal responsibility. This leads to inevitable slave-dependence upon the state for the welfare recipients. They receive without having to work or be morally responsible.

This also leads to an attitude of paternalistic and racist noblesse oblige on the part of the givers. They are forced to give through the state and therefore, can say or feel: "My duty for the inferior is satisfied." Note that the sin of Sodom was arrogant riches but no real, personal compassionate care for the poor (Eze 16:49). The welfare state ultimately destroys the function of family and church as defined in Scripture. It also destroys much long-term private initiative and compassion.

Therefore, an equalitarian and undisciplined compassion is not equal to God’s just and righteous love. Love does not make everyone equal. An example of this is to be found again in Retief’s proposed NGSK catechism. He confuses compassion and love with "justice/fairness" and equates both with "equality."

The Canons of Dort teach the opposite. Christ’s common grace is for all men (see Ro 2:4; Mt 5:43ff), but certainly his special love is very partial and discriminating. He preferred (i.e.,loved), therefore He chose the elect; died for them (not everyone), called, justified and glorified them alone (particular redemption). God does not handle everyone exactly "equally." Certainly God’s "justice" is impartial, that can be established by many passages. All are to be judged by one law and one gospel (see Lev 19:15; Dt 1:16ff, Ro 2). However, God’s compassionate love is not impartial. The above quoted concepts are anti-scriptural. They ultimately call the Remonstrant’s non—biblical dogma, "justice."

It is this dissertation’s contention that Church and Society tends to moves its authority foundation away from God’s law. Instead, it would desire Christians to build socio-economic and political structures upon humanistic law enclothed in Christian terms (see e.g., C&S, 20, 23 below). In essence this is a non-consistent form of "social antinomianism" (see Kreitzer 1993).

This social-ethical position is, in essence, similar to that of the Radical Reformers of Calvin’s day. Instead of God’s glory and holy will as revealed in his law being the transforming model for ethical personal and social behavior, "personal and group relations as viewed from the perspective of the Kingdom" are.

The relevant passages in C&S are as follows:

Dispensational Distinction between Old and New Covenants?

The paragraphs cited above correctly state that God’s new covenant children are "to serve him as king in all spheres of life," and "to have a solemn calling which must be practised in all walks of life," echoing older Kuyperian themes. However, that "service" is ambiguously general. The "relational" emphasis in these and the surrounding paragraphs, along with the rejection of the specific equity of biblical tôrâh, severely dilutes the meaning of covenantal service to the king.

With no law of the King of Kings with which to transform society besides (1) general rules for more or less inclusive "personal and group relationships," (2) a non-model-giving Scripture ("his Word") and, (3) one’s "own conscience," this "service" is not biblically covenantal or normative. The ethic of the Scripture’s old and new covenants are the same. However, C&S apparently contrasts the two.

An implication of these C&S citations is that a uniquely biblical, transforming message seems to be categorized as "old covenant." The new covenant brings a new ethic. Thus, C&S would imply, the old ethic was relevant to an archaic age when God dealt with and uniquely transformed only one people. In the new covenant age, however, God has "reconciled the world to himself" and "has brought together in his church all those who believe in him and have accepted the message." This new message brings about a "new relationship with regard to God, to each other and the world" so that believers must now "at all times justify their actions before God and all other people."

However, was this not true also of the old covenant people of God? Is this not a dispensational, Radical Reformation-like distinction between covenants?

Further Radical Reformation-like Discontinuities?

As the chapters on eschatology and the covenant demonstrate, C&S tends to believe that the new covenant draws all individual believers from throughout the world into one new kingdom-church (nova creatio). Therefore, the implication seems to be, that this totally new relationship itself must serve as an existential standard for judging human associations in the socio-political and economic spheres. Despite the disclaimers that Scripture does not teach either segregation or integration, does not C&S have an implicit model for social unity after all?

The holist-individualist church implicitly and explicitly taught by C&S is to model now what then will be in the consummation. This will be a system without divisions between classes, genders, and ethnic groups (see chapters four and six). According to C&S, it seems that separate cultures and separate peoples maintaining their uniqueness using biblical law, are anachronistic. This is exactly what the Boers of old did, albeit very imperfectly, using an understanding of the biblical covenant and law (see critique: Akenson 1992; Gerstner 1991; Kreitzer 1992, 1994).

To summarize, then, individuals who come out of ethno-cultural solidarities, working together towards a greater world oneness, in one new kingdom "organism," are then "new covenantal." In the coming, eternal, non-divided "kingdom," all forms of discrimination (i.e., exclusive preference for one’s own group) are sinful.

This clearly is a social blueprint, but not a biblical one. Again it is clear that no one can escape social blueprints. Even when C&S denies to God’s Word its normative, blueprint-giving capability, it substitutes an implicitly covenant-denying alternative. This "new covenant ethic" will not result in a society different from any other which would occur by applying the various modern humanistic theories of the present day. Even C&S’ inconsequent social antinomianism ultimately opens the door to humanistic legalism or "anthronomianism," that is "man’s law."

Examples of Specific Blueprints Denied by C&S

In contradiction to what C&S, 123 claims, Scripture does contain specific, "direct prescriptions regarding the regulation of relationships among peoples" in the so-called ger (stranger or alien) laws of the Pentateuch. To regulate all forms of human behavior is "the particular nature" Scripture (2Ti 3:16-17).

C&S and exclusivism

Note carefully the implicit Radical Reformation doctrine of a redemptive-historical shift from group to individual. C&S, 112 couples "discrimination" with "sinful absolutising of one’s own nation and race" and "contempt." To its credit, C&S, 111 says that the previous condemnation of racism and discrimination must be "clearly distinguished from" "a sincere love for one’s own people, aimed at creating and preserving one’s own culture." However, the whole tenor of the argument would imply that this must be done within inclusive, democratic and holistic, political and ecclesiastical structures.

The question must be pressed. Are all forms of exclusive clubs sinful? Are male-, Afrikaner-, children-, or female- exclusive clubs sinful? Are they "racist" or "sexist," or "ageist," or "classist," involving "contempt for others?" What about an exclusive, mono-ethnic country like Swaziland? Is that sinful? What about a Christians-only church, excluding practicing liars, swindlers, homosexuals, adulterers, and idolaters (1Co 5-6)?

However, as already discussed, God has created distinctions and diversity, hence also a "discrimination" which discerns God-created diversity. A sinful discrimination is a distinction that is not in conformity with the universal equity of God’s law. Then and only then can discrimination be coupled with the words "sin" and "contempt." However, C&S appears to reject this and hence appears to be importing an extra-biblical, holistic-equalitarian presupposition into its hermeneutic.

A further example of this extra-biblical presupposition is C&S’ recommendation that the state give to all the unqualified right to "free association and participation in cultural and labour contexts" (C&S, 203). Why is this? Could it not be that preference for one’s own kind (age, gender, language) is suspect and possibly evil? "Love for one’s own must never be exclusive and prejudice the values and culture of others" (C&S, 269).

However, again this is not logical nor biblical. A husband’s love for his wife, the heavenly father’s love for his children, and a person’s love for his God are exclusive. "Being exclusive" does not define "sin" or "evil." God’s law does. The implication thus seems to be that anything exclusive (i.e., divided) always leads to the rejecting of an appreciation for others’ values and culture. In other words, this leads to discrimination, and — the implication seems clear — divisive discrimination and exclusivity are always evil. Is this not explicit anthronomianism with an appearance of holiness (2Co 11:13-15)?

Universal equity, not exclusivism, defines discriminatory law

Most forms of legal discrimination and race separation are indeed evil because they violate the universal equity of specific biblical laws, not because they are exclusivistic.

Another example of the equating of something exclusive with "evil" is C&S’ critique of "racism" a few paragraphs earlier. It is certainly accurate to state that racism is "an earnest sin that no person or church may defend or practise" (C&S, 110). A racist form of apartheid (ethnic separation) is desperately evil. It does indeed treat one ethnic group as "inherently superior" to another, thus destroying the biblical truth that all men are descendants from the first Adam and his wife, Eve. C&S, 96 rightly mentions this fact, though ironically most C&S writers would probably not believe the Creation account is literal history (see the "NGK and Scripture," chapter three).

It is also very true that "racism" is a sin that absolutizes one’s own:

However, in correctly rejecting the idolization of one’s own cultural values, does C&S here imply that inclusivistic, value-pluralism is God’s norm? Is the only norm, "live and let live" and "do not hurt someone else?" Who defines "hurt" (see Ro 13:8ff)? Certainly this would not be the Synod’s true opinion if the logical implications of such inclusivism were clearly spelled out. Therefore, the appeal here to a soft cultural relativism is not biblically legitimate.

Furthermore, does this passage imply that anything "exclusive" breaks the Golden Rule? Did not Christ say that the Golden Rule is designed to sum up the law and the prophets, not bring in a new law, "Thou shalt not be exclusive." This all leads to a great dilemma. Are exclusive women’s toilets, exclusive women’s clothing, sinful? Note God’s prohibition on transvesticism (Dt 22:5; see 1Co 11:12-16). Or was this "Old Testament" exclusivity abolished in a new covenant, in which men and women, Barbarian and Jew, homosexual and heterosexual are now exactly equal? This was the perspective of Gnosticism and of the most radical of the libertine sects.

Furthermore, the implication of C&S, 273 seems to be that exclusivity in anything (age, gender, language, culture, impartial enforcement of a biblical law upon all alike) is an absolutizing one’s own. This, it claims, leads to injustice and is always at the expense of others. Thus, the Afrikaner’s enforcement of Sabbath closing laws until about 1990, the banning of soft pornography magazines and all abortions until 1975, the enforcement of English and Afrikaans only in Parliament must be a basic injustice.

C&S’ tendency to define exclusivity as sinful is easily deduced from C&S’ definition of the relationship between unity and diversity (see "Trinitarian Key," chapter five). Since unity is primary and diversity secondary, any exclusivity is absolutizing that which must not be absolutized. Unity alone is to be absolutized and made a norm. Therefore, "exclusivity," which always divides, is imperfect, yes sinful, unjust, and must always be "at the expense of others." The reason is simply that all must have the right to participate in all areas of life.

Biblical law protects the ethnic alien residents

The problem of unkind ethnic and cultural (as well as gender and age) discrimination is, therefore, not solved by the statist removal of all politico-economic boundaries and inequalities. Giving every individual totally equal human rights, with an absolutely equal vote, equal opportunity, and equal final condition is not the solution. Non-biblical discrimination is solved by obeying the specific, universal equity of God’s law concerning the stranger in the land.

The ger laws of the Mosaic legislation are similar to the equal protection doctrine of both the Roman-Dutch and English common laws. Equal protection, however, does not remove the barrier or the distinction between the ethno-covenantal citizen and the ethnic alien. The Fourth Commandment itself makes the distinction between citizen and alien.

Compare the following list of specific legal protections for the ger (believing, ethnic alien, permanent resident):

1. Love the ger who is living in the land as oneself. This means to treat them as native born, to provide them with food and clothing if indigent (Ex 22:21; Lev 19:33, 23:9; Dt 10:18-19). This was especially poignant for the Jews who had been mistreated in Egypt for so long because they were ethno-covenantal aliens.

2. There is to be only one law for the ger and for the ethno-citizen, thus destroying the justification for most if not all petty apartheid legislation (Lev 24:22; Nu 15:15ff).

3. The ger was understood to have come as an immigrant with Ruth’s attitude respecting the God, law ("your God shall be my God"), and language ("your people shall be my people") of the ethno-covenantally defined citizen group.

4. The ger was allowed to assimilate, yet at the same time, individuals from different peoples were treated as members of distinct ethno-cultural groups (see Dt 23:3-7).

5. Biblical law states that a people can be born and live in a land for generations without being admitted to the decision making processes of the land. Compare Israel’s four generations as aliens in Egypt and the heathen peoples as aliens in Israel (Ge 15:13-16; Ex 22:21, 23:9; Lev 19:34; Dt 10:18-19; Ps 105:23).

These laws protected the ger from exploitation. Even so, according to biblical law, citizenship, and "voting rights/ legal political participation rights" ("political say, participation, and activities..." [C&S, 199]) are ethno-covenantally determined. They are not based upon one’s "humanity" (i.e., a human right), nor upon birth within an arbitrarily defined geographic boundary. If so, then any immigrant could claim the automatic right to vote (e.g., the Gibeonite, Jebusites and others born within Israel would have voting rights in the pre-monarchical republic and would have had "power sharing" rights to anoint the king in the monarchy).

Implication of ger legislation for apartheid. Disobedience to the specifics of God’s law-word is the sin of apartheid, not refusal to extend voting rights, nor ethnic distinction, nor partition. Again, C&S’ critique of apartheid seems deeply flawed with non-biblical presuppositions.

As discussed already, this rejection of the specifics of the law of God leads C&S to reject specific political models: "Scripture is not a political manual (handboek) from which specific political models can be deduced" (C&S, 274). A further implication of this is that Scripture can give only general, non-specific principles that must be interpreted subjectively, according to personal experience of a total socio-legal system. The church must see and judge a whole socio-legal system from a

holistic perspective, that is from the viewpoint of the function of an "entire society."

The following spells this out:

Logically this means that Scripture provides no trans-culturally valid, objective (i.e.,detailed, rational-deductive) model to judge any socio-political system, let alone apartheid. Why? If all peoples can take the text of Scripture and not find any common principles for evaluation, then there is only pure subjectivity, not a mere "strong objective factor."

C&S continues:

C&S states that one must judge a system from the praxis, that is how it affects the whole society ("practical manner in which it will serve the interests of the entire society [C&S, 273]). This judgment from praxis and from subjective experience must include the judgment of other churches, even if they are deep into apostasy, it seems. This must include especially those churches that were negatively affected by the political system of apartheid (in other words, the SACC churches) (C&S, 276).

Furthermore, this experiential judgment must include the judgment of multitudes of individual Christians, including the majority of inhabitants, who see apartheid as racist and oppressive, that is

This judgment must also include "states and political institutions" throughout the world who judge apartheid "as a form of racism and a transgression against humanity" (C&S, 276). In other words, sinful and humanistic man, not the specific, universally valid equity of God’s law, is of major importance in ethical judgment (see 1Co 1-3).

The use of experience-based praxis is consistent with the holistic bias of C&S (see the "Trinitarian Key"). The holistic-experiential bias as the real basis of C&S’ social ethic is clearly observed in the following:

1. C&S virtually, though not totally, ignores the various ethno-covenantally bound peoples in South Africa and virtually, though not consequently, adopts the humanist vision of South

Africa as one country made up of individuals (i.e., the perspective of both individualistic, classic Liberalism and Marxism);

2. C&S adopts the humanistic criterion of the SACC and World Council of Churches, who in turn are influenced by the French Revolution’s and the United Nation’s perspectives on human rights (e.g., International Declaration of Human Rights);

3. C&S accepts the criticism of humanistic, Social Democratic and/or Marxist dominated states (C&S, 278);

4. C&S sees the subjective experience of the majority as having ethical validity in judgment;

5. C&S rejects the specific biblical laws dealing with inter-ethnic relations and thus reads humanistic ethical standards into the general principles of the Word it claims to find in the Word.

The Reformed faith, with which this dissertation agrees, has the exact opposite perspective:

1. Sees people in ethno-covenantal solidarity (see "Covenant and Peopleness");

2. Rejects any humanistic ethic as the commandments of men (Mt 15:1ff; Col 2:20-24);

3. Rejects the criticism of the values and norms of the anti-Christian, world-system which is in the hands of the devil (see 1Jn 2:15-17, 4:1ff; Jas 4:4)

4. Rejects majoritarianism: "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd" (Ex 23:2 NIV)

5. Rejects the subjective feelings of men who twist the truth in ungodliness and whose consciences have often times been seared:

The NGK should indeed listen carefully to the insights of true brothers and sisters in Christ from other cultures. However, should not the NGK listen primarily to the voice of the Spirit in the Scripture through whomever, wherever, and whenever he speaks. The multi-cultural body of Christ is indeed one, and the Spirit does indeed indwell it, giving unique biblical insight to every group and culture in which there are Christians, just as he chooses. Therefore, every culture group is important. However, he speaks infallibly through Scripture alone, not through the rebellious nations and feelings of sinful man.

Lastly, the law of God does give a blueprint for the economy in the eighth and tenth commandments and the equity of various case laws that specify and apply the Decalogue to the social and political arena. A biblical economy will bring blessing to the righteous in the long run: "The wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous," and a comprehensive cursing for the wicked in the long run (see North 1987c; 1990a). "The righteous will inherit the earth/the land" (Mt 5:5; Ro 4:13; Ps 37; Pr 2:21ff; Dt 27-28; Lev 26), "but the wicked will be cut off from it" (see Institutes, 2.8.4).

Therefore, the righteous can be patient. God’s justice will prevail in the long run:

A godly and just economic policy does not assume that a huge gap between rich and poor is per definition evil. It may very well be because of genuine oppression as has occurred in South Africa and Latin America, for example, but not necessarily. According to Scripture, neither socio-economic equality, nor even relative equality, is per definition good and just. True socio-economic distinction is not the cause of revolution by the unjustly oppressed. Envy and covetousness are.

Social class distinction is only evil if the rich are rich because they have raped, stolen, and plundered the poor for their lawless benefit. However, in a Scripture based economic system based upon an enforced ethical framework of biblical covenantal equity, this type of exploitation and theft by the rich and powerful is consistently and impartially punished.

The ideology of a centralized, "democratized" economy that both forms of marxian economic theory espouse (i.e., Marxist-Leninism and Social Democracy) fit the biblical description of an oppressive and plundering economy that benefits only the rich. Only an economy built on the universal equity of biblical law can be just because God alone defines justice.

C&S denies many basic principles of biblical economic law

This principle is denied by C&S (see C&S, 19, 21) and the 1990 Synod. It ultimately backs a pragmatic and hence, almost inevitably, a humanistic social market or Social Democratic system. Such a system is built on Marx’s ten steps to bring socialism into a land, described in the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1888/1967, 104-105; see Kreitzer 1988 for critique). All ten are contrary to the law of God.

The NGK’s official mouthpiece, Kerkbode, in an article in the 26 October 1990, 6, 12 edition, sums up the economic policy of C&S. This is a policy that leans heavily toward Social Democratic rhetoric, emphasizing a "mixed economy":

The biblical model, then, for an equitable economic system demands that the family and Christian organizations, along with the church, lovingly and personally care for the aged, poor, and marginalized. Paul implies that those who trust in the state or make any other arrangements for the care of elderly parents have "fallen from the faith and are worse than an unbeliever" (1Ti 5:3-8).

Anything more or less than this biblical standard is anti-Christian. Actually it is revolutionary and is contrary to the Belgic Confession (BC, 36) and Westminster Confession (WCF, 27.3). Both forbid the communalist heresy of the most consequent of the radical reformers. To turn social welfare over to an irresponsible and impersonal Social Democratic state is idolatry, trusting in a false messiah. This type of state has an operating mythology derived from Marxism, which in turn depended on the ancient medieval (actually Stoic and Platonic) myth of original communal property.

Jeremiah spoke about this type of wisdom: