William Perkins and Christian Virtue part 4

Clemency and moderating anger. Perkins describes the virtue of clemency as one that, “serves to moderate wrath and revenge.”[1] Clemency first addresses how a person is, “to carry himself in respect of injuries and offences done unto him.”[2] Perkins in giving counsel on this issue recognizes three categories of offenses: light offenses that only cause displeasure, an offense that causes small injuries, and finally offenses that cause great injury.[3] Concerning offenses that only cause displeasure Perkins states, “when small offences are done, which cannot be avoided, then in discretion a man should withhold his anger, and not take notice of them, but pass by them and let them go.”[4] For offenses that cause small injury, Perkins states that the correct course of action is “to take notice of these, but withal to forgive them and put them up.”[5] The last category of injury requires the greatest act of clemency. Perkins states concerning offenses that cause great injuries three aspects are called for, “(1) in taking notice; (2) in forgiving them; [and] (3) in a just and lawful defending [of] ourselves against the wronging parties.”[6]

Perkins gives the greatest attention to the issue of defending oneself in his treatment of the virtue of clemency. Perkins first addresses that it is appropriate for believers to avail themselves of legal protection from injury. Perkins states, “A man may, with good conscience, defend himself against great injuries by the benefit of the law.”[7] Perkins answers several objections to the understanding that believers have the right to avail themselves of the law to defend against injury. Perkins responds to the challenge that such conduct is contrary to Christ’s teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount. Perkins states that Christ’s teaching, “speaks of private persons who want the defense and assistance of the public magistrate. And such must suffer wrong upon wrong, blow upon blow, and loss upon loss, rather than right their own wrongs by revenging themselves.”[8]

 Perkins, in answering the objection that turning to the law violates Paul’s commands regarding lawsuits in 1 Corinthians, notes that Paul is condemning the way the Corinthians brought small manners to unbelieving judges and tarnished the gospel.[9] To the objection that it is the will of God that a person is wronged Perkins answers with the following syllogism, “It is God’s will we should have diseases, and yet it is no less His will that we should use good means to be cured of them. So, it is in wrongs and injuries done to us.”[10] With objections addressed Perkins proceeds to address how an individual might defend themselves using the law. Perkins encourages that clemency is to be applied before seeking to use the law for defense. Perkins states, “we must try all means, and use all remedies that may be, before we use the remedy of law.”[11] Three factors should contribute to moderation before using the law according to Perkins: every injury occurs according to the providence of God, that the courts are ordained by God and in going to them we yield our rights to God, that our primary pursuit in seeking justice must be God’s glory.[12] Bearing all three in mind if the believer does use legal means Perkins states:

After the suit is ended, the moderation of our minds must be expressed by our behavior in regard of the event of our action. For in the law goes with us, we are to give God thanks for the manifestation of His justice in the course take. If, on the other side, it goes against us, we may not rage or be discontentedly grieved, but commend our cause quietly to God, and accuse ourselves for our own sins, and say with David, “Righteous thou art, O Lord, and just are thy judgments (Ps. 119:37).[13]

Clemency and trust of God are to mark the believer both before and after availing themselves of the law.

Perkins after addressing the use of the law to address injury and wrongs proceeds to address the place of self-dense and the use of force in the life of a believer. Perkins does not believe that there is a blanket right to self-defense stating, “In some cases he may lawfully defend himself by force.”[14] With this understanding that there is a limit to legitimate self-defense Perkins proceeds to describe the limits. Perkins gives three criteria that must be met for self-defense to be legitimate: sudden, inescapable, and unavoidable violence, violence that is so clear that the only means of escape are through retaliation or killing, and violence that occurs when the lawful authority is not present or can not be safely availed of.[15] Perkins further elaborates that the justness of self-defense hinges upon three things: that it is involuntary, that the purpose must be to defend and not seek revenge, and that the weapons used be proportionate.[16] Following this Perkins turns his attention to condemn the practice of trial by combat. Perkins thoroughly condemns this practice despite its antiquity stating, “this way of defense, however ancient it may be, is utterly unlawful”[17] In doing so Perkins was not looking to condemn ancient practices that had ceased to exist but those which were an ongoing reality.  One author speaks to this reality, “The civil law justified a trial by combat in certain cases; much more so did the English law. It was confirmed by long custom and act of Parliament.”[18] Perkins argues that such a practice, though legal and accepted, violated the biblical command not to kill.[19]

---

[1] Perkins, Works, 8:371.

[2] Perkins, Works, 8:371.

[3] Perkins, Works, 8:371-371.

[4] Perkins, Works, 8:371.

[5] Perkins, Works, 8:371.

[6] Perkins, Works, 8:372.

[7] Perkins, Works, 8:373.

[8] Perkins, Works, 8:373.

[9] Perkins, Works, 8:373.

[10] Perkins, Works, 8:374.

[11] Perkins, Works, 8:373.

[12] Perkins, Works, 8:375.

[13] Perkins, Works, 8:374-375.

[14] Perkins, Works, 8:375.

[15] Perkins, Works, 8:376.

[16] Perkins, Works, 8:376.

[17] Perkins, Works, 8:377.

[18] Markku Peltonen, The Duel in Early Modern England: Civility, Politeness and Honour (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 194.

[19] Perkins, Works, 8:377.

The Storm-Tossed Family : A Review

The Storm-Tossed Family by Russell Moore

Russell Moore president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC has written in my opinion his best book to date. The Storm-Tossed Family provides readers with a realistic and biblical understanding of the family which is all the more important given the many forces and pressure working against the family.

In fourteen chapters Moore explores some of the most important realities of family. In the early chapters he helps readers to see the importance of the cross shaping our understanding of family life, the reality of spiritual warfare in family life, among many other important issues. Each chapter is thoroughly rooted in the truth of Scriptures and provide helpful correctives to misconceptions about areas of family life both inside and outside of the church. His chapters on parenting and aging are particularly helpful.

In recent years many accusations regarding the trajectory of Russell Moore’s views on issues particularly pertinent to the issues addressed in this book. Those making such accusations would be better served reading this book as it dispels the criticism many “discernment” bloggers levy against him. This book has application for every believer whether married or single. It has been particularly helpful to me this week in preparing to teach on the family from Ephesians 5 this coming Sunday. In short this is one of the best books on the family I have read.

Disclosure: I received a review copy of the book from the publisher for the purpose of reviewing it. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review.

Why We Can’t Be Silent

Dietrich Bonhoeffer,  a German pastor and theologian who laid down his life in his opposition to the evils committed by his own country, touched on the reasoning behind why many are silent about the suffering of others and why Christians must not be silent in the face of the suffering going on in our country today.

It must be clear to us that most people learned only through personal experience occuring to their own bodies. First, this explains why most people are remarkably incapable of any sort of preventative action. We keep thinking that we ourselves will be spared when disaster strikes-until it is too late. Second, it explains our insensitivity toward the suffering others; solidarity with suffering arises in proportion to our own increasing fear of imminent doom. Much can be said to justify this attitude. Ethically, we wish to avoid meddling with fate. We draw the inner calling and strength for action only from an actual and present crisis…From a Christian perspective, though, can conceal that the real issue is our hearts’ lack of magnanimity. Christ avoided suffering until his hour had come; then, however, he went to it in freedom, seized it, and overcame it…Although we are not Christ, if we want to be Christians we must participate in Christ’s own magnanimous heart by engaging in responsible action that seizes the hour in complete freedom, facing the danger. And should do so in genuine solidarity with suffering flowing forth, not from fear, but from the liberating and redeeming love of Christ toward all who suffer. Inactive “waiting-and-seeing” or impassive “standing-by” are not Christian attitudes. Christians are prompted to action and suffering in solidarity not just by personal bodily experience, but by the experience incurred by their fellows for whose sake Christ himself suffered.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Meditations on the Cross, (pp. 25-26).

We cannot be silently indifferent as followers of Christ because we have entered into the fellowship of His sufferings which were for the world. Though I may never personally experience what an African-American may experience, I must not and cannot be indifferent to the sufferings because of Christ. I may never know what those in law enforcement experience but I cannot be indifferent to the sufferings that they might undergo. We who are followers of Christ have been given this hour in our countries history not to sit back, be in different toward, or deny the reality of others sufferings but to join them in their suffering that we might faithfully point to Christ the one who has entered into and experienced our sufferings.

What difference does Easter make?

Today is Good Friday but Sunday’s coming. My greatest fear is that many will gather together in churches, hear the Easter story, and never see real life transformation. It’s not enough to come to church on Christmas and Easter or every time the doors or open for that matter. The question we should all ask ourselves is what difference does Easter make or what difference should it make in our lives. Last year I preached a sermon on that very issue and invite you to listen to it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhf8vzui9u42d9s/Easter%20Sermon.mp3?dl=0

Where is your treasure?

 

We live in a foolish culture. We have so many voices in our culture calling to store up and spend on ourselves. To place everything at our service, and because of that we live in a poor country. We are poor toward God. This Sunday I preached from Luke 12:13-21 where Jesus tells the story of a man who looks so much like what our culture calls us to do and to be and he calls him a fool. Are you a fool, is your treasure here?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dj0q5ogshkyubt8/Perils%20of%20Prosperity%20Luke%2012.mp3?dl=0

True Greatness

We don’t appreciate or recognize true greatness as defined by Christ in our culture. The people I have met and consider great, well you’ve never heard of them because rather than seeking to be served they have lived lives of service. This past Sunday I referenced Martin Luther King Jr’s

…If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That’s your new definition of greatness. And this morning, the thing that I like about it . . . by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great. Because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve. You don’t have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. And you can be that servant…

If you want to be great find someone to serve. Volunteer in your church, in a nursing home, hospital, or homeless shelter and demonstrate true Christian greatness.

If you’d like to listen to the sermon it can be found here:

Godwin’s Law and Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood and its supporters are offended at the comparison’s being made between them and the Nazis. They are rightly offended I mean what professional athlete would take kindly to being likened to a t-ball league player. You see in reality the Nazi’s were failed amateurs compared to the skill and efficiency that Planned Parenthood has demonstrated in its work of eugenics and genocide.

First let us consider the issue of eugenics a shared vision between the Nazi’s and Planned Parenthood and their founder Margaret Sanger. The Nazi’s has to forcibly sterilize those they did not wish to procreate, the undesirables of society. Planned Parenthood has women willingly come in to have their fertility removed. More over the Nazi’s sought to snuff out what they termed life unworthy of life, again this required open force. Planned Parenthood convinces women to come in to be screened for undesirable traits such as Down Syndrome convincing them it is in the best interest of everyone for such a person. Planned Parenthood is able to accomplish what the Nazi’s attempted with the only heads being broken being those of their unborn victims.

Now let us consider the issues of genocide and the victims involved. Margaret Sanger’s vision which is still the heart and soul of Planned Parenthood was to weed out undesirable minorities a goal shared by the Nazis. Even with the cooperation of a few other countries the Nazis failed to accomplish their goal. Not only did they fail they left witnesses. Planned Parenthood has been by and large successful in their efforts and even done so with assistance of the parents of their victims. Planned Parenthood doesn’t have to fear any of its victims identifying their doctors and staff in a court of law. Planned Parenthood has chosen a group entirely unable of fleeing, or should they survive the evil done to them able to testify against them.

Finally I’d like to consider something that usually catches up with evil doers and that is the issue of evidence. The Nazis left evidence everywhere which is still being discovered. Many of their victims were buried in mass graves. Planned Parenthood has had two ways of eliminating the bodies of their victims. The first being incinerating the bodies of the aborted. The second sell them or “donate” them for medical research. Planned Parenthood slipped up, they got caught on tape discussing what their work. Now they are being compared to the Nazis and they don’t like it. I would agree to a point that the comparison is unfair they have been head and shoulders above the Nazis in propaganda, eugenics, and genocide so let’s give them their due credit. Here’s to you Planned Parenthood on being one of the most efficient murder machines in the history of humanity, I’m thankful for the wrench in the gears you have suffered of late and pray it proves fatal to your murderous endeavors.

Doublespeak

We live in the day of double speak. Doublespeak is what has allowed a practice such as abortion to be legalized by Roe v. Wade and to continue to this day. It has been cloaked in the language of choice, rights, and freedom for women. What is glaringly omitted is the rights of the unborn. Rather then entertaining the thought that an unborn baby is a baby, the abortion industry describes the unborn baby as a lump of a cells, and inhuman glob. That is how they describe the unborn in public. That however is not how they describe the unborn when it comes time to harvest and sell their organs. To them it’s not a human until they can profit of the dead body resulting from their for hire act of murder. Most murderers have to worry about covering up the evidence and hiding the body, Planned Parenthood looks to turn a profit in broad daylight.

Planned Parenthood has responded to the video evidence against them stating, “We have the highest standards. The care and health care and safety of our patients is our most important priority.” This is the epitome of double speak, none of this statement is true at any level. Abortion is not safe for the mother, and is deadly for the unborn child. While they might deny that a human life is destroyed in abortion, their eagerness to harvest organs proves the falseness of their doublespeak.

But none of this is new. Planned Parenthood’s evil has been on display before. In 2013 the state of Florida was seeking to pass legislature requiring medical care for babies born alive after a failed abortion attempt to which Planned Parenthood objected. The video from that is here :

Planned Parenthood and those who support it are masters of doublespeak. They couldn’t do business without it.

Still As True As Ever

Two years ago I wrote the following after SCOTUS struck down DOMA. It is as true now as it was then I highly encourage every Christian to read it and take it to heart.

Yesterday SCOTUS made rulings which have sweeping ramifications for America the extent of which no-one knows for certain. For the greater part of this country’s history there has been in the background an assumed Judeo-Christian identity which played a part in every aspect of public life, shaping the understanding of common law and basic morality.  The SCOTUS rulings make clear what has been apparent to most in our culture, the foundational understanding which underpinned our culture for so long can no longer be assumed or expected.

This break down comes from several different sources. Some of the influence comes from the church itself. Through the history of America one can trace a theme of compromise in the life of the church. One can look at the condition of the various denominations in the early colonial period and see the roots of rebellion coming from within the institutional church itself, as evidenced by the growth of Unitarian Universalism from the early Congregational churches. Doctrinal compromise disintegrated the gospel and created a new religion entirely antithetical to Christianity. This doctrinally deficient bastard child of Christianity owes its origins to the attempt to conform Christianity to to the beliefs and values of popular culture. One can see today the fruits of this compromised religion in other denominations as well. Theological compromise, loss of confidence in revealed truth has again and again given rise to a religion that may imitate the form of Biblical Christianity while at the same time holding in disdain the doctrine and ethical system found in the Bible.

Every denomination is now faced with a question, will they accommodate to the culture and deny revealed truth. The church is not called to seek the approval of the state or the culture. One can read the book of Acts and see that the early church went against the popular culture in every way possible. The Greco-Roman culture exalted and glorified sexual perversions in the same way our culture does, the early church exalted Christ-centered marriage, holding its members accountable for their marriage covenant. The Greco-Roman culture accepted abortion and infanticide, the early church took in and adopted children thrown away by the culture. The Greco-Roman context was one marked by its religious pluralism with a unifying civic religion based on the worship of a human leader, the early church at the cost of their life confessed Jesus Christ and him alone as Lord and not Caesar. The early church existed in a world without religious freedom, constant threat of persecution and death, and rampant culturally ingrained immorality, yet the church did not retreat and isolate itself from culture nor did it accommodate itself to culture. The early church shined like a light in the darkness, it was the salt of the earth, it was a city on a hill. There is a common theme in those three metaphors, the idea of being different. The church is the church at its best when it can be seen as distinct from the world while at the same time being on mission in the world. Local churches need to reclaim their identity as salt and light, and recall the promises of Christ. Christ has promised us that we will be hated and despised by the world, because he was hated and despised by the world. He has also promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. We need to remember in our culture that our war isn’t with the culture but with the serpent, and we need to remind ourselves we follow the one who has already crushed the serpent’s head, the war is won.