There are reasons for the imperial drive of American foreign policy. It is the result of the decades of socializing wrought on the American social order. As Rushdoony argues, socialism is parasitic and it perpetually looks for new hosts to consume:
"Thus, this Gambler State, a larcenous state, is parasitic. Every socialist state is a parasite. After destroying its own wealth, it must feed on another nation's wealth, and thus socialism is by nature driven to imperialism. It offers paradise on earth to other countries by means of socialism and seizes them to enable itself to survive. When the host body dies, the parasite dies. Today, the United States is the host body for the parasitic socialism of the world, and the United States, because of its interventionism, is rapidly becoming a fearful parasite, draining the wealth of the American people. When, however achieved, the host body is captured and destroyed, it will destroy the parasite also. The result will be a world-wide economic collapse of unrivalled dimensions and hardships. Out of this wreckage, a free order will emerge." (Politics of Guilt and Pity, p.224)
I have yet to find an instance of genuine political reform at a national level (viz. where a nation has returned to its roots). Yet, Christians labor tirelessly to bring us back to 1789. Delightful but doubtful. In fact, that would equate to "zero-basing"-- meaning we'd be right back in the same spot after a period of years. There were voices, like that of Patrick Henry, who knew there was no security in the Constitution. We would be wise to heed their now established advice.
There is much ado about the Constitution but I am doubtful the course of socialism and federal control can be reversed. Rushdoony once said that sending the Constitution to hell wouldn't transform the devil's domain. He's right. Nations are transformed by revolution, invasion, or reformation. We may experience the former. The invasion of illegal immigrants is but one of many charateristics we share with imperial Rome. This will be our undoing as millions of disloyal illegal visitors suck the teat of socialism dry while trampling the history of the United States with blatant disregard. Nursing the lower classes is a central step in the socialist/imperialist strategy as Rushdoony observes:
"The needs of the people do require something, but the statist 'something' is the destruction, first, of the middle classes to provide for the lower classes, second the destruction of the lower classes to provide for the state, and third, civil war within the establishment as social cannibalism sets in. Socialism, moreover, because it is by nature a parasitic economy, is also imperialistic. It exercises an imperial confiscation towards its people, and it must also expand and gut fresh territories in order to gain fresh resources... the more the U.S. becomes socialistic, the more it will require imperialism to survive." (Roots of Reconstruction, p.664)
This is where reformation must begin. By this I mean more than the protestant reformation. We must move beyond merely debating the doctrines of grace. I am often astonished at how so many credible ministries can devote the entirety of their resources to debating arminians -- I just point people to books and move on. Goodness, its been over 500 years since Calvin; don't you think we can talk about application now?
Reconstruction begins with the house of God. Yes, Christians need to be convinced of the sovereignty of God in predestination and providence. But, we must now place a greater emphasis upon the work of reconstruction or we will fall prey to the imperial state and its totalism. I encourage you to participate in the "doctrines of application." It is our means to equip the church in countering statism.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that municipal governments can take away your property and give it to another private individual--a developer. This brutal extension of the doctrine of "eminent domain" has some state legislatures looking for a remedy.
But BB&T, one of the biggest banks in the Southwest, has already found a remedy. See "US bank bans loans to developers using seized land" by Andrew Ward, The Financial Times. We never expected to see a big bank standing up for the small property owner--so let's hear it for BB&T.
I recently went back through a book by theologian David Wells that I read some 10 years ago. In one indicting portion he persuasively demonstrates the feeble state of the modern church being tied to the "professionalization" of ministers and the forsaking of the pastor as theologian. Concerning these two types of ministers he writes:
In the one model, theology is foundational, and in the other it is only peripheral. In the one, theological truth explains why there is a ministry at all, what it is about, and why the Church without it will shrivel and die. In the other, this reasoning is marginalized so that what shapes, explains, and drives the work of ministry arises from he needs of a modern profession. And it is my contention that the presence of this latter model in the church goes a long way toward explaining the growing enfeeblement of the Church inwardly despite its outward growth. This model is ascending, even as the other is declining, and the appetite for it diminishes. David F. Wells, No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993), p. 218-219.
This is all too true. I spend a great deal of time interacting with ministers from numerous denominations and persuasions. More often than not their concern is the "business" of ministry rather than theology of ministry. For this reason they are more versed in John Maxwell than John Calvin. They labor over vision statements citing the proof text that "without a vision, the people perish" (Prov. 29:18). God forbid we read the ENTIRE verse:
"Where there is no vision, the people perish: BUT HE THAT KEEPETH THE LAW, HAPPY IS HE."
The only "vision" a church needs is a clear view to God's law and it's mandate upon every facet of life. Pastors are also quick to repeat the refrain, "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge" (Hos. 4:6). Once again, a citing of the entire verse is helpful to understanding God's intent.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: SEEING THOU HAS FORGOTTEN THE LAW OF THY GOD, I will also forget thy children."
The lack of knowledge by which we are destroyed is the forgetting of God's law. It removes us from our positions as the priests of God and places us in proximity of the unbeliever since we share a common disregard for God's written will.
Today's minister is not burdened with a love for the law. He's purpose-driven!
"Never trust a car salesman," the old saying goes. I would expand that golden rule to the military-industrial complex as well. What's the military-industrial complex you ask? The phrase came in vogue after the 1961 farewell speech of the departing President Dwight D. Eisenhower in which he levelled two grave warnings to the American population about the "unwarranted influence" and "potential for misplaced power" of the military-industrial complex and it's lapdog, the "scientific-technological elite."
The military-industrial complex is basically the beneficiary relationship of what Eisenhower called the "permanent arms industry" and the "defense establishment." After World War II these two entities became permanant fixtures in the American way of life. Those who are more senior to me will recall how manufacturers during the 1940s converted their factories into weapons production centers and women left the home to work in the ad hoc arms industry.
At the time there was no massive standing army, sizable defense department, or Pentagon. All of that was established after WWII. In addition, the Boeings, Lockheeds, Northrop Grumman, and other defense contractors rose to prominence as permanent manufacturers of defense products. It's easy to see how the relationship between the military establishment and the arms manufacturers could easily become a marriage made in hell.
This recent news item highlights the ongoing efforts of the military-industrial complex to push their agenda on the U.S. population. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is "hosting war games in Congress to help them better understand the missile shield as the February 6 unveiling of President George W. Bush's budget plan approaches."
In other words, Congress is taking the new missile defense shield for a "test drive."
That's the way car salesman lure you into a purchase. They want you to take a test drive. Why? Because getting behind the wheel creates a false sense of ownership in your mind. You start to mentally take possession of the vehicle. This is the objective for the Congress as well.
The same defense contractors of 1961 are the same manufacturers behind this new $9 billion a year missile defense shield. Reuters mentions them by name:
Boeing Co. is prime contractor for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, and Lockheed Martin Corp. is leading development of the battle management control system.
Raytheon Co., General Dynamics Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. also have key roles.
Of course, all of the above mentioned manufacturers have pulled record profits since the War on Terror began. It's an uncanny streak of luck that these companies have done surprisingly well since Eisenhower's speech.
In 1798, when John Adams (a Federalist) was President of the United States of America, Congress passed four laws for the purpose of strengthening the Federal Government. These laws were collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These Acts, in brief, allowed the Federal Government to do as follows:
The Alien Act: "That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies."[i]
The Sedition Act: "That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years."[ii]
While on the surface these seem to provide protection for the Federal Government at a time of pending war with France, they were also used to silence any political opposition. The real result of these unconstitutional Acts was that citizens were arrested for no other reason than they spoke out against John Adams and his policies regarding France.[iii]
These Acts caused a great deal of alarm in honorable men who at once recognized that they gave powers to the Federal Government that were not only not explicitly given to it, but, in fact, strictly refused it in the constitution and/or one of its amendments.[iv] In response two States, Virginia and Kentucky, passed resolutions, which in no uncertain terms, protested the gross overstepping of the Federal government and it's violation of the mutually agreed upon compact, The Constitution. Their resolutions called the Acts unconstitutional, subversive, and despotic. The resolution passed by Kentucky, even went so far to say that "it would consider a silent acquiescence [to these Acts] as highly criminal."[v]
The Current State of the Union
Sadly to say, we are in a similar situation now. In the 200 plus years since 1798, the Federal Government has continued this pattern of giving itself more and more power while simultaneously stripping power from the States; something the Anti-Federalists prophesied would happen. Interestingly enough, the American Empire was a great concern to the Anti-Federalists and many saw the Empire as a forgone conclusion given the consolidated government which the Federalists argued for. In the first letter of what is now called The Anti-Federalist Papers, the author wrote, "I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire."[vi]
With the passing of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, it is illegal to speak out against political candidates 60 days prior to a general elections and 30 days prior to a primary. Sounds very similar to the Sedition Act f 1798, does it not? But more alarming is the passing of the Patriot Acts which has done more to erode our freedoms than anything else in US history. In the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, there is a provision which "creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights"[vii] at their every whim without any warrant whatsoever. We also have recently been informed that George W. Bush, our own President, has been illegally spying on American citizens via cell phone taps without a warrant which he makes absolutely no apologies for and defends as crucial to American security.
I pray that State legislators would stand up to the Federal Government like Virginia and Kentucky did in 1798.
When the compact has been broken, do we not have a duty to stand up against tyranny?
In 1965, R.J. Rushdoony wrote the following about how you'll know when the totalitarian state has arrived:
"An attack on the local police is an attack on the right of self-defense. When the local police are destroyed, the totalitarian state will have arrived in full force. That great civilian army of local police, and a citizenry with police powers and the right to bear arms, is thus a major target of subversive activity, assault, legislation, and propaganda."[viii]
[iii] Just as a note, according to an American Experience documentary on John & Abigail Adams which aired Monday, Jan. 23rd, 2006 on PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/adams/index.html), John Adams worked diligently to secure peace with France. He did so knowing that it would be political suicide for the Federalists as a whole wanted to go to war. Two weeks or so prior to the Presidential election France signed the peace treaty. But because it took so long for news to reach the US, no one knew of John Adam's success until after the election which he lost to Thomas Jefferson. Many historians believe that if his success with France had been known, he would have been reelected and Thomas Jefferson would have been Vice President for another term. To sum up the point at which people disagreed with Adam's policies regarding France was that he simultaneously sent peace delegates to France and built up the US military force. Adam's enemies and the press saw this as deceptive and thus the on-slot of attacks, some warranted and some manufactured. It was in response to these endless attacks that the Sedition Act was passed.
Socialism is on a course to triumph in America, columnist Patrick Chisholm crows [see "Triumph of the Redistributionist Left" by Patrick Chisholm, The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0123/p25s01-cogn.html].
"The political left in America is emerging victorious," proclaims Chisholm. "Forces favoring the left are virtually locked in. Even with Republicans in control, big government is destined to get a lot bigger."
In support of his view, he cites several "trends" that favor the continued progress of "redistributionism" in the U.S.A.
1. Discretionary spending, affectionately known as "pork," has increased a whopping 27.9% during the five years of George W. Bush's presidency. In 2005, Congress authorized 13,997 "pork barrel" projects, a tenfold increase since 1994.
2. Mandatory spending, e.g. Social Security and Medicare, locked into place by law, cannot be cut without changing the law.
3. The new prescription drug entitlement will cost American taxpayers an additional $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
4. Entitlements in general have risen from about 30% of the federal budget in the 1960s to nearly 60% today.
5. The federal government's consumption of America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown to 20% and is expected to increase to 30% by 2040.
6. Defense spending, which made up 45% of the federal budget in the 1960s, has decreased to 17%, the lost moneys being gobbled up by entitlements.
Finally, says Chisholm, our political system favors the left. Special interest groups lobby fiercely and successfully for particular benefits, but the great mass of taxpayers who must fund those benefits is incapable of lobbying in any meaningful way.
Sounds like it's all over but the shouting. Redistribution, here we come.
But not so fast, there: let's take a look at the real world first.
As reported by Minnesota Public Radio, "Officials [in Duluth, MN] warn that the city's generous coverage for retired employees could eventually gobble up Duluth's entire budget--with nothing left for police and firefighters, parks or street maintenance" [http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/ ...]. The city faces an $11 million "hole" in its 2006 budget, and is obligated to pay $150 million in health care costs over the next 30 years. Every city service is at risk, says the mayor. And you can be sure Duluth is not the only town in this predicament.
As this is written, the Ford Motor Co. has announced a plan to shut down at least a fourth of its manufacturing plants in the U.S.A. Ford sales in North America have been taking a beating; at the same time, Ford is obligated to pay generous benefits to its retirees. General Motors finds itself in much the same position. How can these corporations keep on taking losses while paying benefits?
Then there's the example of the socialist economies of Western Europe, where EU members can't even manage a birth rate that will see them through the century. The quick fix, a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, has failed. These stagnant economies are increasingly challenged to honor their commitments to universal health care, short work weeks and long vacations, job security for the incompetent and the unproductive, subsidies to failing industries, and perpetual unemployment payments to the perpetually unemployed.
Politics aside, real-world experience shows that "redistributionist" government can only expand so far before it collapses on itself.
Why must it inevitably fail?
Because the cost of goods and services is inflated when the government provides them! To provide these, governments must set up and fund bureaucracies--so you pay the intrinsic cost of, say, healthcare, plus an administrative cost which may exceed the intrinsic cost.
As we see in Europe, high taxes, over-regulation, and government growth combine to inhibit and depress economic growth. It also depresses individual and business productivity; and, in Europe, helps to depress the birth rate, too--so that you have fewer and fewer citizens working to pay for more and more benefits to those who are not working.
Taking Chisholm's article literally, it's just another example of the secular humanist delusion that man orders his own destiny, shaping history and society as he pleases, without reference to God or God's laws. The Bible endorses private property, and a limited government charged primarily with the administration of justice. When we depart from the Biblical model, we do greatly err.
So, yes, the trends do seem to indicate that the U.S. is pursuing a "redistributionist" vision--in much the same way that a man jumps off a ten-story building with an umbrella in his hand, and as he plummets past the fifth floor, says to himself, "So far, so good!"
Only that's not what they're saying in Duluth these days...
The following is the content of an email by the casting director of a major Christian film released nation-wide yesterday (January 20). The film, "End of the Spear," is an account of five Christian missionaries who gave their lives in Ecuador to present the gospel to a neglected, ancient tribe, the Waodanis. Links to the web site are featured below and they provide national theater listings across the nation. Find a theater near you! Fellow bloggers can post this as well. Tell others at your church and show support for daring Christian film-makers.
Here's the content of the email:
A major film, called End Of The Spear, will be launched January 20. I believe God will use it in a big way. It depicts the effects of the grace of God in very powerful and spectacular ways.
The story begins in 1956, when five Christian missionaries (Jim Elliot was among them) gave their lives in an Ecuadorian jungle, attempting to bring the gospel to the Waodani stone-age people. At that time they were the most violent tribe on Earth -- and yet they became the most loving and peaceful! The missionaries made friendly contact, but something went terribly wrong. The Waodani speared them to death. A tragedy? Yes, but God turns everything to good, for the blessing of many and for His glory, and this was no exception.
God used this tragedy to motivate more people to become missionaries than any other event in modern history -- perhaps ever. He also used two women to complete the work of the five martyred missionaries, bringing the Waodani to himself. So the deaths of those five men did more to advance the kingdom of God than their lives ever could. God's ways are so great!
But the story doesn't end there. It seems God is about to use the tragedy that happened 50 years ago to help hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- to come to know Christ in our day, using The End Of The Spear. It is a major motion picture (production cost $12 million) that tells the story of God's grace from the perspective of the Waodani.
Beginning January 20, End Of The Spear will be shown in theaters across the United States. If it does well it will be accepted by many other theaters, but it must do well right from the start.
This is where you and I come in. We can make the film do well. Our prayers can make it prosper, and also we can do something to answer our own prayers. We can work together to get at least 100,000 people to see the film on January 20th.
How? Very simple. This e-mail is going to hundreds of addresses, many in America. Just about everyone else has American Christian friends. Our connections are endless! So, if each of us were to pass this e-mail on to just 10 others (some can share it with hundreds!), and each of them did the same, our goal of getting 100,000 people to see the film on January 20 would be reached easily -- and likely greatly surpassed! Just forward this e-mail to 10 caring Christian friends.
Making it even easier, great resources are provided. A Google search for End Of The Spear" will yield several excellent web sites, including http://www.endofthespear.com/.
Then there is a special web site for Christians at HYPERLINK http://www.daretomakecontact.com/. It offers lots of helps to help us promote the film and make it a huge success. You'll really get the flavor of the film by watching the trailer.
What a great opportunity to advance the kingdom of God in such an easy, non-offensive and effective way! Please forward this e-mail today.
By the way, the producers of End Of The Spear are Bearing Fruit Communications HYPERLINK http://www.bearingfruit.org/About/. They have more plans in the works to advance the gospel through similar means. Find them on their web site. First, let's make End Of The Spear a great success! Thank you for your prayers and participation.
"Oh, my God, we're living in a theocracy!" howls Maureen Dowd. Well, you'd never know it from the actions of our federal government.
Believe it or not, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services sponsors a "Gay Pride" website, http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/features/lgbt. And guess whose tax dollars pay for it!
The message of this website can be summed up in a few words. Homosexuals and the rest of 'em are "an oppressed population" whose problems are all society's fault. Thanks to the "stigma, alienation, and discrimination" practiced by homophobic, heterosexist America, these "lead to deleterious behaviors such as abusing alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, attempted suicide, or denying sexual identification or sexual orientation." If it weren't for our narrow-minded disapproval of their lifestyle, these poor souls wouldn't have any problems at all. At least, that's how the U.S. government sees it.
This is not how a "theocracy" behaves, unless it's a secular humanist theocracy.
If you're upset about your hard-earned tax dollars being spent to preach the LBGT gospel, you can email CSAP Representative Nancy Kennedy, nkennedy@samhsa.gov. You might also want to make a phone call to your Congressman.
Two noteworthy items in the news should raise both a chuckle and a tear at the atrocious state of the American church. First, is the soon-coming Christian talent show "Gifted." This contrivance of the Trinity Broadcasting Network and Wright Entertainment (Britney Spears' management company) is a rip-off of the popular "American Idol" program, now in it's fifth season. God help us.
Second, is this recent item from FOXNews of a trendy baptist pastor of a seeker church that's getting press coverage because he's preaching a message series entitled, "The Theology of the iPod." Go to his site and click on "Watch the video."
Now defunct ex-FEMA director, Michael Brown, is in the news today to accept greater blame for the post-Katrina relief efforts in the ghost town of New Orleans. However, a serious consideration of his hindsights are chilling. Here's what he said:
"I should have asked for the MILITARY sooner. I should have demanded the MILITARY sooner," Brown told a gathering of meteorologists at a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada. "It was beyond the capacity of the state and local governments, and it was beyond the capacity of FEMA," said Brown, former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (emphasis added)
This is utter nonsense. As anyone that followed the story knows, the chaos was due more to FEMA's obstruction of the relief efforts, and not this alleged incapacity. The issue was certainly NOT military control. Evacuation and simple necessities like food and water do not require military oversight. To say that the military was required because the disaster was beyond the capacity of the state and local governments, and FEMA itself is simply untrue.
But, let's go back a few months to the brief September 15th speech by Bush on the empty soil of New Orleans. Let's see if we can find in Bush this same theme as proposed by Michael Brown:
Yet the system at every level of government, was not well coordinated and was overwhelmed in the first few days. IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT A CHALLENGE ON THIS SCALE REQUIRES GREATER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND A BROADER ROLE FOR THE ARMED FORCES -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice. (emphasis added)
Did you catch that? Let me get this straight. The government fouls up in relieving a national disaster and they ask for greater federal authority and military control? In an odd statement by Bush from the New Orleans speech we have the "Freudian Slip":
Four years after the frightening experience of September 11th, Americans have every right to expect a more effective response in a time of emergency. When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I AS PRESIDENT AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROBLEM, AND FOR THE SOLUTION. (emphasis added)
Exactly! I create the problem, so that I can offer the solution, and thereby gain more authority. It's clear that the increase of federal control over America and the push for a military state is the driving thrust of the Bush administration. Consider the following comments made by Bush at his October 14th press conference:
The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? ONE OPTION IS THE USE OF A MILITARY that's able to plan and move. (emphasis added)
Michael Brown's acceptance of guilt brings the discussion once again to public awareness. My hope is that Americans will be outraged at the suggestion of greater federal control and domestic military encroachment. When taken in tandem with the increase in domestic surveillance the national image bears a close resemblance to Orwell's world of tyranny.
Let's face it folks, an entire city -- New Orleans -- was relocated. And now the president wants the Department of Homeland Security (aren't they supposed to be chasing terrorists?) to develop "emergency plans" in every major city in the United States:
Therefore, I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to undertake an immediate review, in cooperation with local counterparts of emergency plans in every major city in America.
All of American society may soon be under direct federal control. Just one major terror attack, one epidemic, one outbreak is all it would take to bring the lusted military state into fruition.
This is why I continue to be astonished at the exaggerated claim by the secularists that the United States is teetering on the threshold of a theocracy. As they incessantly complain about the latest event of the Religious Right the nation is being positioned for massive government expansion. The secularists are either overlooking this or a part of the controlled opposition. In my opinion, they are overlooking the matter. Both the Religious Right and the Religious Left can be "useful" to American despotism if they're not careful.
It's fascism folks, plain and simple. The Religious Right will soon find out they were accomplices in the greatest decline of freedom in U.S. history. The Religious Left will discover that instead of complaining too much about issues such as Intelligent Design -- which will never be ratified -- they could have helped to awaken their constituency to the threat of fascism. I applaud the fine job many on the political left have done to highlight this threat. But, for the rest of them, focusing on the Religious Right is plucking the fruit instead of severing the root. I suggest a different campaign. Find the weak spot, and exploit it. "Justice Sunday" is not the weak point. The weak point is the Religious Right's sinful marriage to statism. Show them from their own Bible the error of their ways.
I suggested this to one fine progressive commentator: Since so many secular pundits claim Rushdoony is the source material for the rise of the Christian Right, then use Rushdoony to correct the Christian Right. Rushdoony opposed war, tyranny, police state measures, deficit spending, inflation, political manipulation, etc. He would have disapproved of the present pursuits of many on the Christian Right, and his emphasis would be placed on education, the church, and the family -- not politics.
A justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court is in hot water for recommending that state courts resist the "judicial tyranny" of the United States Supreme Court.
In a gesture reminiscent of "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore (a former chief justice of the Alabama court), justice Thomas Parker flailed his fellow justices for "passively accommodating" the practice of judicial tyranny by "five liberal justices" on the U.S. Supreme Court. Parker went public with his charges by writing an op-ed for the Jan. 1 Birmingham News (see http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/20060106.htm).
At issue was a 1997 rape and murder case which Parker helped to prosecute. The criminal was sentenced to death, but in appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, was released from death row. The court followed the U.S.Supreme Court's 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, a controversial ruling which cited "evolving standards of decency" and foreign treaties as a basis for declaring unconstitutional the capital punishment of an offender who was a minor when he committed the crime.
"You see," wrote Parker, "my fellow Alabama justices freed [him] from death row not because of any error on our part but because they chose to passively accommodate--rather than actively resist--the unconstitutional opinion of five liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court." Parker accused the top court of trying to "usurp political power," "force foreign legal fads on America," and "blatant judicial tyranny." One of the treaties alluded to by the Supreme Court, he pointed out, has not even been signed by the United States--putting the court in the position of usurping the treaty-making power of the President and the Senate.
The Alabama court should have declined to follow the Roper precent, Parker said, because "those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case." The justices, he said, should have upheld their oaths of office rather than follow the precedent.
The American Bar Assn. responded with an article in its journal (http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/j13oped.html) castigating Parker for preaching "nullification" a la John C. Calhoun, politicking for election as Alabama's next chief justice, and "undermining the public's confidence [in] the judiciary."
Parker did find one defender in John Eastman, a professor at Chapman University Law School, Chicago, who said he was "glad he's doing it... The notion that nobody can question Supreme Court pronouncements is not very well grounded, and it could amount to judicial tyranny."
To which we can only add, "Amen!" The judiciary needs to be rattled out of its complacency and needs to be questioned. Roper is only one of many egregiously high-handed Supreme Court decisions that amount to the court legislating from the bench.
Former vice-president Al Gore delivers a stinging blow to the Bush administration today over electronic surveillance and the threat on civil liberties. Standing alongside was republican Congressman Bob Barr who joined Gore to demonstrate unity on calling into question recent revelations of government spying. I never thought I'd be rooting for the likes of Al Gore but here goes, "Go, Gore!"
I've said repeatedly that our greatest threat is the vast government expansion, since 9-11, in the form of a military/police state. I'm just an echo. Millions of Americans are concerned about these issues, and it's time you were too. The fact that the leaders of the Religious Right are stone silent regarding government torture, domestic surveillance, preemptive war, and military oversight of national disasters, is appalling.
Wisdom, truth, knowledge, understanding. Are these separate categories? Or, are they merely synonyms that provide us categorical tools for deciphering the mass of God's revelation contained in the world? Someone speaks of "truth" as if it is somehow different than knowledge. Wisdom is reduced to "skillful living" while understanding is made the result of an encounter with knowledge (i.e., once I know how to do something I can say I understand it). This approach to knowledge is coterminous with the "block logic" of Greek thinking and neglects the unified approach of God's Word.
In the Scriptures terms like "wisdom, knowledge, and understanding" are often strung together to underline the totality of God's revelation to man. In the Book of Wisdom (Proverbs) Solomon incessantly weaves a multitude of terms together that accentuate the unifying character of God's revelation and challenge man to make that revelation his chief pursuit:
To know WISDOM and INSTRUCTION; to perceive the words of UNDERSTANDING; To receive the instruction of WISDOM, JUSTICE, and JUDGEMENT, and EQUITY; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man KNOWLEDGE and DISCRETION. A wise man will hear, and will increase LEARNING; and a man of UNDERSTANDING shall attain unto wise counsels. (Prov. 1:2-5)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of KNOWLEDGE: but fools despise WISDOM and INSTRUCTION. (Prov. 1:7)
So that thou incline thine ear unto WISDOM, and apply thine heart to UNDERSTANDING; Yea, if thou criest after KNOWLEDGE, and liftest up thy voice for UNDERSTANDING; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou UNDERSTAND the fear of the LORD, and find the KNOWLEDGE of God. For the LORD giveth WISDOM: out of his mouth cometh KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING. (Prov. 2:2-6)
Happy is the man that findeth WISDOM, and the man that getteth UNDERSTANDING. (Prov. 3:13)
The LORD by WISDOM hath founded the earth; by UNDERSTANDING hath he established the heavens. By his KNOWLEDGE the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew. (Prov. 3:19-20)
Not to be excluded the Apostle Paul prayed for such unified revelation in the hearts of his churches:
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the KNOWLEDGE of his will in all WISDOM and spiritual UNDERSTANDING; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the KNOWLEDGE of God. (Col. 1:9-10)
Wisdom, knowledge, and understanding are intertwined and must not be segregated into the Greek categories of comprehension. These are reflective of the unified logic of God that radiates in the created order. If you want to categorize the entirety I suggest the "truth." That which is.
Truth is not a set of facts. It is not an equation. It is the embodiment of "what is" in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the full revelation of God. He is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form (Col. 3:9). And, the apostle adds, "we are complete in Him" (v. 10).
Yet, it is at this point that pietism takes a hard left and delves into the secrets of God by a tenuous pursuit of Christ "in them." Since Christ is the truth, let us throw off the "dead letter" of the written Word and chase with abandon this higher revelation. And, when we do reference the cold text we will seek underneath it a multiplicity of spiritual meanings. God forbid!
Yes, in Christ are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3), but that is by no means an invitation to put off the law-word of God. That would contradict Paul's other admonitions to pursue the diligent use of the written Word as the standard for living:
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim. 3:14-17)
Christ is the embodiment of the Godhead. He is the personification of the divine truth in its totality. Yet, He declared to Satan, the enemy of God and His people, that ancient yet basic commandment:
IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt: 4:4)
"It is written." Aren't you glad? "It is written." Don't you rejoice that God has not left you without specific instructions as to "what we are to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man?" (WCF, Larger Catechism, Q.5). In the light of the growing departure from the doctrine of inerrancy I close with that precious portion of the Westminster Confession of Faith regarding the sufficiency of Scripture. In times like these orthodox passages bring significant encouragement to the trying our faith:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (Ch. 1, VI)
What can we do about out-of-control judges who trample on our religious liberties and try to re-engineer our culture?
Robert Knight, who heads Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute, answers these questions in his new column, "The sound of silence in Indiana" (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48313). Knight addresses a recent ruling by a federal judge in Indiana that barred the state legislature from opening its sessions with a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ--something which the Indiana legislature had been doing, without harming anyone, for 188 years. The lawsuit, of course, was brought by the ACLU.
"The real problem is spineless elected officials who know better but refuse to assert their authority and rein in our robed masters," Knight wrote. In Indiana, the spineless ones in question are the legislators. Instead of acquiescing to the judge, he said, the legislature should have done two things: 1) gone ahead and prayed the prayers, and 2) asked their congressional representatives to impeach the federal judge.
It's not always legislators who fail to curb the courts. In Massachusetts, when the state supreme court "legalized" homosexual "marriage" (without any laws being passed), the legislature did not change the law, but the governor, Mitt Romney, went ahead and ordered the clerks to issue same-sex "marriage" licenses. In this case, it was the governor who went spineless. Nor has the legislature availed itself of the "Bill of Address" provided by the state constitution as a means of keeping the judges in line.
"Getting good judges... on the bench is a very important part of the solution," Knight wrote. "Removing bad ones is the other part. An impeachment or two would send a message to overly ambitious judges and even to some tyrants in the governors' mansions."
It's time the people's elected representatives showed some backbone and removed judges who set aside the Constitution.
Texas congressman Ron Paul never ceases to amaze me. For roughly 30 years this advocate of small government has stood virtually alone repealing thousands of pages of legislation -- often as the only voice of dissent -- while persistently pointing his collegues to the Constitution. And, he does it all with that same infectious smile and unassuming voice.
Dr. Paul can say more in a few paragraphs than most politicians can in their bloated memoirs or stodgy newsletters. Paul argues for simplicity in government and life. It's only natural for his commentary to follow suit. His latest posting consists of five short paragraphs; but he says it all. Since this is an election year, send it to your friends and family. Let them know what government is supposed to look like.
Has it come to this--that the definition of a fully "modern" society is one that purposely murders its posterity?
"10 million girls aborted as Indians seek male heirs," reports The Independent Online (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article337386.ece). Largely thanks to the technological miracle of ultrasound screening, parents in India have been able to abort an estimated 10 million baby girls over the past 20 years. The figure derives from research carried out by the University of Toronto and the Institute of Medical Education in Chandigarh, India. According to researchers, the number of baby girls born in India has decreased every year for the past 20 years, relative to the number of boys.
Why? The Independent attributes it to Indians' desire to make sure they have male heirs, but information in the body of the article suggests a different reason.
"The effect [selectively aborting baby girls] was more than twice as great among educated mothers compared with those who were illiterate, but did not vary by religion," the researchers reported.
This ties in with floods of reports on plunging birth rates among the "educated" and the affluent in Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. Apparently, modern, humanistic, it's-all-about-me culture can't ensure a future for itself--and it looks like India has made enough "progress" now to join the club.
As the Bible puts it, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12). Man will either find God or find oblivion.
In a recent post, "Don't Mess with John Lofton," we linked to an excellent interview with John Lofton of The American View and James Winkler of the UMC on C-SPAN. In this interview James Winkler refused to site any biblical or constitutional basis for wanting the federal government to provide cradle-to-grave security for the people. What he proposed over and over again was not only a social gospel, but a Socialist State. Here is a direct quote from Mr. Winkler: "I think what is moral and just is that we demand of those who have more, what they can provide" (emphasis added). He also said in response to Romans chapter 13 that "the government ought to address evil and I think when you have a situation where you have in a nation as wealthy as ours, so many poor, so many without health insurance, so many in need, that's an evil, that's a form of evil." The only problem with this is that neither Mr. Winkler nor the UMC is God. They do not determine what is good and evil, rather it is God and God alone via His Holy Word. The only basis Mr. Winkler gives for anything he espouses is "I think" or "I believe" or "the American people believe."
Shortly after listening to this interview, I listened to R.J. Rushdoony's lecture on the case laws given in Exodus 23:1-8. In this lecture, Rushdoony provides an excellent response to Mr. Winkler's socialism. You can listen to Rushdoony's lecture online here: http://www.chalcedon.edu/radio/Godsjustice.php.
God has decreed a word that will not return unfulfilled, "Unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear" (Isa. 45:23; cf. Rom. 14:11). Paul quotes this as specifically applicable to the person and name of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:10). That makes it very clear -- we will all bow before God. The only question remaining is the circumstances of our bowing, for there are two ways in which we bow before God.
The word translated bless in Scripture is barac, which means to kneel. For man to bless God, as in "Bless the Lord, O my soul" (Ps. 103:1), is for man to kneel, to bow in submission before Him. Man blesses God by obeying Him in word, thought, and deed. To bless God involves a recognition of who God is and our place before Him. Read more...
