Should Christians support the Freedom Convoys

From my facebook 

I stopped regularly listening to MSM and instead turn to Rebel News, and to citizens reports who do live stream walk-throughs of downtown Ottawa on YouTube. You get a very different picture of what's happening in Ottawa! Of course we don't agree with everything that said and done there, even as we would not agree with everything that every Canadian soldier said and did on the battlegrounds of WW II. But yet we say the cause they fought for was just and right!

Didn't John Calvin say that a rebellion was legitimate if under magistrates agreed and participated. There are several MP's who publicly supported and have spoken up for the "Freedom  Convoy" participants. 

When the prime minister judges the views being expressed as that of "a small Fringe minority with unacceptable views" and condemns the participants as "racists and misogynists and white supremacists" he is no longer acting like the leader of a Nation, but as a spokesman for a  segment of society that has a particular viewpoint.  In effect he has declared as unacceptable, the views of the many Christians who are protesting their loss of freedom to worship, of expression, of association, of movement, of privacy.

This is similar to Hillary Clinton, who said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables” characterized by “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” views.

Moreover, in our civil society we are permitted to protest against our governments at the ballot box. But we're also permitted to protest against our governments by marching in the street. We do it every year with a pro-life March. The freedom convoy is different only in the matter of degree: the March for Life is not much of an inconvenience to the people who live in downtown Ottawa; The Freedom Convoy is. 

The present protest is peaceful (except for the air-horns). The brou-haha about the Terry Fox memorial should cause the leftists to be ashamed. A Canadian flag was draped over the shoulders of the Statue of Terry Fox and a placard was put in his arms. The leftists were appalled because Terry Fox, they said, should not be appropriated by antivaxxers; his memory belongs to those who believe in universal health care! Go figure! I find it interesting that those who complain about the Terry Fox memorial have not complained about the BLM protests tearing down John A McDonald's memorial in Montreal, or the beheading of the Statue of Queen Victoria.

Of course we disagree with those who think it appropriate to fly a swastika or a Confederate flag.  

But Justin Trudeau's allegation that truckers were stealing food from homeless people is leftist spin on an unverified news bit that some protesters tried to get some free food from a homeless soup kitchen. That is a far cry from stealing food from homeless people.  Now we see the protesters providing free food for anyone who wants some. I can't imag6ine they would turn the homeless away! We don't hear the prime minister recognizing that! (The soup kitchen is also now receiving hundreds of dollars of unsolicited donstions!)

It may be true that some protesters treated the grave of the unknown soldier with disrespect, but since then many have laid flowers on the grave.  The prime Minister has not recognized this act of contrition and acknowledgment of wrong doing by some at the protest. 

The prime minister in his pronouncements is purposely misleading the citizens of the country that he is supposed to be leading. When several under magistrates agree with a significant segment of the population that the government must go, then organized protest and civil disobedience is not unbiblical nor unChristian. It can and may be employed by Christians to advance the cause of the church and to build up the kingdom of God. Especially when the prime minister declares our views "unacceptable"!

By the. Liberal Party spin, our government is swiftly losing credibility and legitimacy.  I fully support the Freedom Convoy. If people don't want to be vaccinated that should be their choice. I've had "two and a boost" but that's my choice. If I would get COVID and be unvaccinated, because of my Parkinson's I would probably die of pneumonia. So I made an informed decision. 

In our country we don't penalize smokers or the obese or those who engage in extreme sports, by making pariahs out of them banning them from civil society. Why should I with "2 and a boost" be afraid of unvaxxed. Why should they lose their jobs. Why ban them from restaurants, museums, airplanes, concert halls,  theaters, bowling alleys, gyms and spas... (and in Quebec even from worshipping) Let them be! 

I wonder at the inconsistency of the leftists, who in their pro-abortion rhetoric will state that a woman's body is her own, and what she does with her body is between her and her doctor. But a freedom loving right of center Christ follower is denied the opportunity to use that argument with respect to vaccines.  The left will bludgeon freedom loving libertarian into submission. This is the time for Christians to speak out. We have a legitimate (and I think God given) opportunity to reclaim civil freedoms that are a legacy of the Great Reformation and that the ungodly left will be pleased to steal from us: Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom to worship, freedom to travel inside our own national borders without being tracked, freedom of privacy! 

They will use their arguments to support their positions but deny Christians the right to use similar defenses. The is no reasoning with a post-milleniaĺ post-modern.  Our views, opinions and worldview are that of  "a small fringe minority and are unacceptable." 

Trudeau has shown his true colours and we, judged by him to be "The Small Fringe Minority" should take that up as a badge of honor! We of the unacceptable views!  

In Dutch history, in 1566, among the leaders who bound themselves to assist in defending the rights and liberties of the Netherlands against the civil and religious despotism of Philip II of Spain, were the nobles, Louis of Nassau and Hendrick van Brederode. On April 5 1566, permission was obtained for the confederates to present a petition of grievances, called the Request, to the regent, Margaret, Duchess of Parma. About 250 nobles marched to the palace accompanied by Louis of Nassau and van Brederode. The regent was at first alarmed at the appearance of so large a body, but one of her councillors, Berlaymont, allegedly remarked "N'ayez pas peur Madame, ce ne sont que des gueux" ("Fear not madam, they are only beggars"). (Wikimedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geuzen)

"They're only gueux", a French slur. The protesters took on the slur in pride. And when they used their  ships to blockade the harbour at Brill, they called themselves the Water Geuzen. The action at Brill by the Water Beggars is some what paralleled by the Freedom Convoy. Except that the Water Beggars protest became an armed military uprising. The Dutch rebelled against the Roman Catholic Hapsburgs and established a free Calvinist State.  

Full disclosure: my mother's maiden name was De Geus and and family tree goes back to a fellow Jacob the (knife) Sharpener, who took the surname '"de Gueuz" in 1572, (the year the Beggars captured Brill and Vlissingen, which marked the beginning of the final stagesprotest of the Dutch revolt.) 

The Water Beggars were privateers or pirates depending on your point of view (though sanctioned by William of Orange) yet I've never heard that their actions against the Roman Catholic Hapsburgs was illegitimate, or that the Dutch revolt was unChristian nor was the establishing of the calavinist Netherlands.

And we could mention Bonhoeffer and his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler. If I remember correctly, Bonhoeffer was Dr Jelle Faber's beloved heretic, because of his nvolvement. Faber told us of the vile memories of Amsterdam Jews being rounded up. It was duing his last month of teaching that the Berlin wall fell-- Nov 9 1989--and we asked him what he thought about it. He said he feared German reunification. I don't think Dr Faber thought that Bonhoeffer was wrong.

Daniel's friends stood up against the king of the great city of man, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. With the whole world as witnesses, they defied great king of the City of the world and would not submit. When prayer was forbidden, Daniel didn't go and hide when he prayed, but publicly defied the great king of the city of man, because he had his eyes set on the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Let us, the SFM, the Basket of Deplorables, allied with the Trucker Beggars do the same. We have a legitimate protest; which we as God's people may and should use to protect our Christian freedom.

Churchill and Orwell: Champions for the Equality and Freedom of the Individual

  Thomas E. Ricks Churchill and Orwell: The fight for freedom. Penguin. NY. NY. 2017 (275 pages, 51 pages end notes; 13 pages index; 16 pages photos).

Thomas Ricks has (in 2017) presented a new biography on Churchill with a parallel biography of George Orwell. Ricks compares the two giants on the 20th-century stage and notes their parallel lives: one as an upper-class politician, the other as an author with working-class roots. Both of these men championed the cause of the Western social value of equality and freedom of the individual.

Understanding and valuing what these men fought for has become more pressing in the past year with the black lives matter campaign, the predominance of intersectionality, and the rise of critical theory” These three phenomena promote the concept that personal identity is defined by the groups we are part of. Some groups are victims; some groups are oppressors. Proponents of critical theory want us to pay attention to gender, race, class identities and inequities. Intersectionality studies the interconnectedness of race, class and gender as they apply to groups, creating intersections of overlapping systems of discrimination, disadvantage and oppression. The black lives matter campaign will not admit the slogan every black life matters. Their movement is not about the individual but about the collective. It’s all about systemic racism and the victimization of the group or class.

Ricks shows us how these two giants on the 20th-century's stage fought against tyranny; the tyranny of the Marxists and of the Nazis and how they fought for the freedom and equality of the individual. The opening chapters describe their vast dissimilarities and very different life trajectories (pg 3). As flamboyant as Churchill was, Orwell was phlegmatic and introverted. But “together in the mid-20th  century, these two men led the way, politically and intellectually, in responding to the twin totalitarian threats of Fascism and Communism (Pg 3).”

Both these men saw clearly the threat of the state subverting “the value of the individual … and all that that means: the right to dissent from the majority, the right even to be persistently wrong, the right to distrust the power of the majority, and the need to assert that high officials might be in error—most especially when those in power believe they are not (Pg 5).” Orwell once wrote, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear (Pg 5).”

The book traces the lives of the two men from early childhood, to their careers as writers. Thomas Ricks, the author, has been a war correspondent who wrote news items for American news media from Iraq and the Middle East. He saw in Churchill and Orwell an interesting parallel with himself: both were war correspondents. Churchill reported from India and the Afghan border, went to Sudan, then back to India and then South Africa. Orwell wrote from Spain during the Spanish civil war.

It was during the 30s, at the time of the great depression, that many believed that liberal capitalist democracy was tired and failing: the only solutions that were being advanced were fascism or communism. Churchill had been in government in the 20s but the 30s proved to be a political wilderness for him. His peers did not want to hear him on the “Nazi threat.” Orwell, on the other hand, had developed into a leftist pro-communist champion of the working class in his writings (though his books were not popular) and in 1937 he joined the anti-rightist forces in the Spanish civil war. Joining the communists against the fascists, he had “a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom (Pg 66).” But he learned differently. While he was in Barcelona he saw how the Stalinists murderously purged their own, and how no one was safe from the communists. This was no utopian egalitarian society. It was a ruthless battle for power and influence. It was not freedom, but bondage from which to escape and flee. And flee he did, back to England. From then on Orwell wrote not only against the totalitarianism and oppression of the right (Naziism) but because of his experience in Spain he now also took up his pen in opposition to the tyranny of the left (Communism).

When in 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and the British and the French declared war, Churchill came into his own. Chamberlain stepped down and Churchill became prime minister. He spoke in the British House of Commons about the coming war: “This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that is most sacred to man. This was no battle for domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; it was not a conflict to shut any county out of its sunlight and means of progress. It was  a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man (pg 85).” Orwell wrote, “if this war is about anything at all, it is a war in favour of freedom of thought (pg 85).”

Ricks then recounts the war between the Allies and the Nazis and the rise of the USA and the Soviets as world powers and the decline of the British Empire. After the war, Orwell wrote his satire on communism, Animal Farm, and Churchill wrote his memoirs in 6 volumes. Then in 1949 Orwell published 1984, about a dystopian world of totalitarianism; a society where there is no equality and no freedom; where the protagonist is Winston! Where WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Big Brother is watching you!

Ricks ends his book with a review of especially Orwell’s literary significance in 2016, He wrote this book prior to Donald Trump’s rise to power, the advent of Black Lives Matter; prior to the rise of Critical Theory, and the advance of intersectionality. Churchill stood against Fascism, which is based on a conflict of races, meaning no freedom; Orwell stood against communism based on a conflict of classes, meaning no equality.

Ricks applies the lessons from Churchill and Orwell to the civil rights movements of the 60s and the failure of the Soviet Bloc in the 80s. He reflects on the post 9/11 World and the rise of the data gathering of the Silicon Valley giants: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft. They are watching you!

But Trumpism on the right and intersectionality on the left should give us pause. Are we entering a new crisis with no leaders? Will we lose our freedom of thought and our equality before the law while we post pictures of our latest Amazon purchase on Facebook? Will we care? You will if you read this book!

 

1 Corinthians 11 and Visitors at communion

The Context (Context is king!)

The letters to the Corinthians are occasional letters dealing with pastoral issues in the church. Some of "Chloe's people” have reported to Paul on troubles in Corinth, and Paul has received at least one other letter from Corinth. Perhaps another delegation has come seeking advice. 

Don Carson writes,

When students of the Bible speak of Paul’s letters as “occasional,” they do not mean that they are infrequent or sporadic. They mean, instead, that in most cases, they were written on specific “occasions,” perhaps to combat a particular error (as in Galatians), or to ask someone for something specific (as in Philemon), or to respond to a church’s questions (as in large parts of 1 Corinthians).

However, reading Paul’s occasional letters is often like listening to one side of a phone conversation. We need to reconstruct the issues at hand.

The first Corinthian letter opens up with Paul admonishing the members about division in the church. (Chapter) 1 Who is to lead? This theme about division in the church goes on to dominate this letter. Chapter 2 Is about Human wisdom vs godly wisdom. In Chapter 3. Paul consider ”Who to follow?” Chapter 4 describes how Human pride causes division. Chapter 5. Describes how Immorality causes division. In Chapter 6, The apostle declares that Lawsuits are evidence of division. He goes on in Chapter 7 to discuss how there are divisions in marriage. Then in Chapter 8 he shows the way forward when food sacrificed to idols has become reason for division. In Chapter 9 the Apostle Paul defends his Apostleship against detractors who are sowing seeds of division in the church. In Chapter 10, he begins his discussion on worship. And in Chapter 11-- (the final part of this chapter has our attention) -- in Chapter 11, he continues with prayer. And we will see how the matter of division in the church returns. This division has become evident in the worship of the church—not just division among leaders and followers; not just among members and leaders in the church; or between husbands and wives in marriages; not just in lawsuits among brothers; not just against Paul. But division has appeared in the worship of God, and even more seriously, division in the church has appeared at communion services.

The civic context is this: In Corinth, there were many pagan temples that celebrated temple prostitution, debauchery and drunkenness. There were many trade guilds in Corinth, and the business owners would sponsor feasts at the temples, to which the working-class members of the guilds were invited. However, there would be no socializing between rich and poor in the pagan temples. Often, the sponsors of the festival would engage in gluttony, and many would have too much wine while the working class would get the scraps and the dregs. The Corinthian temple orgies were well-known in the Roman Empire of the day. To live a completely sensuous life of immorality was commonly known as “to Corinthianize!” Some of these practices seems to have infiltrated the church.

In the church, at communion, the rich are getting drunk, and the poor get nothing. This is an outright denial of the hospitality of God.

The early churches met in the homes of the rich. These homes had open-walled courtyards that often could easily accommodate 50 or 60 members of the church for worship. The dining room, the triclinium, would only accommodate 10 or 12. It seems that the rich would sponsor the festive meal, but they would not wait for the lower class to finish work for the day (Christians didn’t get Lord’s Day rest till Constantine!). By the time the day laborers and slaves showed up for worship, the rich had eaten all the food, and some had had to much wine! In Corinth, the rich are not waiting for the poor to arrive and are getting drunk and overindulging while some people are going hungry.

As we said, “This is an outright denial of the hospitality of the Lord,” who welcomes all who come to him. Now we are not getting drunk on a sip of communion wine or being gluttonous when we take a morsel of bread. But we are denying the hospitality of God if we make a division in the church between “the haves” and “the have-nots.”

We must see the whole OT narrative as telling the story of the creator God restoring he fellowship he had with mankind in the Garden of Eden on Adam’s first full day, the Day of Rest; when Adam enjoyed the hospitality of his creator.. The Tabernacle was a picture of a Garden where the priests would eat the sacrifices in the holy presence of God, enjoying his hospitality. So also, the temple. The Land of Promise was a land flowing with Milk and Honey and under Solomon’s reign, the prince of Peace (His name means Peace) the land had Rest, and everyone could enjoy the hospitality of God.

But the old covenant in the blood of bulls and goats was insufficient to take away sin, so Jesus instituted a New Covenant in his own blood.

And that the New Covenant has restored our fractured relationship with God.

And at the communion table, we share in the peace, and the rest and the hospitality of God.

Jesus Christ has restored fellowship between God and mankind. That was the purpose of his life and death. The communion service is meant to be a celebration of the restored relationship, where all people are invited into the love relationship that the persons of the trinity enjoy. (John 15:9ff 17:13ff). At the communion table we are all invited into and share in the hospitality of the Lord. Moreover, Lord Jesus, after the Passover supper, took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. We see the disciples in the upper room (were there 120 people present?) enjoying the hospitality of the Son of God, who was presiding over this Exodus meal.

This parallels Exodus 24:8-11, where immediately after the Lord confirms his covenant with the sprinkling of blood of the covenant, Moses & Aaron, Nadab & Abihu, and 70 Elders eat and drink in the presence of God. They were invited into the hospitality of God.

In Exodus 24, we read that Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words"  Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

In his grief over division in the church, the Apostle enjoins the Corinthian ‘saints’ (see1:2) to self-examination (11:28-34). However, We should note that this passage, when quoted in Eucharistic liturgies, is often lifted out of its context. The context is Paul’s insistence on the unity of the body of Christ.

5 times in 11:17-22 and 33-34, the Apostle uses the same word: “come together.” This is a technical term designating the gathering for worship. It implies unity—the unity of the gathered ones. But in Corinth, the “coming together” has become a fiasco. There are divisions among them. The Apostle uses a word --Schismata-- that directly underlies our word Schism, which describes an ungodly division in the church. In chapter 10:17, Paul points this out when he sees the unity of the church in one loaf of bread and one body of believers. The elements of the Lord’s Supper not only symbolize the sacrifice of our Saviour, but the bread accents the unity and ecumenicity of the church.

The Lord’s Supper, given as a memorial meal of the deliverance that all believers have in Christ and of the hospitality of God, has become a function of division. There is a schism in the church. There is a division between rich and poor and between upper classes and lower classes. We are reminded of Paul’s denunciation of racial and class divisions in Colossians 2:11 where he writes ”...but Christ is all and is in all. Self-examination does not mean individual introspective contemplation on one’s personal worthiness to participate in communion. Rather, Paul’s injunction to self-examination is a command to the Corinthians to reflect on whether or not they are the cause of division in the body of believers. They are to discern the body. The body of the church.

Are the members of the church shaming others by denying them participation in LS?

Paul’s instruction is not, “Examine yourself. are you worthy to participate? Did you have a fight with your wife? Have lustful thoughts about another woman? been greedy or a gossip?

But “examine yourself! have your been participating in an unworthy manner?” Are you, in the manner by which you participate, causing a division, a schism among the believers? Discern the body..

Some in Corinth did not “discern the body,” and thus, they became guilty of “The body and blood of the Lord.” (In other words, as the apostle to the Hebrews writes in 6:6 and 10:29, they became guilty of trampling the Son of God underfoot (10:29) and crucifying him all over again (6:6).)

We, however, do not dispute the command for self-examination in the Form because the Form acknowledges that self-examination will lead to the conclusion that we need to be accounted worthy to partake by the Lord himself. However, we believe that Paul’s injunction to self-examination in 1 Corinthians 11 points directly to division among believers in worship.

True self-examination consists of:

1. Consider your sins and sinfulness (also the sins of division among believers) and how God has punished them in his Son?

2. Do you believe the promise of God that the righteousness of Christ is yours by faith?

3. Do you desire to show love for God in your walk of life and live with your neighbour in love and UNITY!

The third part of self-examination that it be “our sincere desire…. to live with our neighbour in true love and unity,” has our attention!

How can we possibly be doing this when we deny communion to guests who, as members of Bible-believing churches, desire to have their faith generated by the preaching of the gospel and strengthened by the use of the sacraments?

We are convinced that Paul’s instruction about the division between the rich and the poor should be applied in the case of visitors. We make long announcements about how we only allow members of our churches and sister churches to the table. And then we say, “We are not judging you.” But why would we say that? “Because our guests feel judged.” That is not “living in love and unity” with our neighbours.

We say, “We don’t doubt that you love the Lord, but we want to make sure that we keep the table holy.” And that is quite a judgment!

In my 25 years of ministry, I can tell you of hardened sinners, adulterers, and child abusers who, as members of the church, continued to come to the table lest they be found out. They were the hypocrites. But they did not defile the table, even as Judas the betrayer did not, nor Peter the denier, nor the other 10 who fled into the dark later on the night the Lord Jesus instituted this covenant meal. They did not defile that which is holy, even as the lepers and the unclean, nor the demoniacs nor the dead, made the Lord Jesus unclean! 

The table is profaned when the church does not warn the unbelieving and unrepentant to withhold themselves and abstain!

Confronted with this understanding of 1 Corinthians 11, we ask ourselves, “Will we live in love and unity welcome guests at the communion table, or will we approach them with a hermeneutic of suspicion?”