If the early church had waited for Jewish and Roman authorities to recognize and license the first Christians, they'd probably still be waiting today. So why do Christian students' groups on American college campuses have to wait for college authorities to recognize them before they can go about their business?
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is suing California State University at San Bernardino for refusing to recognize the Christian Student Assn. (CSA) "for requiring that its members be Christians and adhere to the group's statements of faith and sexual morality." See the Dec. 27 Agape Press article by Jim Brown, "FIRE: California School Curtails Christian Students' First Amendment Rights," http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/272005a.asp. According to FIRE, "University after university has done this; FIRE has fought cases all over the country."
OK, the university's position is maliciously ridiculous. And we do have a Constitutional right of freedom of association. But should that mean that Christian students should not organize and should not be active, unless the college gives them a piece of the student activities fund? Did the local synagogue or the Roman magistrate have to fund Paul's infant churches before they could be active?
Constitutionally, it's important that FIRE win this lawsuit. But while they're waiting for that, the Christian students should go about their business without funding from the college, or formal recognition. Surely they can raise funds themselves. If the college won't give them a meeting place, let them meet somewhere else--a private home, or outdoors on a nice day.
There is no reason that God's work should stop for want of a nod and a stipend from the unbelievers.
Long-time Chalcedon writer and Christian advocate John Lofton recently engaged James Winkler of the United Methodist Church on CSPAN addressing the topic "Morality and the Federal Budget." The UMC should've sent a more prepared representative to confront the sagacious wit of the good Mr. Lofton. This is a great example of how baseless leftist political philosophy is and how only a return to both Scriptural and Constitutional authority is the only means to alleviating our nation's ills.
You're sure to enjoy the lame tactic of "character assassination" used by Mr. Winkler when contending with Mr. Lofton's persistent argument. Winkler flatly refuses to answer John's simple question and instead assaulted Lofton's person. John brushes it off and keeps asking the same question. This is how you debate a progressive.
Click here to view the RealPlayer file. NOTE: This is a 3-hour program and John's portion is at the time marker 1:24:13. RealPlayer will allow you to move the program forward to that time marker.
Finally! A major national pundit has figured out that the public schools just aren't going to get better, no matter what Christians do to try to change them. Go to townhall.com and read Cal Thomas' excellent column of Dec. 27, "Unintelligent designs" (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/calthomas/2005/12/27).
Commenting on the ruling by a federal judge to ban the teaching of Intelligent Design theory in the public schools of Dover, Pennsylvania, Thomas said the ruling "should awaken religious conservatives to the futility of trying to make a secular state reflect their beliefs."
His solution? "Religious parents should exercise the opportunity that has always been theirs. They should remove their children from state schools with their 'instruction manuals' for turning them into secular libers, and place them in private schools--or home school them--where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong, have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas."
Amen! Now if we could only find a way to break through the wall of denial that most Christian parents have erected around the public schools, we might really get somewhere. Too many parents refuse to believe that America's public schools actively and enthusiastically promote sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, and rebellion against Christian morality. After all, if they believed that, how could they possibly justify leaving their children in those schools?
A British government agency in charge of deciding what's to be taught in the UK's public schools has come out with a new syllabus on German history (for students aged 11 to 14) that doesn't mention World War II or Adolf Hitler (see http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article335231.ece).
The new syllabus concentrates on German history of the Cold War era, leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany. Critics of the old syllabus--including the German ambassador--said the UK was obsessing about Hitler, causing schoolchildren to have a mental picture "of today's Germany as being full of goose-stepping Nazis."
Well, what the heck, let bygones be bygones. It's all water under the bridge. Ancient history. They're not socking London with V-2s anymore, are they? We're all in the EU together, one big happy family. Besides, we can always teach 'em about Hitler later.
"Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it" is a cliche, but it's also true. Sweeping Nazi Germany under the rug is a Very Bad Idea. Especially so because, to this day, there remains considerable confusion as to how the Third Reich could have come into being, how it was able to do what it did, why the German people embraced it, and why nobody else in Europe tried to stop it until it was too strong to be stopped without a cataclysmic war.
But hey, if it makes the German ambassador happy...
Sometimes it seems the human race has run out of good ideas. The Age of Secularism has contributed three cultural innovations to humanity--extreme feminism, gay rights, and animal rights. One's sillier than the other, with the Animal Rights Movement being the silliest of them all. Of course, "silly" does not mean "harmless." Pym Fortuyn, the Netherlands' leading conservative politician (the word "conservative" does not mean in Holland the same thing it means here), was assassinated by an animal rights activist. And there are always such capers as fire-bombing MacDonald's stands, vandalizing people's homes because they were seen eating meat or wearing fur, and rhetoric that would seem to indicate that more violent activities are on the docket.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the church of the Animal Rights Movement, and Peter Singer is its lawgiver. Singer, professor of Ethics (oh, forsooth!) at Princeton University, is best known as the author of "Animal Liberation" and an enthusiastic advocate of euthanasia, abortion, and infanticide--for humans, not animals.
Singer, as quoted by Consumer Freedom, admits that Animal Liberation and Christianity are not exactly compatible: "I think in the end we have, reluctantly, to recognizue that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is our foe."
You got that right, Pete! Our God has always taken a dim view of worshipping animals, which is what PETA does. Singer himself is an atheist, so he would deny that he "worships" animals--but he certainly accords to them rights which he wouldn't dream of according to whole classes of human beings (the unborn, the infirm, the elderly, etc.).
So why does PETA need an "outreach" program aimed at Christians and Jews? Says Singer, "If we are not able to bring the churches, the synagogues, and the mosques [note how inclusive he is--what a guy!] around to the animal rights view, we will never make large-scale progress for animals rights in the United States."
PETA's outreach seems to consist of outlight lies ("Jesus was a vegetarian"), demands that believers ignore religious traditions deemed objectionable by PETA (i.e., abstain from Passover), advertising campaigns that insult Christians by saying farm animals died for mankind's sins, and insult Jews by likening meat-eating to the Nazi Holocaust--and, when all else fails, vague threats of what they'll do to us if we don't change our ways. Seems to me they have a lot to learn about evangelism.
Be on the lookout for any of this PETA material turning up in your church or your child's Sunday school. Meanwhile, keep it in mind as a lesson of where a society winds up when it turns its back on God. We think of it as ancient history, King Jeroboam I "who made Israel to sin" by installing golden calfs as idols in Dan and Bethel (I Kings 12: 26-33)--but surely this same spirit of idolatry is alive and well today.
And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. (Heb. 12:27-28)
God is the great sifter Who incessantly labors to remove those things that are easily shaken. He is the great thresher who shall thoroughly purge His threshing floor (Jer. 51:33). Malachi declares that God sits as the refiner's fire Who purifies His people to make them a righteous offering (Mal. 3:3).
When the shaking is complete, what remains is the kingdom which cannot be moved. That is the kingdom we are receiving. It is sure, steadfast, and eternal.
Let It Be Shaken
Contemporary Christianity has chosen the oddest of battle fronts. Even now there is much ado about the "banning of Christmas" - as if the kingdom of God would topple with the stifling of Christmas carols. Yet, this is the chosen front of many Christian activists. I understand their concern. There is no doubt a purposive plan by a select group of secular activists to disassemble the public vestiges of Christian tradition. But, I am not moved. Life does not consist of holidays. Especially ones that were never commanded by God. I know that it is the sovereign God that orchestrates world affairs and He will not hesitate to purge those things we hold most dear.
If the American version of Christmas can be "shaken," then let it be shaken. Our desire should be for the kingdom that cannot be moved. God promises that what cannot be shaken will remain. If this American mixture of Santa, baby Jesus, stressful shopping, and debt-spending is what we're defending, I question our comprehensive understanding of the purposes of God. If this holiday hodgepodge can be shaken, then let us embrace the sovereign dealings of the God Who is refining us into pure silver, while establishing a more solid footing for His immovable kingdom.
Can we celebrate Christmas? I'll leave that up to you, the self-governing individual. That's also a point that's often missed. What's at stake is nativity scenes on public property, not whether we can say "Merry Christmas" to each other. Not even the ACLU is suggesting that... yet.
I grew up with Christmas; and for our household, it truly was the most wonderful time of the year. I enjoy the family gathering, the food, and yes, the showering of my loved ones with gifts and goodies. Yet, the Lord only commanded us to perpetually celebrate His death. He did not command the celebration of His birth. His death is redemptive and an aspect of our spiritual transaction. It must be celebrated with the bread and the wine that purges us from impurity.
His birth, on the other hand, is to be announced as the angels originally proclaimed it to the lowly shepherds who led their sheep through that splendid evening. Our message is "peace on earth and good will toward men." Yet, His birth carries another message to the neo-Herods of the state: "there is another king!"
The Culture War is getting a bit tiring for me. That's usually an indication that my works are "in the flesh." The angels said, "peace on earth and good will toward men." Can we get there? I'm not sure it's coming any time soon. The political climate is beyond tense -- it's volatile. I'm sure I've contributed to the hostility. So have my opponents.
The Culture War may be more of an illusion. Something intended to occupy the Left and Right while the "Herods" tighten the grip of statist control. Is America's problem the fact that Bush has ties to the Religious Right, or that he's a front man for the military-industrial complex? Even Eisenhower acknowledged that undue power taken by the military-industrial establishment would have spiritual ramifications:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
Herod, the tyrant, is my concern. That's also who Mary and Joseph sought to evade. My concern is not Christmas or Intelligent Design. My concern is basic freedom. My concern is the future of a free America. The rapid transformation of our once free republic may put the brakes on the agendas of everyone.
Christmas is about the birth of another King. One with more authority than Herod or Caesar. Now, both ancient Israel, as well as ancient Rome, lie in ruins. The spiritual kingdom remains. It is immovable. This kingdom is NOT to be equated with Judeo-Christian American tradition or its trapping of holidays and national pledges. Those are well and good, but if they are "shakable" then they will NOT remain.
The Lordship of Christ consists of the consistent application of God's law to every area of life. This is the Christian's responsibility. Yet, the conversation surrounding biblical law always digresses to politics or the culture war. I can't change my country, but I can impact my family and friends by loving and serving them -- by dealing lawfully with them. In doing so, I secure a better future for my fellow citizens and enhance the fruits of the increasing Kingdom.
Applying biblical law means first in terms of one another. What do you gain if you neglect your family in a 24/7 effort to pass some menial piece of legislation? What the world needs is peace on earth and good will toward men. Our politics are blinding us to this simple message. Did I mention I was tired?
Throughout the year, these messages must be proclaimed to all men. By doing so we can hopefully break the unholy association of Christ's miraculous birth with the cookie-gobbling Saint Nick. Anyway, enough writing for now. I gotta go wrap presents!
Jonathan Huston of Talk2Action has lobbed another mortar round at Chalcedon. He takes issue with my explanation of how my audience understands the description "liberal Christian." He does so because he did not take kindly to my referring to "liberal Christians" as oxymoronic. He writes:
If Ortiz believes he's in a "War of Ideas," then he needs some better ammo: in the face of all reason, he falsely claims that liberal actually means secular. That's like saying that peanut butter means chocolate -- two things that may share the same space, and taste great together, but are distinctly different. Then Ortiz takes his error a gigantic leap further and claims that Christians who are liberal are also secularists. Huh? It's impossible to be both secular and religious at the same time; these are two distinct concepts. See, secular means "non-religious." It's all in this Venn diagram that I borrowed from a public school that teaches secular subjects like logic and science.
Huston is making a false claim here. I never stated that anyone was both secular and religious at the same time. This is what I wrote:
For my audience, when saying someone is a "liberal" that typically refers to a secularist, left-leaning, unbeliever.
I don't believe Huston is twisting my words, however. I think he's still misunderstanding the terminology. In this sense, he's right. Using terms like "liberal" in multiple ways is confusing. I'll try and make this more plain for him. Wish me luck!
Huston goes on in his post with much ado about logic; but it's all pointless. Why? He missed the key portion of my original sentence.
"For my audience..."
It really matters not that Mr. Huston feels the descriptive "liberal Christian" makes sense to him. It's not my claim, nor did I invent the terminology. It's been used for years. I tried to explain my usage of the term as an attempt to clear up his previous misunderstanding. Oh well. Huston, as usual, jumped on a rabbit trail over semantics and has left the debate entirely.
So, let's try this again. Mr. Huston, the majority of our readers are NOT people like yourself. They are typically from the conservative Christian community. I try to write for them, NOT you. THEY (key word) understand a "liberal" to be a left-wing political term (i.e., democrat). That's their base, unsophisticated, simplistic way of interpreting that label. However, THEY (key word) use the phrase "liberal Christian" when describing someone who discounts the infallible authority of Scripture. In this sense, Christians who are open, free, and independent enough to criticize the veracity of the Bible are considered to be "liberal" in their beliefs. This has nothing to do with pro-choice, pro-gay, or pro-welfare political perspectives. Christians who do not question the veracity of the Bible, and maintain a strict absolutism, are considered "conservative" in their beliefs. This also has nothing do with political philosophy. However, both paradigms, when transferred to political parties, often land in Democrat or Republican groups respectively.
The problem is that Christian conservatives are using the word "liberal" in two different ways, yet with similar meanings. This is what Mr. Huston is struggling with. "Liberal," when used by itself, means a political point of view. "Liberal Christian" means a theological point of view. However, I think the double-usage is permissable. The concept of being "liberal" or "open" and "progressive" is valid whether one is discussing their political beliefs or beliefs about the Bible. There is no logical fallacy here. We may have to create a picture chart for John though. He's missed this point twice now.
People often use single terms for multiple descriptions. For instance, the way Talk2Action uses "dominionism" is NOT the way we understand the phrase. However, I understand the way Talk2Action uses it, and I try to communicate with them in the manner they prefer. I wish they'd return the favor.
You see, John, it doesn't matter that it appears illogical to you. It's not intended to be sensible to you. It's terminology readily understood by MY AUDIENCE. You're certainly welcome to disagree with that terminology, but that's an uphill battle if you intend to correct it. It's embedded.
So, can a person be both liberal and Christian? It all depends upon what you mean. I wrote that there were numerous southern Baptists that were politically liberal and yet held conservative beliefs about the integrity of the Scriptures. Huston apparently read over that portion in his rush to answer. Can a person be theologically liberal and still be a Christian? That is where the debate lies.
To a biblically conservative Christian it appears oxymoronic to doubt the veracity of the Scriptures and yet claim a genuine belief in the Christian faith -- which is based upon the Bible. Like it or not, that's how we see it. Does that mean that Mr. Huston is not a Christian? I don't know. I can only say that IF he doubts the truth of the Bible, then he appears oxymoronic. But, that's a statement about logic, not a judgement upon a man's spiritual condition. That's between him and God. And that has nothing to do with politics.
BUT, all of this hoopla does highlight an important necessity. If there is to be more dialogue between radically opposed camps it will be helpful to clarify long-used terminology. This also reinforces something I've written more than once: understanding a religious group as vast and complex as contemporary protestantism is an immense task. Whereas Christian branches such as Catholicism are somewhat homogeneous, protestantism is replete with innumerable sects, beliefs, and meanings. Talk2Action has their work cut out for them if they suppose they can address the whole.
According to today's article posting by Chalcedon president, Mark Rushdoony, "peace" must always be on God's terms. As millions celebrate the "Prince of Peace" and thousands of churches rehearse the angelic proclamation, "Peace on earth," the concept of peace remains misunderstood. Man has always pursued peace, or "utopia," on his terms:
Men have long dreamed of creating a final, lasting order, one that will timelessly survive all assaults. Babel was an early attempt at permanent order. In Christ's day Rome claimed it had achieved such an order in the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. The "peace of Islam" is the state of all things being in submission or surrender to Allah and Muslim law. Other modern attempts at forced peace include the concept of utopia, the ideology of Marxism, and the one-world order of the internationalists.
Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.
Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.
The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.
Christians, the totalitarians are on the march. Let us beseech the Lord again to preserve our liberty.
Syncretism is the practice of blending diverse religious ideas, rituals, and practices into something new. The pagan Romans were masters of the art, aimlessly adopting foreign gods and customs into their pantheon. But we Americans seem to be trying to catch up to them. See "Muslim-Christian Christmas Song Composed by CTS Professor" (http://www.cts.edu/news/FullStory.cfm?details=71&ref=News). Yes, we now have a "Christian-Muslim Christmas carol," courtesy of the Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, an "ecumenical seminary" of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Hmmm... That sounds pretty inclusive, but I wonder why they left out the Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, and Scientologists. The composer, Prof. Frank Burch Brown, says, "As far as I know, my composition is a unique attempt to allow the two faiths--Christianity and Islam--to meet in a mutually welcoming way around a work of music." We say it's a not-so-unique, but rather all too common, attempt to feel good by denying the exclusive Kingship of Christ. But then it's so hard these days to find any trace of Christian orthodoxy in a seminary.
No matter how many times you read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you will not be able to find the words "separation of church and state" or the phrase, "a wall of separation." Thanks to tireless efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union, millions of Americans think those words are in there and constitute the law of the land. We've gotten awfully tired of that particular piece of disinformation--and now, finally, so has a panel of federal judges! See "First Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation': Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs Ten Commandments display" (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48006 ). Writing for the unanimous opinion of the 6th Circuit Court, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state'...has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state." Warming to his task, the judge also wrote, "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person." Give that man a Supreme Court nomination! For too long, the ACLU has relied on a misrepresentation of the Constitution to hypnotize Americans into thinking that their government is required by law to be hostile to religion, especially the Christian religion. Now a federal judge has pointed out that this humanist emperor is parading around stark naked. Let's hope this is only the first of many, many such decisions nationwide.
We keep telling you about those public schools, folks. And judges keep telling you that these schools cannot teach your kids that God created the heavens and the earth (it all happened by chance, as per Darwin), but they can teach them that homosexuality is a desirable lifestyle choice and you can't stop them. Turn now to Worldnetdaily and read Bruce Shortt's article, "Will your kids be Christians?" (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48001). Shortt has the facts and figures to show that these schools excel in only one thing--teaching children how not to be Christians. Christian America is long overdue for a mass exodus of Christian children from the Egypt of the public schools, no one beats Bruce Shortt for making the case for it.
As if it weren't bad enough to have to stay at a nursing home, officials at some of these places have taken it upon themselves to deprive their patients of Christmas. See "Staver: Feds Need to Address Religious Discrimination in Nursing Homes at Christmastime," by Allie Martin and Jody Brown, Agape Press, Dec. 12 (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/202005a.asp). Liberty Counsel stepped in and got the Christmas ban repealed at three of these institutions (in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Massachusetts), but according to LC's Matt Staver, there are "numerous similar cases pending nationwide." He has asked the federal government to issue guidelines protecting the patients' rights to celebrate Christmas--at least in homes that receive government subsidies. In "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," by C.S. Lewis, the evil White Witch's reign is summed up: "always winter, but never Christmas." Well, you don't need to go all the way to Narnia to see this kind of malice at work. We've got plenty of it right here in the real world!
I enjoy reading some of the postings at Talk2Action. It helps me to understand where a lot of the miscommunication lies. It also provides me with a fair look at how some of our fellow citizens perceive the great monolith of the Religious Right.
However, much of it is sensationalism and misses the mark. I don't fault the contributors for that. They appear to be smart, well-read, and caring people. But, understanding something as vast and complex as modern protestantism is no easy task. I think they need more time to comprehend the multitude of perspectives within the modern church. They tend to lump them all into one.
But, I did read one post from a contributor who bears the name "GeneG." His brief discussion involved "Public Displays of Religious Symbology." I think he nails a greater issue in the following paragraph:
Our nation is being stolen from us by degrees through a usurious banking system, war profiteering is an official policy of our government as is the systematic destruction of the middle class, the public school system, our economy, and our social safety net. Our government ignores the poor and the widowed while engaging in the largest redistribution of income in its history. Those who seek power in the name of God condone and even support these policies. They have sold their souls for power, creating idols and forgetting God. We are like Jerusalem, surrounded by our enemies, worshipping false gods, arrogant in our power, and rotten to the core.
Although I don't endorse the public education system or social security, GeneG is correct in saying that we face the danger of a totalitarian state in a way we never have. What grieves my heart is what GeneG emphasizes about religious leaders, "Those who seek power in the name of God condone and even support these policies. They have sold their souls for power, creating idols and forgetting God." This is syncretism. The church is siding with the despotism of the state for a few pieces of moral legislation and a Supreme Court pick. There is a lust for power, and it is shameful. I hear ya, GeneG!
Fascism is on the rise in America, not a theocracy. This is where progressives are mistaken. The Religious Right (RR) are being used as an electoral bloc. They are granted influence with the Bush administration for the purpose of absorption. But, let the leaders of the RR turn against the war, or systematically criticize the White House, and you'll see how quickly things change.
GeneG has the right target in his sites: unrestrained government. He's also correct in describing the role of religious leaders in aiding and abetting the military-corporate takeover of America.
This case is being compared to the 1925 Scopes Trial and has drawn the national attention of both the Religious Right as well as the secularists. Pat Robertson made more inflammatory remarks in November when he told the citizens of Dover:
"If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city."
Earlier this year, Robertson suggested assassination as a better way of dealing with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. This remark is equally irresponsible and nonsensical. Robertson sounds more like the pre-cross disciples:
And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-55)
I imagine there will be more radical statements issued by the Religious Right in the days to come. This battle is far from over. The Discovery Institute has already posted their response to today's decision; and they are arguing in a manner consistent with their Christian convictions. In other words, they aren't using threats of judgment. I don't believe others will be so cool-headed.
For Chalcedon, Intelligent Design (ID) is moot because we believe a Christian child should not participate in the humanistic institution of public education. Parents and churches must work together to raise godly children that can discount the theory of evolution as scientifically and philosophically untenable.
My prayer is that Christian parents will respond to the Dover case as a further confirmation that their child's education is their responsibility, not that of the state. Groups like the Discovery Institute could be of great benefit to Christian parents by creating resources to be used by homeschoolers and Christian academies. Let the Christian community work to create alternatives.
The future prosperity of the Kingdom of God is not contingent upon public schools teaching ID. After all, were Judge Jones to rule in favor of ID would Christian families begin sending their children BACK to public schools?
The Christian world view is a system and must be taught as such. Prayer in school to the god of your choice, or science classes that grant equal time for ID as well as evolution, are not solutions. In fact, they are hinderances. Uninformed Christian parents may leave their children in the public school system simply because of 60 seconds of silent prayer to the "marvelous upstairs person."
They will not be taught that the Triune God created the world by His powerful Word in the space of six days and declared all, very good. They will not be instructed in the application of God's law to every area of life and thought. Even worse, they will grasp the ungodly concept of neutrality -- that 2+2=4 even if God doesn't exist.
They will lose sight of the centrality of the church and the family; and will likely send their future children to the same godless institution. Education is the responsibility of parents. And parents do not control the public school system. The state controls education; and in doing so, they control the future. Let's take that power back. Let's use what's left of our liberties and resign from this system. Millions of Christians have already done so. Millions more should. Choose ye this day whom you will serve, God or the state?
Another pundit from Talk2Action has chimed in on the Prescott discussion. Mr. Jonathan Huston takes issue with my condemnation of Bruce Prescott's call for Christians to have little or no children because he thinks the world is over-populated.
Huston claims I referred to Mr. Prescott as satanic. I did not. His view is satanic. If God commands that one of the ways His Kingdom be expanded is with the birth of children then it is a demonic wisdom that suggests otherwise. James 3:15 clearly teaches that ideas can be demonic. I never referred to Prescott as a satanist. Only his idea.
Huston accuses me of engaging in "rhetoric that contradicts the teaching and example of Jesus." I think he's implying that I am the wolf here:
Wolves you say, Brother Ortiz? Let's examine what Jesus had to say about wolves. As we've noted earlier in this Cross Examination series, Jesus warned that the real wolf to watch out for is the false prophet who puts on religious robes, or "sheep's clothing," but displays ferocity (Matthew 7:15).
Huston is establishing the "wolf" as one who is ferocious. By this he means someone who refers to Prescott's views in harsh terms. Of that I am guilty. But, that's not the wolf Christ is referring to, nor is it the definition of a false prophet. False prophets and teachers are deceivers and preachers of false doctrine. They lead God's people astray from orthodoxy. That seems to be Prescott's life mission. It surely isn't mine.
Huston continues on with much about love, community, and tolerance. His tent is a bit too broad for me, but I respect his sense of community. He claims to be a devout Christian. I'll have to take his word for it. If he espouses Prescott's views of the fallibility of the Bible then I don't understand why he bothers.
What I am clear on is that the progressives are committed to the twisting of words and meaning. In both Huston and Clarkson's case they are taking my condemnation of Prescott's views as a call for theocrats to harm, kill, or eliminate liberals. That confirms my suspicions about the anti-theocratic conspiracy theory. Their goal is to create outrage.
I condemn the ideas of Mr. Prescott regarding Christian progeny. But I see this is a conflict of ideas. Clarkson and Huston keep making it about persons and bodily harm. Who's the violent one, here?
Huston then takes issue with my describing "liberal Christians" as "oxymoronic." Well, Mr. Huston, this might be my fault for not clarifying my definition. For my audience, when saying someone is a "liberal" that typically refers to a secularist, left-leaning, unbeliever. When referring to someone as a "liberal Christian" it usually means someone who denies biblical innerrancy yet espouses a Christian faith. For instance, there are numerous Southern Baptists what are democrats yet don't question the validity of the Bible. That is not a liberal Christian.
Prescott denies the veracity of Scripture, as does his constituency. That's why the SBC split. Not over Clinton and Gore, but over the authenticity of the Bible. Those who deny are the liberal Christians, and those who don't are the conservatives. Comprende?
We practice what we practice because the Bible tells us so. If you deny the veracity of that Bible then why put so much effort into the Christian faith? Huston speaks much about "love." He could get that from buddhism. Why choose Christianity? Buddhism is a philosophy. It promises peace, love, tolerance, and community. If Huston chooses Christianity because of what the Bible says, then let's talk about what the Bible teaches.
God wants kids! Lots of them. The solution is not the "eliminationist rhetoric" of the abortionist, but the creative resources of gifted people who can solve problems. Why do progressives always see the stifling of the unborn as a solution? Shall I spin their statements now and refer to Prescott's call as "eliminationist?" Are Prescott and the progressives hell-bent on killing the unborn? All the while talking about love, tolerance, and community? Is that their only solution to the world's problems, death to children?
That would be no different than the way they've portrayed me.
Oh, where do I begin? My latest post regarding the hideous paradigm of Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist has set off the boyz at Talk2Action. They told me they'd be responding. So, they're anticipating a response from me. Hey, Fred! [waving]
Let's start with Fred Clarkson. What can I say. I like Fred. He's a good guy -- a hard worker that seems to care about people. But, Fred does what libs do best, he misconstrues. He accuses me of "eliminationist rhetoric." He claims the following:
"Eliminationist rhetoric, such as that used by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson and organized hate groups, typically calls for the death or removal of people with whom they happen to disagree."
Here's what I wrote:
But, then again, this may be a blessing in disguise! Dedicated protestants will continue producing large families while oxymoronic "liberal Christians" have little or none. These useless faith-bearers will eventually face extinction by their own doing.
Either Fred is a novice or he's being purposely deceptive. Fred is no novice. He claims I'm "calling for the death or removal" of those with whom I disagree. Fred, this would be a call for death:
"I hereby call for the death of those I disagree with!"
What I said was that those who espouse having few or no children will eliminate themselves in history. Those who continue to have large families will multiply exceedingly. I did say that this may be a blessing in disguise. Big deal. After all, what liberal sits around and hopes the Religious Right has more children? Wasn't that the point of Prescott's comments?
Clarkson refers to Prescott as a "serious Christian whose view of Christianity happens to be different than that of Rev. Ortiz." Fred, what in the world is a serious Christian? You'd think it would be someone who actually believed the Bible. Well, Prescott denies the veracity of the Christians holy text, and labors to convert others away from such biblical confidence. Sorry, Fred, this is not Christian in any sense.
Then Fred continues miscontruing:
He [Ortiz] also strongly implies that the only reason they should not be eliminated now, is that they will eventually eliminate themselves by failing to sufficiently breed.
I have to laugh, lest I take Fred seriously. I N-E-V-E-R hinted, implied, or suggested that anyone be eliminated now or later. Elimination implies, Fred, that I would have a hand in destroying someone. This is a terrible insinuation and a typical communications ploy used by your side. I expect more from you, Fred. This is spin.
He continues...
His words sound a great deal more like a call for theocratic vigilantism than the patience he elsewhere claims to counsel.
Fred is more than deceptive here. I honestly don't know how he can refer to my comments as a "call for theocratic vigilantism." He's not tellling the truth and intentionally exaggerating my comments beyond proportion. I said that those who have few or no children will eventually eliminate themselves. Fred refers to this as a call for theocratic vigilantism.
I am willing to swallow most criticisms from the secular anti-theocrats. Much of their critique stems from misinformation so I try to be patient and instructive.
Today's Ethics Daily has posted a couple stories about the new imperative among Southern Baptists to reproduce. Bob Allen has a story about how "Under-Population Worries Southern Baptist Leader" Al Mohler. Miguel De La Torre has an article about how this "'Full-Quiver' Theology Appeals to Race". Jesus commanded Christians to "make disciples," not "make babies." The kingdom of God does not grow by biological reproduction, it grows by spiritual reproduction. The Genesis command for mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" has been amply fulfilled. Cities the world over are teaming with evidence of that. In a world that is struggling to find, produce, equitably distribute, and preserve the resources necessary to sustain life, the responsible thing for Christians to do -- and for people of all faiths to do -- is to have fewer children than they had before modern forms of birth control became available.
These comments must be condemned in the most severe terms. They are antithetical to the clear teachings of Scripture regarding children. No matter to Mr. Prescott though, he doesn't subscribe to the veracity of the Bible.
But, then again, this may be a blessing in disguise! Dedicated protestants will continue producing large families while oxymoronic "liberal Christians" have little or none. These questionable faith-bearers have no solid doctrine of the future -- that requires offspring.
*NOTE: My original post bore more scathing pejoratives. I've removed the harsh language at the gentleman's appeal of one whom I respect. I cannot, however, emphasize enough the offense of Mr. Prescott's unbiblical view of the family.
Conspiracy theory remains the primary tactic of the progressive anti-theocrats. And, like most conspiracy theorists they retain sincere beliefs in their suspicions of subterfuge. In other words, they're not trying to deceive. They hold their theories with great sincerity.
The conspiracy tactic can be effective when contending with an insurmountable opponent. The great monolith of the Religious Right is riding a wave of massive momentum and contending with them issue by issue is difficult and time-consuming. This precipitates the need for a broader range of tactics.
While anticipating a great "October Surprise" in 2004, opponents of the Bush administration were instead served up a "November Surprise." The outcome of the 2004 election appeared value-based, leaving a fair amount of Kerry supporters wondering two things: 1) what happened to the national security issue, and 2) why in the world did so many Americans buy into the religiously informed platform of the GOP?
In all honesty, I was equally surprised. However, thinking back over the previous year, I could understand why values were of concern to the moderate voter. First, there was the hoopla over the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore's monument bearing the Ten Commandments. Then, in the winter of 2003 the ACLU was prosecuting several cases involving the removal of Christian holiday displays (e.g., nativities), and the singing of Christmas carols in public schools. To cap it off, by early 2004 the mayor of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to long lines of same-sex couples seeking legal matrimony.
All of this was televised nightly on the cable news networks. For several weeks moderate Americans watched men kissing men and women kissing women in the daily barrage of 24-hour news coverage. Compounding this was the perpetual whining of Michael Newdow to remove "under God" from the pledge and bar any religious overtones from the presidential inauguration.
Folks, it's just not difficult to see how all of this provided Karl Rove with the perfect fodder for securing Bush a second term. Although a great many Americans that voted for Bush were not religious, they were also not quite ready to change the Pledge of Allegiance or debate Christmas. They may also have been disturbed by the incessant images streaming into their living rooms of same-sex couples cuddling in the altars of San Francisco and Massachusetts. It was likely too much for moderate Americans to embrace. Progressives should understand this phenomenon since they argued the very same thing in relation to the Iraq invasion. While the Bush administration was predicting our troops would be greeted with cheers and flowers the anti-war progressives cogently argued the preemptive invasion would become a recruitment tool for terrorism. They were correct.
Yet, they should bear in mind that might have been the problem in the last election. Many Americans felt the secularists were launching a preemptive strike on certain American traditions. Like Bush, maybe the ACLU also expected to be welcomed with cheers and flowers. This did not happen. Middle America embraced a conspiracy theory of sorts -- voting for a democrat meant losing Christmas. That's the unproven connection they made. That's the power of "Rove-ian" spin.
Getting back to my opening statement, how then can you contend with such conservative Christian momentum? Well, some help is provided through the self-sabotage of the republican machine. The recent indictments of Tom DeLay and "Scooter" Libby along with the ridiculous calls for assassination by Pat Robertson are needed ammunition for the progressive arsenal. However, this may not be enough.
An effective means to transforming mass opinion is to create outrage. This tactic bypasses the issue-by-issue means to changing policy by instead creating alarm in the minds of people via conspiracy theory. In this case, it's getting George Bush and James Dobson in a secret meeting for tea and tyranny with R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North. By creating such connections in the minds of the populace, along with the threat of an impending theocracy, progressives can hope to alter to course of public discussion. This may work for them.
As I mentioned, they do believe these things, although not in the simplistic, rhetorical way I've stated it. But, I think you get the point. They have, however, repeatedly stated that the reconstructionists are seeking an immediate political takeover in which an elite religious group will impose "our narrow view" of Biblical law upon an unsuspecting society. That is their definition of a theocracy. I rather agree with Rushdoony's definition:
Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had. (R. J. Rushdoony, The Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991), 63.
As previously stated, the Chalcedon Foundation does not seek the political takeover of the centralized bureaucracy of the United States government. We never have and we never will. We have no political operatives undermining the legislative process. We do not line the pockets of lobbyists that plead our cause to weak congressional leaders. Nor have we created "front organizations" designed to perform our bidding indirectly. In a 1989 interview with the Christian Observer Rushdoony responded to the allegation that he sought control of state power:
The religion editor of a daily newspaper wrote that I believe in a power state ruled by Christians -- which I do not. I'm against the powers of church and state. I believe that God requires his people to be self-governed through various independent spheres.
But am I being deceptive in saying this? Am I cleverly hiding the fact that we do seek immediate political dominance by an editorial sleight of hand? That is what I'm often accused of. But, I think this suspicion arises from the perpetual miscommunication between the reconstructionists and the anti-theocrats. As an example, critics often cite select passages from reconstructionist literature that bear what they perceive as explicit statements of an immediate takeover. One such passage regularly cited is that by the late David Chilton:
Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a "world takeover" if you will.
This selection is taken from a larger paragraph that spells out a different emphasis as to where immediate attention is to be placed by the Christian:
Paul does not begin his work of reconstruction by fomenting a social revolution. Nor does he begin by seeking political office. He begins with the Church, and will move out to bring the rest of the world under Christ's dominion "once the Church's obedience is complete." The center of Christian reconstruction is the Church. The River of Life does not flow out from the doors of the chambers of Congresses and Parliaments. It flows from the restored Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Church of Jesus Christ. Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a "world takeover" if you will; but our strategy begins with the reformation and reconstruction of the Church. From that will flow social and political reconstruction, indeed a flowering of Christian civilization. (David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, p.214)
One might argue that this is quibbling over words and terms. It appears that Mr. Chilton is still advocating a political takeover only after the Church is "restored," whatever that means. However, like Rushdoony, Chilton sees theocracy not as the centralized political rule of priests and pastors, but the rule of God over decentralized institutions "whose law code is solidly founded on the laws of the Bible" (ibid. p.219). Again, the accusation is still, "same difference" (i.e., the outcome remains the same).
This means, rather, that the progressives object to the rule of God more so than the rule of man. The present debate focuses upon reconstructionist elites seizing by stealth the present powers of governmental rule. This is not true, nor is it presently pursued. However, long term, we do envision a world in which every institution is governed by the law of God. But, it will take more than lobbying to get there. It takes generations of faithfulness on the part of God's people.
Yet, the unbeliever has no long term hope in history. For them, time is the constant opponent to their secular utopia. Revolution, then, becomes the chosen method to humanistic dominion -- "the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time" (Rev. 12:12). Oh, they would never admit to dominionist aspirations but that neglects the fact that dominion is an inescapable concept. Some ideology is going to rule over existing institutions. Whether humanism, Christianity, Islam, or Marxism, ideologies rule by default.
The Christian, however, embraces time as God's provision for the task of dominion. We need no revolution to accomplish our ends. Chilton states this plainly:
But the Christian does not have to be afraid of the passage of time, because time is on our side. History is working toward our objectives. Every day brings us closer to the realization of the knowledge of God covering the entire world. (ibid., p.221)
"See!" the progressive screams, "they're admitting to getting closer to their goal!" Not quite. Our opponents must understand our parlance. When the secularist hears, "getting closer," they perceive it to mean the near future. When a reconstructionist declares the rule of God is getting closer he or she is encouraging themselves for the long term process. You see, the early church suffered from the same issue of patience in light of a promised coming Kingdom:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2 Peter 3:4)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)
The Biblical writers were constantly beset with the task of keeping the churches focused and faithful while the apostolic predictions of tribulation were prolonged. Therefore, the language used bears a sense that what is to come is imminent.
Reconstructionists have long used that same method. So, as Chilton declares that we are "closer to the realization of the knowledge of God covering the entire world," this must be set over against what he states on the very same page:
God promises that He will bless His people for one thousand generations. By the analogy of Scripture, then, this means that a figure of forty thousand years is a bare minimum (note: providing the Biblical generation is 40 years, 40x1000=40,000). This world has tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of increasing godliness ahead of it, before the Second Coming of Christ. (ibid., p.221-222)
Technically, with the passing of days the fullness of the future Kingdom is nearer -- at hand. Christians then admonish one another to faithful application of God's law to their respective sphere because they know that future generations of the Church depend upon our obedience today. We are only here due to the faithfulness of millions of Christians throughout Church history.
Our secular critics should exert some effort in grasping this concept -- God knows we've exhausted ourselves in trying to explain it to them. Our hope is a future victory that will feature the comprehensive rule of Jesus Christ and His law-word over every inch of this world. We do not apologize for that. We also do not hide that.
However, to misinterpret our meaning as an immediate takeover of the present political process and institute an unwanted theocracy by the power of the sword is to tout a conspiracy theory. But, conspiracy theories are beneficial. They sell books, create mailing lists, garner blog visitors, and fill conference seats. Many a progressive pundit is making their bones via the phantom enemy of the covert theocrat. And, as eight years of the Clinton administration established the careers of right-wing radio giants like Rush Limbaugh, so George Bush and his politico-religious ally, the Religious Right, are helping to launch the vocations of the anti-theocrats.
Hegel was right. Thesis creates antithesis. I doubt, however, that a synthesis is around the corner. I anticipate syncretism instead - the Church aligning itself with the totalitarian state. In the immediate, the Chalcedon Foundation will serve a better purpose in admonishing the contemporary Church to discard Caesar's robes of ostensible authority and return to God's law. In this sense, our task is both educational and prophetic; it is not political.
Mainstream Baptist Claims Theocratic "Links" to the SBC
A central means to substantiating the anti-theocratic conspiracy theory is find the "link" between the Christian Reconstructionists and other protestant organizations. Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist has mentioned more than once what he sees as the "clear tie" between Chalcedon and the Southern Baptist Convention. He writes:
Those who doubt there are links between Southern Baptists and theocratic Christian Reconstructionists should look inside the front cover of the December 2004 issue of the Chalcedon Report. There the chief publishing house for Reconstructionist thought, Chalcedon, announces that it has published Bruce Shortt's book, The Harsh Truth About Public Education. Bruce Shortt, along with T.C. Pinckney, leads the movement against public schools within the Southern Baptist Convention.
It's true. I don't deny it. We published Bruce Shortt's book. The title, however, is actually The Harsh Truth About Public Schools. Prescott misses the title by listing it as The Harsh Truth About Public Education. Is that a big deal? Not really. It just lends support to my claim that our critics are not as careful as they should be. They publish too quickly.
We did not hire Bruce Shortt to write his critique of public schools. Mainstream publishers were reluctant to touch a controversial manuscript that could upset their constituency. They did not rush to Shortt's door. Through a series of events we met up with Bruce and offered to publish the book. The reason is that Chalcedon has long criticized the public school system while advocating home schooling and privately owned Christian schools.
The value we saw in Bruce's manuscript was that he exhaustively documented in historic cases what Rushdoony addressed philosophically. We thought it would be a great fit for our catalog of titles. But, as anyone familiar with our catalog knows, we rarely publish authors other than Rushdoony. Therefore, a book must bear an important message for us to include it in our list of volumes.
Does that constitute a link between Chalcedon and the SBC? I don't think so. We rarely speak with Bruce as he is involved in his own crusade for Christian education. We certainly do not correspond with the SBC. We do pray for Bruce's success in the SBC but do not finance any initiatives he might undertake.
According to Prescott, our publishing of Shortt is a standard "script" that we follow in our obsessive desire to take over the world:
We've read this script before. First they attack the schools, then they organize a movement to take them over, and then they take them over. They did that in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Now they are taking on the public schools. When they are done, we will have a system of religious schools and home schools, paid-for at public expense, that will dutifully indoctrinate children in their theocratic ways.
This is a joke. Prescott is speculating in the most pernicious way. Behold his rhetoric: we "attack" and then "take over." We, the wicked theocrats, are seeking "a system of religious schools and homeschools paid for at the public expense." Our desire is to "indoctrinate children" in the ways of theocracy.
This is yet another baseless accusation with no supporting evidence. Dr. Prescott, we simply seek to educate our own children, and we don't want your money to do it. We will not place our children in your beloved public school system. However, we are currently paying for YOUR children to go to school to learn your secularist ways. Despite the fact that we sacrifice time and money to homeschool, or pay costly tuitions at Christian academies, we are still giving our tax dollars to sustain the public education system. You've got it all backwards.
There's no link between Chalcedon and the SBC. As to whether a single southern Baptist reads our materials I cannot surmise. I imagine they do. Do we have similar goals? We might see eye-to-eye on some things, but there is no coordination between the camps. Suggesting more than this is to overlay a conspiracy on a non-existent relationship.
The first stage of their campaign is passing resolutions at Convention meetings encouraging the parents of school children to investigate the homosexual agenda at the public school. Any school that teaches tolerance of homosexuals will soon be under attack.
You know, Dr. Prescott, you're probably correct. As a Christian parent, I would want to know if homosexuals were teaching my children in a tax-funded public school system. You seem to be equally outraged if a theocrat served a similar teaching position.
Prescott concludes by offering fair warning to the innocent teachers of the public school system:
For all those school teachers who are fed-up with the bureaucracy in public schools, you are going to love working for these autocrats.
In typical sensationalist fashion Prescott threatens teachers with facing a tyrannical dictatorship. How he landed at that conclusion I'll never know. Bruce Shortt is not advocating a takeover of public schools. Shortt offered a bolder proposition in the 2004 Southern Baptist Convention. It was rejected, as Prescott is fully aware. Shortt was petitioning for the removal of SBC children from the public school system. His tome provided sufficient evidence for such a petition, and in the Christian perspective is by no means radical. What's radical is sending Christian children to be trained in a humanistic worldview - one that divorces God from areas of study while espousing pluralism, secularism, and the acceptance of alternate sexual lifestyles.
As Christians we bear the right to remove our children from the public education system. We feel it is biblical to do so.
Don Feder has a column you should read, "The Anti-Christian League," on Front Page Mag (see http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20520). Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, and Reformed Jewish Rabbi Eric Yoffie, have been ranting about a theocratic conspiracy to "Christianize America." Yo, Abe and Eric--sign us up! This place needs some Christianizing. But the most interesting thing about the article is Feder's polling numbers about how overwhelmingly the American people support Christianity and reject the aggressive secular campaign against it. As one much wiser rabbi said long ago, "The Bible Belt is America's safety belt." In Western Europe, where there is nothing remotely resembling a Bible Belt, anti-semitism is more virulent now than it's been since World War II. Muslims are torching synagogues while Euro-secularists stand on the sidelines whistling "Dixie."Maybe Abe and Eric ought to try living in France for a while.
At the rate the Anglican Church in Canada is losing members, by 2061 there will be only one person left in the church, says a Canadian marketing expert (see Ted Byfield, "Oh, Canada! The land of emptying churches," Dec. 10, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47835). An examination of the membership rolls of parish churches showed that membership in what was once Canada's biggest denomination has shrunk 50 percent over the last 40 years--from 1.3 million in 1961 to 642,000 in 2001. Byfield attributes the decrease to the church's ongoing departure from Christian teaching: "the acceptance of serial marriage," ordination of women, and "finally to the acceptance of homosexual practice." Well, don't say Peter Akinola, the Anglican bishop of Nigeria, didn't warn you. We don't have the figures for Canada, a much more energetically secular society than ours, but we do have figures that tell us that here in America, as membership in the theologically flaccid "mainline" churches declines, membership in denominations more devoted to the Word of God continues to increase dramatically. Makes you wonder when the leaders of the mainline churches will put two and two together.
There must be a lot of African-American families turning to home schooling, for the Associated Press to notice it (see "More Black Families Home Schooling," by Zinie Chen Sampson, AP, Dec. 11, 2005). Grudgingly admitting that not quite all is well in Public School Land, the AP consults the Home School Legal Defense Assn. (www.hslda.org) and the Black Home Educators Resource Association to find that there are indeed more black families home schooling these days. The AP accepts the old Dept. of Education estimate of 1.1 million children in home schooling--a figure which the HSLDA has maintained is probably only half the real total. (Home schooled children in many districts can still attend public schools for specific courses, sports, or extracurricular activities--and so they get counted as public school students, not home schoolers.) The AP cites black parents' concern for their children's acquisition of basic academic skills (like reading), child safety, and "a wider desire among families of all races to oversee their children's moral upbringing." The reporter then turns to a University of Wisconsin professor who pours cold water on the whole thing by saying that parents who protect their children by home schooling them are making it worse and worse for the children who are left in the public schools. It's so much nicer when we all go down with the ship together, isn't it?
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. (a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED. -- Section 2331 of title 18, (5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -- (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif (B) appear to be intended -- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
When the definition of domestic terrorism is expanded this broadly we are all potential candidates for surveillance. Obtaining the court's permission to track you via your cell phone will not be difficult. The AFP reported on Thursday (12/8/05) that the US government has released a terrorist watchlist consisting of 80,000 names. According to the Department of Homeland Security airlines must check each passenger flying to a US destination against the list and report if there are any matches. Yikes!
For years I have prayed, "Thy kingdom come." I will now place a bit more emphasis upon "deliver us from evil."
Although created to be humorous this video clip reveals the appalling ignorance and international illiteracy of a fair amount of the US population. The clip features a series of man-on-the-street interviews with patriotic Americans that are asked, "what country should the US invade next?"
Here's an unusual point of view. Dr. Matt Friedeman, now a conservative, Biblical clergyman and columnist for Agape Press, looks back on his childhood in a "dead, liberal church," theologically bankrupt, not faithful to God's word--and gives thanks. See his column, "Thanksgiving: Thanking God for That Dead, Liberal Church" at http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/212005mf.asp. Goes to show you that God can use even a "dead" church to work on a child's heart and connect that child to Him for life. Before we write off churches we view as heterodox and generally useless, we might pause to remember that these churches, too, belong to Jesus Christ. And He can use them in unexpected ways.
Remember Judge Greer of Pinellas County, Florida? The judge who enabled the euthanasia of Terri Schiavo--who pointed to his courtroom and said, "There are no Ten Commandments out there." The judge whose pastor strongly advised him to quit the church. Yes, that judge. Well, he is now the proud recipient of the Gardner W. Barrett Jr. Civil Liberties Award, courtesy of the Pinellas County ACLU (see http://sptimes.com/2005/12/05/Tampabay/ACLU_honors_Schiavo_j.shtml). He won't have to worry about bumping into a Ten Commandments display at that dinner, will he? Out the church door, into the ACLU, one step following the other--sort of a backward Pilgrim's Progress.
If you're waiting with bated breath for the impending release of the latest Harry Potter movie, you might want to bone up on the subject by reading these two articles: in Catholic World News, "Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture," by Michael O'Brien (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20546), and on LifeSite.com, "Ten Arguments Against Harry Potter," by Gabriele Kuby (http://www.lifesite.net/Idn/2005/jul/05071508.html). The O'Brien article, while long (it includes detailed summaries of all the novels in the series, and analyses thereof), is especially informative.
I read a Harry Potter book, to see what all the fuss was about. One thing stood out: the moral landscape of Harry Potter is virtually identical to that of pro wrestling. There are supposedly good guys and bad guys, but the only thing that distinguishes them is that the author says, "OK, these are the good guys, and that bunch over there is the bad guys." In terms of orientation, behavior, core beliefs, and anything else of importance, there is absolutely no difference between the heroes and the villains. Believe me, your kids are infinitely better off reading C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. Come to think of it, you are, too.
I received an email today from Mr. John Sugg of Creative Loafing and author of the recent Mother Jones article, "A Nation Under God." In the published article it explicitly reads as Mr. Sugg claiming Rushdoony denied the holocaust. A claim that is patently false. Here is what Mother Jones printed:
His defining tome, the 800-page Institutes of Biblical Law, was published in 1973. But because of its extremism and overt racism - Rushdoony denied the Holocaust and defended segregation and slavery - Institutes and its author were largely ignored in mainstream circles until the movement launched by Schaeffer found its intellectual grounding in Rushdoony’s writings.
John sent me his original statement which is much different. I fault the editors of Mother Jones for radically altering John's statement. I can understand an editor's need to reduce the word count, but John's meaning is changed by the reduction. Here is what he originally wrote:
Rushdoony opined about what he calls the "false witness" of Germany's responsibility for the Holocaust. He dismissed the accuracy of 6 million Jews being slain, suggesting it was likely only a fraction of that number, and he shrugs off Josef Mengele's hideous human experiments as "a few sterilized women and a few castrated men."
What's not being debated here is the veracity of Rushdoony's beliefs regarding the holocaust. What's important is that we accurately represent Mr. Sugg's remarks now that they are brought to our attention. I hope Mother Jones will exercise more caution in the future when dealing with such a complex system as Christianity.
If you're still wondering whether you ought to home school, or if you want to encourage someone else to take the plunge, read Malcolm Kline's Dec. 5 article, "Public School Gomorrah," http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=670. I was especially appalled by the scandal involving the public school district on Roslyn, Long Island, NY, where administrators have stolen $11.2 million from the district over the years. One of the perps is now asking the court not to allow his homosexual bed partner--the former superintendent of schools!--to testify against him, on the grounds that that'd be like making a wife testify against her husband. OK, now... give me three good reasons why we should leave kids in any of these schools.
An appeals court has backed two fertility doctors who refused to treat a lesbian patient because it would have violated their religious beliefs, reports David Teather in The Guardian, Dec. 5: for the full article, see http://www.guardian.uk.co/usa/story/0%2C2271%2C1657878%2C00.html. This is one of those stories that makes you feel like you're in a Sistine Chapel painted by Bosch instead of Michelangelo. In 1999, doctors at a San Diego fertility clinic declined to provide artificial insemination to a lesbian. The lesbian won the first round of court battles, the doctors have won the latest, and the case is expected to move on to the California Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the lesbian had the procedure done elsewhere and now has a 3-year-old son. Lucky kid. It's nice that the appeals court ruled that freedom of religion trumps a state's anti-discrimination code, at least until some other court says it doesn't. Stories like this reveal the sheer absurdity of attempting to govern human affairs without yielding to God's law. In the secular Eden, it's hard to know where farce ends and tragedy begins.
Dominionist researcher Frederick Clarkson graciously highlighted the fact that I had basically executed a "hit and run" on John Sugg, author of the recent Mother Jones article "A Nation Under God." I referred to Sugg's analysis as "amateurish" yet did not explain how. Point well taken, Fred.
First of all, I was comparing Sugg's coverage to that of researchers like Fred Clarkson and Chip Berlet who are more careful about consulting primary source material. When I recently saw Fred and Chip in New York City Chip Berlet was walking around with well-used issue of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction. However, Sugg's article tended to echo general reconstructionist criticisms and featured a few factual errors that could have been easily avoided.
1) The introductory statement reads as follows:
"Let others worry about the rapture: For the increasingly powerful Christian Reconstruction moveme
