Why being "apolitical" does not help in Christian discipleship

Pastors, as those entrusted with the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1) you are ministers of Word and Sacrament. Not political pundits. https://t.co/bwuSXYrIMw

— Brian Onstead (@brianonstead) August 19, 2021

Christianity as a religion focuses on spiritual things. Christianity is also a worldview that seeks to explain all of life. After all, if the God who created the world and ordered it is the same God who redeems sinners from sin, then it follows logically that all of life and the things in this world must be present in the scheme of God. To relegate Christianity to the private realm, unconcerned with the things of this world, is a denial that God is the God of creation.

That said, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). The primary focus of Christians should be on the things of God. Thus, while God is the God of creation, our emphasis should be on God as the God of redemption. Herein lies the tension for Christians in this age: On the one hand, we worship the God who is Creator and King. On the other hand, our focus is on God as our redeemer and the one who mandates that in this period of the Gospel Christians ought to be focused on proclaiming the Gospel of salvation from sin. Both are true, and both cannot be denied. Those that focus on the Gospel alone while ignoring creation are inbalanced in their faith, just like those who do not focus on the primacy of the Gospel due to concern over creation. How then should Christians live in this world?

The tension between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of creation, and between the City of God and the City of Man, has occupied pastors and theologians since the beginning of the church. A recent view attributed to Reformed theologian David VanDrunen, the "Two Kingdoms" view, state that God is ruler over both the kingdom of creation and the kingdom of the church, but He does so separately. One implication of this view is that the Church in her assembly ought to be focused on spiritual things and not the things of this world. Activism of all sorts are to be proscribed by the church in her gathering, a corrective to both right-wing and left-wing activism found within American Evangelicalism. In this general sense, the Two Kingdoms view is biblical. Complications arise however when we look at the specifics.

Recently, Baptist theologian Owen Strachan wrote a tweet stating that pastors ought to teach their congregants how to understand the world, and that failure to do so is a failure in Christian discipleship as the sheep will look elsewhere for guidance on these matters. Strachan of course is thinking in terms of social issues like Critical Race Theory, in light of the shocking abandonment of biblical orthodoxy by former YRR (Young, Restless, Reformed) adherents for the mirage of "social justice." Many Evangelical Christians in turn turn to conservative political analysts and Fox News for their catechesis on socio-political issues. It seems clear that many people in the church learn about society and politics not through the lens of Scripture, but through partisan lenses. Now, if one believes that there is such a thing as a Christian worldview, then this fact should be seen as problematic.

In response to this tweet, Brian Onstead has reminded us that pastors are not political pundits. That of course is true, but I am unsure the relevance that has to the original tweet. The focus in on Christian worldview, and the shocking abandonment of the Reformed faith by many New Calvinists for "social justice" shows that they had lacked a biblical worldview. Somehow "Gospel-centered" has devolved into "Gospel-only," and it seems that they learn their sociology and politics from the culture rather than the Scriptures. On the right, the reaction to the Left has reached fever pitch, and it is not helpful to be trained by them in one's worldview, even though they are correct on many matters. Are these not evidenct that the Church ought to disciple her members in the Christian worldview, instead of allowing the culture to teach us about such matters? After all, Strachan is not asking for political activism or guidance from the pulpit, but Christian instruction on such matters.

It is of coure true that there is a category called "wisdom" as one deals with the things of the world. But as opposed to this ivory-tower theologian, it is a fact that calling for wisdom is insufficient to actually ajudicate on a practical level between a biblical theory and an unbiblical theory. This author has seen first-hand how a pastor can agree with biblical doctrines on many things but consistently promotes left-wing social issues as being merely concerned with "social justice," while simultaneously claiming to be apolitical and not interested in doing politics. What is going on here, you might ask? What is happening is that left-wing views have so permeated society that they became seen as the "default" view; it is considered being moderate and "not political" to hold to that particular left-wing view. In other words, the Overton window has shifted so much leftwards that anyone who has not thought through the issues are by default politically left.

In exegesis, "tradition" is the idea that nobody comes to the Bible "just as they are." We all come with preconceived notions and lenses through which we read our Bibles. The one who is uncritical about that and who claims no tradition is often the one so bound by tradition that he is blind to it. Likewise, the one who does not recognize that they have a default inchoate "sociopolitical theory" are the ones that are most blind to their own political biases. That is why Strachan's call for biblical discipleship in this area resonates with me, not because Christians ought to be political or to be partisan, but because most Christians are not taught how to think through these matters from a biblical perspective. Wisdom is of course necessary, but calling for wisdom without showing how wisdom is seen is like the man who knows he needs food but is unable to recognize food from poison.

It is of course correct to desire to be apolitical, since the kingdom of grace is not of this world. But desiring to be apolitical is not the same as BEING apolitical. Ironically, one has to be educated on socio-political issues from a Christian worldview in order to be apolitical. Just as knowing one's tradition helps one to better interpret the Bible from a more objective standpoint, likewise knowing the Christian worldview on political matters helps one to be properly apolitical. Without such education, one can call for all the "wisdom" one desires, but there is no escaping the forces that have swallowed up people like Christina Edmonson, Jemar Tisby, and the others who have fallen away from biblical Christianity.

The social liberalism of David French

David French, once a conservative, has shifted ever leftward. That is less of an issue if the leftward movement was on issues that Scripture does not explicitly address. However, in his attack piece on the "new right" over their "embrace" of Hungary, he took positions contrary to Scripture, and thus showed that he has shifted towards being more theologically liberal. Hungary of course is not immune to criticism, and this piece should not be construed to taking any position on Hungary. The focus here rather is on French and the values he shows in his attack piece.

The key passaage from French's attack piece lies here:

The regime doesn’t recognize gay marriage. Only heterosexual couples may adopt. And the regime just passed a law sharply limiting any promotion of homosexuality or gender transition to children. He has banned gender studies programs at Hungarian universities

Besides the banning of gender studies programs (a conntroversial issue), all the other policies would be uncontroversial in America in the 1990s. Notice how French thinks that all these are normal for what he holds to be his "conservative" viewpoint. Nevermind that all these are considered abominations by Scripture; evidently having biblical morality is considered to be merely engaged in the "culture wars" which of course is reprehensible. So French evidently thinks that having biblical morality is part of the "new right" and to partake of the taint of authoritarianism.

This is of course part of the problem with the so-called "culture wars." The Overton Window has shifted so much that what was considered normal and acceptable in social discourse is now considered to be part of the "far-right" or "new right" or whatever nonsense the real culture warriors of the left have come up with. French's liberalism is as much a fact as well as a sad indictment over the state of spirituality in America. In any society where biblical morality is taken as a norm, French would be considered a left liberal for his abandonment of biblical morality, and treated as such by society.

Book Review: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (Part 4): Neanderthals and Harari's misinterpretation of Scripture

Here is Part 4 of my review of Yuvah Noah Harari's book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Once again, we look at Harari's views, this time concerning human evolution as it regards the Neanderthals. As we go deeper towards the main problem with Harari's narratives, I took a short detour and deal with Harari's misinterpretation of Scripture. Harari, being a non-Christian, is of course free to reject Christianity. He is not however free to misinterpret Scripture to say what he wants it to say.

The key point here is that Harari is not quite the vaunted historian or scholar others paint him out to be. A good historian will not make elementary errors on the history of science. A good scholar will not make elementary errors in the interpretation of the Christian Scriptures. We will continue further in further installments of the review.

Book Review: Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind (Part 3): History of Primeval human development - Preliminary Concerns

Primeval human history is an interesting topic, intersting particularly as it is a topic with a comparative paucity of evidence. In Part 3 of the review, I note some preliminary concerns I have on Yuvah Noah Harari's take on primeval human history, which can be read here.

David French and the fiction of systemic racism

David French, once a conservative, has drifted towards a more liberal position due to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrone). In an article on The Dispatch, French sought to argue that "systemic racism" is reality and not wokeness. French of course charge the critics of systemic racism with being "biblically and historically wrong." On the part of history, what French says is nothing more than the liberal idea of "racism without actual racists." There is nothing new under the sun that French brings to the table, and what he says is no different from critical race theory. No doubt racial disparities do exist, but to claim that it is always due to racism is ridiculous. Again, racism without actual racists. It is thus French who is historically wrong, since to prove the charge of racism as defined historically, there must be actual racists involved.

More egregious is French's eisegesis of Scripture, distorting what it says in order to prop up the lie of systemic racism. French appeals to the episode of the Gideonites whom King Saul had persecuted, thus resulting in famine in the land. In 2 Samuel 21, the restitution for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites was to hand seven sons of King Saul over to be killed by the Gibeonites. On the surface, French's reading seems plausible. The Gibeonites were systematically annihilated, and even after one generation, God demanded restitution for the crime. Surely that proves that one can have systemic sin, does it not, where the "innocent" sons of Saul have to pay for their father's sin?

The problem with this reading of Scripture is that it ignores what the real crime of King Saul was. Why was the account of the Gibeonites included in the Scriptures in 2 Samuel 21 but not the other peoples Saul had probably killed? The reason why is seen in the relation the Gibeonites had with Israel, as narrated to us in Joshua 9. Gibeon had tricked Israel into forming a covenant between the two peoples. The covenant was made with God as a witness, thus Israel was unable to put them to the sword. The covenant made between Israel and Gibeon had a binding effect all the way down through the centuries. Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites was a violation of the covenant made with God as the witness. Therefore, Saul and his descendents have to pay for their violation of that covenant.

When one actually reads Scripture properly in context, it can be seen that the issue with the Gibeonites was not systemic sin, but rather covenant violation. The covenant curse inflicted by God through the famine has nothing to do with "systemic sin," or "sin without sinners" (since Saul was already dead), but rather the enforcing of treaty violations by God. The right analogy of the Gibeonites is not to "systemic racism," but rather present treaty violations between countries. The right lesson is that God will punish the breaking of covenants, not that God teaches systemic sin of any kind. This applies to all the other examples of confessing "ancestral sin," which was not confessing that one is culpable for the father's sins, but rather that one assumes the covenant responsibilities and guilt of the Mosaic Covenant.

In his hatred of Trump, David French has jetissoned his credability and join in the distortion of Scripture by the woke crowd. Contrary to what David French says, Structural Racism is unbiblical and unhistorical. French's tarring of this as "right-wing" is slander. His distortion of Scripture is sad, and may God lead him to repentance for distorting His Word.

[ADD: French doubled down on his defense of systemic racism here. He does this by (1) ignoring Scripture, and (2) retreating to the more defensive position that institutions do sin and institutions that sin must make restitutions. Note however that French is engaging in bait-and-switch, or the motte-and-bailey fallacy. NOBODY denies that institutions do sin and institutions that sin must make restitutions. "Systemic racism" is not the same as saying there are racist systems and institutions. "Systemic racism" states that racism is so prevalent that all institutions are involved in racism (even if they do not seem racist) unless they are actively "anti-racist." French thinks his audience are morons that have zero critical thinking skills, and sadly, he might be right.]

Book Review: Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind (Part 2: History of Science)

What do the progressive globalists believe as it relate to science? Through an examination of Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens, I continue to explore the supposed history of humankind, as it relates here to the history of science here.

British Equalities Minister on the term "white privilege"

When it comes to secular matters, God has given humanity wisdom, expresed in common sense for those who still have their rational faculties working intact. Critical Race Theory, with its Gnostic idea of "critically" seeing things that nobody has ever seen before, is contrary to common sense. Thus, in the British Telegraph newspaper, we see an article about why the term "white privilege" is careless and divisive. It is obvious to anyone with common sense that the worst way to deal with racism is to make people focus on race and what each race is either entitled to or guilty of. From the article by Kemi Badenoch:

The phrase “white privilege” is unnecessarily antagonistic. Much as some theorists think it is essential for tackling racism, there is an active and fairly toxic political debate around it.

Ditto for the term "Chinese privilege," or any "X privilege" anyone can think of. You may read the article here.

Book Review: Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind (Part 1)

In collaboration with Rev. Shane Anderson, the first installment of my review of Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind has been posted at the Daily Genevan here.

The main lies Justin Gibony of TGC tells us about Racism and Critical Race Theory

Over at TGC (The Gospel Corporation), Justin Gibony did a video on the lies that serve American Christians. While he is right in pointing out that racism was a terrible blight in American Christianity, and he is right that we should not have a knee jerk reaction against any call for "racial justice," the problem is that his presentation itself has two major lies within it.

4 minutes into the video, Gibony states that it is false that "[racism] existed so long ago that it couldn't possibly still linger in our system and institutions" (04:30-7), and later he says that "Today many are using the threat of Marxism as pretext to avoid reckoning with the church's race problem. They are conflating biblical sound pleas for justice with clear distortion" (08:06-20). Taken on a superficial level, it is true that the effects of racism can still linger in America, and that it is also true that many could be using the threat of Marxism to avoid the issue of racism. However, that is not exactly what he had said. The claim is not that the effects of racism is present in America. The claim is that racism (not just its effects) is still present today in the American system and institutions. This is where Gibony embraced the falsehood of "systemic racism," where any actions that negatively affects someone of a minority race is taken as prima facie evidence of such "systemic racism." To be fair, Gibony lists down some racist events in America history, but note they last until the 1960s or at worst 70s. Guess what year is it today? 2021. If we take the year 1970, that is a time gap of 51 years, and 51 years is 2 generations. In other words, what Gibony is saying is that racism is still present BECAUSE racism was present TWO generations ago. Does that even sound rational to anyone not in the woke movement? So the sins of the father are to be visited on the grandson? Someone needs to read up Ezekiel 18 to see what God thinks about this kind of "justice"!

Next, the claim that many are using Marxism as pretext to avoid talking about race might be true. However, how does anyone know that? Absent reading the heart, that is impossible to know. What is possible to know is that Gibony sees that the church has a "race problem." Now, it is not to be denied that people in churches can and do struggle with racism. But to state that there is truly a "race problem" in the church implies that this "race problem" is pervasive throughout the churches, and especially "white churches." In other words, it is the issue of "systemic racism" again. So if there is this pervasive "race problem" in the church, where is the proof? Where is the smoking gun? Instead, what is happening is that reactions against calls for "racial reconciliation" by black racists like Jemar Tisby are rejected, and such rejections are taken as proof that the church has a "race problem"?! Why not think that the rejection of such calls is because we actually reject racists even when they have black skin? Now, I do not know whether such is the case, but Gibony has not given us any example of the church's "race problem" so I will just speculate as to what it is.

Speaking of the church's "race problem," if the fact that historically white churches are not diverse enough, then what are we to make of all ethnic churches? Is someone going to condemn black churces for not being diverse enough and include more whites and Asian and others? Who is going to condemn Korean churches for not being inclusive of non-Koreans, or Chinese churches of not being inclusive of non-Chinese? While I do agree that historically white churches should be welcoming to all ethnicities, the hypocrisy regarding TGC stands. Gibony states that we must reject lies, so perhaps he will give some of his air time to condemn all mono-ethnic churches including the black church for not being diverse enough?

In conclusion, I agree with Gibony that Christians can tell lies that serve their own interests. I happen to think however that Gibony needs to heed his own advice. Stop lying about systemic racism and be a truthful Christian. True racial reconciliation is done through actual reconciliation, not lies about racism and fellow Christians.

Voddie Baucham on rhetoric and the eleventh commandment

Gone are the days of Luther and Erasmus slugging it out over the question of original sin. Today both men would be accused of being petty (for daring to split hairs over such theological minutia), mean-spirited (for daring to speak so forcefully in favor of their own position and against the other’s), and downright un-Christlike (for throwing around the word “heresy”). I have often said, “The Eleventh Commandment is, ‘Thou shalt be nice’ … and we don’t believe the other ten.” (Voddie T. Baucham Jr., Faultlines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism’s Looming Catastrophe , 132)

The sexual revolution and divorce

We cannot blithely accept no-fault divorce (in which we are too often willing participants), for example, and then complain that Obergefell redefined marriage. (Carl R. Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Freedom, pp. 389-90)

Just as liberal theology was present prior to rank apostasy, so likewise the seeds of destruction of family and sexuality were planted prior to the embrace of "homosexual marraiges." In this one sentence, Trueman rightly pointed out one major way in which many professing Christians have already compromised on the topic of sexuality - that of no-fault divorce. I would like to venture further than Trueman here though. Christians who have compromised on the issue of divorce by allowing for divorce on reasons others than what God allows, and churches that allow for such divorces, are complicit in evil and plant the seeds of destruction in their lives, churches, and societies.

God is very clear on marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life. In unambiguous terms, Jesus in Matthew 19:1-12 states what marriage is and, alongside Romans 7:1-3, gives the only reasons for divorce. Divorce is only permitted upon adultery and desertion amounting to death. Abuse is not mentioned in the Bible, even though many husbands in biblical times have abused their wives. Thus, abuse can only be legitimate if is reaches the level of desertion, and that's all. All the other reasons normally given for divorce (non-reconciliable disagreement, unable to trust etc.) are NOT legitimate reasons for biblical divorce, ever.

In response to Jesus' teaching, we must remember the disciples' astonishment as they exclaimed, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (v. 10). Now, if Jesus did in fact allow for divorce because of those other reasons, the disciples would not have been startled by Jesus' teaching, would they? But the disciples clearly understood how strict Jesus' teaching was on divorce, where basically only extreme sins against the marital bond would break it.

In this light, it is a sad reality that professing Evangelicals do not abide by Jesus' teachings on the matter. And even when the church formally teaches it, it is not practised and enforced. Whether a churche truly believes in biblical marriage and divorce is not seen in her teaching on the matter but on whether she actually acts on those teachings. If a professing Christian couple in the church divorces for unbiblical reasons, the church must put them under church discipline until they either repent, or they are excommunicated (c.f. 1 Cor. 5:1-5, 9-13). To not do so because of other reasons that the Scriptures do not sanction is to violate Scripture. And where appeal is made to their supposed contrition, that church has caved into the therapeutic mentality that saturates modern culture instead of following what Scripture commands. A truly contrite person will repent of his or her sins, and turn back to what God has commanded in Scripture. The idea that one can be "contrite" yet continue in disobedience to God is a contradiction in terms (c.f. Jas 2:14-26). And lastly, to resort to the "Gospel" as a way to excuse sin is basically licentiousness, and woe to those who misuse the grace of God to tolerate wickedness (Gal. 5:13-14; Mt. 6:23).

Judgment begins at the house of God (1 Pet. 4:17). As the sexual revolution destroys the world, let us move fast in the opposite direction. Christians are to not just reject sexual deviancy, but also to reject unbiblical notions of marriage. As the darkness grows, our lights need to shine brighter, and show people the way to the truth and the life.

On abuse and the responses to the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal and the responses to that scandal from within Evangelicalism, I would like to offer this article as a way to think more about the issue of abuse and Evangelicalism's failure to deal with abuse. An excerpt:

The Ravi Zacharias scandal rocked Evangelicalism, since Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist until his death in 2020. In response to the scandal, Evangelicals reacted with sorrow and grief over the wickedness of Zacharias’ sins. The more common refrain from many leaders however is some variant of “there but for the grace of God go I,” as seen in Michael Brown’s article, and reposted on Charisma News, a leading news source for Charismatics. While they sorrow over the victims of sins, the focus is on “not throwing stones” and empathizing with Ravi Zacharias to some extent. The most egregious piece here can be found in Singapore by Rev. Edmund Chan of CEFC (Covenant Evangelical Free Church), who ended his note with a confidence that Ravi Zacharias is indeed in heaven now, an article which epitomizes a major problem within Evangelicalism

[more]

Letham and Theosis

7. It is union with Christ, with his person. This goes beyond the indwelling of the Spirit in the church and its members, … (Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, p. 787)

This goes beyond communion. It entails union. It is more than participation in the communicable attributes of God. It is not to be restricted to union with righteousness, goodness, holiness, or truth, neither is it union with the benefits of Crist, as if it were union with the doctrine of sanctification. It is union with Christ. Moreover, the humanity of Christ were not simply united to some of God’s attributes; if it were, we would be left with an extreme form of Nestorianism. (p. 788)

Athanasius’s main term for expressing this is μέτοχοι (partakers). (p. 771)

The Eastern Orthodox teaching of theosis teaches that the godly will become partakers of the divine energies in what the western churches call glorification. Utilizing the essence/ energies distinction, theosis, while speaking of partaking of the divine, is not like fusing into the divine like a drop of water returns to the sea. Rather, it deals only with the "energies" of God. In Eastern Orthodoxy, that is basically stating that Man will become as close to the divine as creaturely possible.

The problem with theosis is that it remains an ontological category. This is compounded by Robert Letham who seems to embrace some version of theosis, which he insists is more than what the Reformed teaches about union with Christ. This is disturbing especially when he quotes Athanasius in his use of μέτοχοι (metachoi), as opposed to 2 Peter 1:4 where the term is κοινωνοι (koinōnoi). As seen in 2 Peter 1:4 therefore which deals with the divine, the use of koinōnoi rather than metachoi seems to indicate that the partaking is more of a perfect communion between two people, rather than any form of ontological unity.

It is for such reasons that Letham's embrace of some type of theosis is to be rejected. While not the same as ontological fusion, the ontological focus of theosis should make it unpalatable to all who hold to the Creator-creature distinction.

On the Ravi Zacharias scandal

In light of the Ravi Zacharias scandal, I have written my thoughts on the issue here. An excerpt:

Ravi Zacharias was a prominent Evangelical apologist and founder of the ministry that bore his name (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries – RZIM). His global reach means that his ministry was known worldwide, regardless of the merits or demerits of Zacharias’ apologetics. Zacharias passed away last year in 2020, seemingly a godly man who has reached many people for Christ. However, shocking revelations of sexual abuse have surfaced, and an investigation that has just been completed by Miller — Martin was shocking in its validation of the credible nature of many of these accusations. RZIM has in turn wrote an open letter apologizing for the misconduct of its founder, promising restitution and reform. These revelations have troubled many Evangelicals. With Zacharias’ reach being global in nature, the revelations of his immorality have resonated around the world.

[more]

Letham and Romans 5:12-21

Moreoever, Hodge misread [sic] Romans 5. Paul is not making an exact parallel between Adam and Christ. There are two reasons for this. First, there is a clear antithesis between the two. "The free gift is not like the trepass" (v. 15); "the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin" (v. 16). Second, the effect of what Christ has done far outweighs what Adam did. The argument is from the lesser to the greater. (Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, p. 392)

It is not a parallel; it is a wildly uneven contrast, the only common factors being the respective heads of the solidaric groups and the far-reaching outcomes of what they did. Shedd points to the different kinds of union that Hodge missed: Adam's sin was grounded on a natural union, in contrast to the union with Christ. All people were in Adam when he disobeyed; not all were in Christ when he obeyed. All are propagated from Adam; no one is propagated from Christ. Union in Adam is substantial and physical; in Christ, it is spiritual and mystical. In Adam, it is by creation; in Christ, by regeneration. (p. 393)

Romans 5:12-21 is an important text showing the contrast between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. More specifically, it contrasts the heads of the two respective covenants, showing that Christ succeeded where Adam failed. It stands to reason therefore that there should be some discussion of the passage when one deals with the Covenant of Works. Unfortunately, Robert Letham as a monocovenantalist sees the passage as only pertinent to the sinfulness of man, and not the Covenant of Works.

In his interpretation of the text of Romans 5:112-21, Letham disagreed with the strong parallelism theologians like Charles Hodge make between Adam and Christ. According to Letham, there is no exact parallel because (1) "there is a clear antithesis between the two"; and (2) "what Christ has done outweighs what Adam did." Thus, Romans 5:12-21 shows a contrast, not a parallel, between Adam and Christ.

In response, it must be asked what the point of the parallel between Adam and Christ is in Covenant Theology. The parallel drawn between Adam and Christ, which we see in the text, is between Adam and Christ as federal heads. We see this representative nature in Romans 5:12 where "death came into the world through one man" and in verse 15 where "the grace of God and the free gift" came through the one man Jesus Christ. Thus, the representative natures of Adam and Christ are plainly established in the text itself.

How however do these representatives work? In the dispute between those who hold to mediate and immediate imputation of sin, the dispute is between those who believe that sin is imputed to man because of natural generation (mediate), or directly by God through covenant (immediate). Translated to the notion of representation, the realist interpretation holds that Adam is representative of humanity because we are all descendents of Adam. In other words, it is not primarily because of covenant that all of humanity is considered sinful. Adam is representative of humanity because he is literally our father (this view goes well with traducianism). Letham holds to some version of this view, basing representation upon "the natural, seminal relationship Adam sustained to the race" (p. 396).

It must be said in response that the seminal representation view has a problem with the person of Jesus Christ. Although he was born of the virgin Mary, Mary did contribute biologically to his body and thus His human nature. No matter how one cuts it, Christ is at least partially the biological descendent of Adam, so how can Christ be considered sinlesss according to this realist view? One can of course assert that it is through the paternal line that imputation of sin proceeds, but are not men and women equally descendents of their parents, since we are talking about biology? An assertion of patriachial descent of sin in a biological manner seems absolutely arbitrary, and misogynistic. Men and women are equally human, thus this view of the transmission of sin does not make sense.

With regards to Letham's two points, it should be pointed out that a "clear antithesis" does not disprove a strong parallel betweeen Adam and Christ. After all, if a contrast disproves parallelism, then how can Scripture be correct in saying of Jesus "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Mt. 2:15), citing Hosea 11:1, when Hosea 11:2 speaks of the disobedience of Israel after the Exodus while Jesus always obeyed? Can we point out the parallelism between Jesus' temptation in the wilderness with Israel's temptation in the same wilderness, noting that Israel failed in the wilderness while Jesus succeeded? Can Jesus be said to be the true Israel since he is so unlike Israel on the matter of obeying God?

It is of course true that there is a "how much more" element to Jesus' reward. However, that itself does not disprove a strong parallel, in the same way as the reward of the New Jerusalem with the Tree of Life (Rev. 22:2) does not disprove its parallelism with the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. After all, parallelism shows only how one correlates or corresponds in some manner to the other, without all elements being the same.

Letham's rejection of covenant parallelism here is therefore untenable. The parallels between the two representatives are of the parallels between the two covenants of which they are their heads. As opposed to (WGT) Shedd, it must be pointed out that Adam's sin is not grounded on a natural union, since Christ is sinless. All people were not in Adam when he disobeyed. But rather, all men are represented in Adam our federal head in Adam's disobedience. Thus, all believers are represented in Christ our federal head as Christ obeyed. Union in Adam is not substantial and physical, since the ground of union with Adam is being under his federal headship which is patrilinal and thus Jesus is not under Adam's headship. Union in Christ is likewise being under his federal headship, which is through adoption as sons of God.