"The greatest defender of the doctrine of Creation in church history has gone to be with the Lord. No single man in the last two thousand years has contributed more to the defense of the book of Genesis or been more effective in rallying the people of God to embrace the historical, grammatical, literal, normative interpretation of its text than a humble, mild-mannered hydrologist named Dr. Henry Morris." Read more about this remarkable man at Doug Phillips' blog...
Today's Fox News article in which the president denies having prior knowledge of the port arrangemets contains some key information in the last paragraphs:
Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
CFIUS approved the sale last Monday and Bush has until March 2 to decide whether to reject it. Without action, the deal will go into effect automatically. Lawmakers have asked him to delay approval until the multi-agency task force can take a closer look at the sale.
CFIUS is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.
On Wednesday, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote Snow asking him to disclose how CFIUS concluded that approval should be granted, suggesting that CFIUS "approved the sale as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances."
Kerry also said that ties between the Bush administration and DP World raise suspicions about the basis for approval. For instance, CSX rail corporation, of which Snow served as chief executive officer, sold its port operations to DP World in 2004. Moreover, David Sanborn, the president's nominee to be head of the U.S. Maritime Administration headed DP World's operations for Latin America and Europe.
"In light of these connections, Congress needs to learn more about the relationship between CFIUS members and DP, and whether Administration officials could have unduly influenced CFIUS's approval process," Kerry wrote.
The Exon-Florio provision is implemented by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"), an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury. CFIUS seeks to serve U.S. investment policy through thorough reviews that protect national security while maintaining the credibility of our open investment policy and preserving the confidence of foreign investors here and of U.S. investors abroad that they will not be subject to retaliatory discrimination.
2. Who is the Secretary of the Treasury? As the article states, it is John Snow. Before he was appointed by Bush to run the Treasury Department in December 2002, he was the CEO of CSX Rail Corporation where he functioned more as a lobbyist, entertaining officials on the Greenbrier Resort golf course near D.C. that CSX, strangely, owns. In 2004, CSX sold its port operations to the same company, Dubai Ports World, that Bush now wants to operate our 6 key ports. (for more on Snow's background)
3. Such a sale would also require the approval of the U.S. Maritime Administration, which, among other duties, "regulates the transfer of US documented vessels to foreign registries; maintains equipment, shipyard facilities, and reserve fleets of Government-owned ships essential for national defense" (for more)
It just so happens that last month the president nominated David Sanborn to be the head of the U.S. Maritime Administration. And as the article above relates, Sanborn used to work for Dubai Ports as head of operations for Latin American and Europe.
And the White House wants us to believe the president didn't know about this port deal?
Special thanks to my patriotic brother who did this fact checking.
I hope you've been following this story about President Bush's pushing for transferring control of major U.S. ports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. You heard me right. Arabs will be in charge of key U.S. ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. In light of the obvious skepticism of political leaders Bush offered this meager assurance:
"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward."
Golly, gee, I feel better now! Is this the same guy who missed the boat on 9-11 and the WMDs goof up in Iraq? Forgive me Mr. President if I don't take your assurance on this one. He doesn't stop there; he goes even further in his nonsensical reasoning:
"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for company from one country to manage a port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world."
Oh, so now we care what the world thinks? I thought that you said you'd have to do some unpopular things to protect the people? Arabs in charge of our ports? Are you kidding me?
So, let me get this straight, Mr. President. Arabs can takeover all major U.S. ports without any of the delays suggested by Congress, but I can't get on an airplane without taking off my shoes, searching my bag, and inspecting my person? Is there something I'm missing here?
Folks, it's not the audacity of this administration that astonishes me, it's the lack of outrage on the part of the people -- especially the church. After more bombs start going off on U.S. soil are the Christian Bush-lovers going to write more books "thanking" the president?
With Arab control of the ports any future terror attacks can be blamed on Arabs. It's all about pretext when your push is for perpetual war. It should be obvious that there is no war for our freedom nor a desire to secure the homeland. If the borders can remain open and Arabs can control our ports, yet I'm being inspected by Homeland Security, then it's obvious that whoever is in charge of national security is either completely incompetent, or has something else in mind.
Under the guise of preventing child abuse, a Dutch health official has suggested that abortion and contraception be made compulsory for certain groups of citizens. The legacy of Margaret Sanger lives on! See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLEID=48930 .
The epicenter of present political debate between sacred and secular is the question of America's religious identity. Were the founding fathers intending a secular society by initiating the Constitutional amending process with the following?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
It is gross anachronism to paint the early Americans as a horde of left-wing secularists bent on multi-cultural pluralism and a strident distrust of Christianity. It is likewise an error to prop up our 18th century ancestors as theocrats who haphazardly neglected to add an establishment clause to declare America a Christian state. Yet, it is some form of the former and the latter that is presently crossing swords over the title deed to America.
A small snippet from the farewell address of George Washington adequately portrays the essential religious and political makeup of the infant nation:
With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
"The same religion," "with slight shades of difference." By this Washington spoke of the diversity of Christian faith expressions represented throughout the Colonies. And the Constitution was meant as a limiting factor for the state lest it grant undue warrant to any one branch of Christianity as was the case in Great Britain. The Constitution writers were quite familiar with the persecution of the continental puritans, and deemed religious liberty of chief significance by including it in the First Amendment.
Therefore, the basic identity of the nation was Christian at the time. Denying this does not solve the present political dilemma anymore than those who affirm it. It's simply not 1791. It's 2006 and America is a grossly different nation.
I believe the debate over our religious origins will not prove to be a profitable one for either side. Is America a Christian nation? Yes, I think so. But, it's also a secular nation. It has become so. It is a humanistic nation, and a nation of pluralists. It is a nation of multiple personalities with each persona vying for corporate dominance.
The Constitutional Battle
Both sides are laying claim to the Constitution, but neither side has adequately described the nature of this marvelous document. The secularists are genuinely in error because they make appeals to the Constitution in matters of moral legislation with the mantra "separation of church and state." This is a misuse of the Constitution because it contradicts the stated purpose of the document.
When discussing the Constitution, Rushdoony often noted that the Constitution did not provide us with substantive morality, but rather legislative morality -- meaning it's intent was to shape the legislative process not declare abortion as murder. So, when secularists appeal to the Constitution and a separation of church and state as to why certain laws should not be enacted they are reaching for the wrong document. The Constitution will only aid them in policing the legislative process not whether an issue is inherently religious.
A Religious Issue
This is really the central question. When exactly does an issue become religious? Is it only issues regarding homosexuality and abortion that are religious? In a democratic society can Christians use the political process to enact and or change laws? Of course they can. So can the secularist. How do you think they got abortion legalized in the first place? But, that same process may one day see Roe v Wade overturned.
When does an issue become religious? And, by what standard will you then judge any substantive moral question? Will it be conventional standards such as pragmatism, positivism, and utilitarianism? Why did the founding fathers not create any document of substantive morality? Firstly, they would leave it up to the states to decide. Secondly, they lived in a predominantly Christian society where God's Word was the primary source document for substantive moral legislation. And, better yet, they lived amongst a more responsible citizenry that better demonstrated self-government than today's American social dependency.
Theocracy Looms
The fear mongering of many secularists is the threat of theocracy -- a Christian takeover of the present apparatus of the federal government. News flash: it ain't gonna happen! Believe you me, Bush and Cheney respond to Halliburton, KRB, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing, not James Dobson. The thought is laughable. No, the Religious Right is an electoral tool because they represent a massive conservative constituency. Therefore, the executive branch will placate them and cultivate a controlled alliance, but not on Dobson or Robertson's terms.
Is there a threat to abortion on demand? God, I hope so. Anything to start washing the last 30+ years of state sponsored bloodshed. If that were to happen, which I doubt, it would likely amount to a slightly watered down version of present abortion policy. But, like lowering gas prices it'll shut people up. We're so pathetic.
But changing (or adjusting) Roe v Wade does not equate to theocracy. That's just asinine. Debate over issues like abortion are to be expected. These are serious matters and the Christian outcry is perfectly reasonable. (I am always dumbfounded at how the secular left offers not a hint of conscience as to the questionable morality of abortion, not a hint. It's as if we were discussing a woman's right to join the military. You'd think such bleeding hearts could at least shed one drop of sympathetic blood for the unborn. Nope. Not a drop. In fact, they demonstrate an even greater callousness by their recent change from "pro-choice" to "reproductive rights for women." This is a textbook example of Orwellian doublespeak. Abortion means termination. How in the hell did that become "reproductive rights?" It's the Christian who may one day need "reproductive rights" as a line of defense against the myth of overpopulation and the left's desire to reduce birthrates.)
May the Best Man Win
We are a far cry from the Christian culture of early America. How in the world the secularists can imagine the founding fathers were sitting in Starbucks sipping lattes and reading The Nation contradicts even the most progressive textbooks. No, a good many founding father was reading his Bible and attending church. The simplicity of agrarian living at the time helped to curb the political discussion, and little time was spent on the matter of the church's influence on the state. The focus was on keeping the state out of the church.
Yet, the church has a moral voice because it holds a document of substantive morality. At present, it should not seek to alter the Constitutional legislative process, but it can use that process to seek change in public morality. However, our goal is not simply the imposition of trivial morality on others. Of greater concern to the Christian should always be the preservation of the church's mission more so than the aimless debate over Intelligent Design. However, other moral issues must be contended for because of their heinous nature. We should seek to change the abortion ruling because it's murder -- a REAL holocaust. (And in this sense, the liberals are the greatest of "holocaust deniers." To them, it's simply good medicine. How Nazi is that?)
Is the stopping of abortion on demand the imposition of morality on others? You bet your life it is. Just the same as the prohibition of any kind of murder is an imposition of morality. The left knows this, and therefore works to remove the idea of murder, death, or termination. In doing so they make it a debate over a woman's right to choose or to govern her own body. This was too easily done. Again, there should be some hesitancy on the part of liberals to at least show some semblance of conscience regarding the unborn instead of demeaning their brief lives as irrelevant in light of the mother's "choice."
In Closing
America was once a devoutly Christian nation. It is no longer. Are there millions of Christians? Yes, but they are a far cry (including myself) from the Christians who lived closer to the reformation. What about the future? Good question. I'm still praying and working for theocracy. What does that mean? For me, it's when men and women are governing their individual lives by the standards of God's law in every area of life. I do not believe this is anytime near. Likely, it's several generations away. But, I can do my part by applying my faith now and instilling that same mission in my children. I can also encourage my brothers and sisters to do the same.
I'm not called to "reclaim America." I'm called to build the city of God irregardless of the flag that waves over the statehouse. My allegiance is to Christ and His Word (though there is always a soft spot in my heart for the once Christian South!). Although it is a marvelous document the Constitution is just that, a document. It will not save man from his sinful pursuit of power. That should be evident by the present despotism being cast over America. No, my hope is in the Lord and what He plans for the future of this world. I can't look back to 1791 as a goal. Providence has brought us where we are and our sins have gotten us this present tyranny. I will commit myself, then, to a greater learning of obedience. If you are a Christian, I encourage you to join me. If you are not, then I pray God grant you repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25).
Why did he do that? Because the Chief Mufti of Moscow, the leader of the city's Muslim community, said all hell would break loose if he didn't. The mufti warned that Muslim protests against the gay parade "might be even more intense than protests abroad against those controversial cartoons." He was referring, of course, to the riots and embassy-burnings in response to a dozen cartoons of Muhammad published in a Danish magazine.
A few days later, the Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow joined the mufti in condemning the parade. The parade's organizers have threatened to sue Russia in the Eurpean Court of Human Rights, to force the city to allow the parade. Other gay activists have frankly called the plan "suicidal."
Do you ever get a little queasy with the notion that in this "clash of civilizations," we are fighting for the supposed "right" to celebrate and encourage and revel in behavior which the Bible says is an abomination and a sin? Are you totally comfortable with that?
Has the mufti in Moscow got it right, and we wise, worldly, freedom-loving Westerners got it wrong? If it were most cities--if not each and every city--in America, not only would they have the parade, but the mayor and the council would be marching in it beside the topless lesbians, and all the major businesses would sponsor floats celebrating various aspects of sodomy.
Before we rush forth with a fifes-and-drums discourse on the First Amendment, let's cast our minds back to the year 1789, the year our Constitution, First Amendment and all, was ratified. Do you believe, for one minute, that in 1789, even one city in America would have consented to a parade celebrating sodomy? Do you believe anyone would have argued that the First Amendment protected such goings-on? Had anyone dared to hold such a parade, what do you suppose would have happened?
The First Amendment to the Constitution hasn't changed since 1789, but our national commitment to respect God's laws certainly has--and not for the better. In 1789 we would not have needed a Muslim mufti in Moscow to explain to us the difference between right and wrong.
It is easy enough to say that might does not make right, but our democratic age makes it hard for us to think as though might did not matter. We look for support in numbers as a confirmation that we are in the right. We look to polls and trends as indicators of the future. Even if we do not think might means right, we often use it as an indicator of significance. Our democratic age, because it is thoroughly humanistic, judges more than morality in terms of the might of numbers. It justifies cultural and historical trends in terms of the wants and perceived needs of collective man.
When the prophet Zechariah wrote, numbers were all against him. About 40,000 Jews had returned from exile to find Jerusalem an impenetrable pile of rubble. Zerubbabel was a prince subordinate to the Persian ruler and had too few men and too little money to accomplish his intent of rebuilding the temple. He had managed to build the foundation but was then stalled. There was no might behind Zerubbabel and only weakness, discouragement, and a daunting task before him. Zerubbabel was joined by Joshua (or Jeshua) the high priest, against whom the prophet says Satan stood in opposition (3:1).
During this time of apparent weakness, God sent word to His prophet that His servants were not to move in terms of circumstances but in terms of Him: "[T]his is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." The obstacles that seemed insurmountable were addressed by God as a mountain, "Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain" (4:6-7).
When God moves, everything changes. When the Spirit, who hovered over the face of the waters prior to the creation, moves mountains, God's ministers "shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it" (4:7). The mountains opposing God's people shall become headstones; the obstacles shall be replaced by monuments to the death of opposition and the grace of God.
Because it was God's intent that Zerubbabel finish the temple (4:9), he is the man who would accomplish that task. The mountains of rubble and opposition were not there to obstruct him but to display that his was the work of God. Therefore, God said to Zechariah, "[W]ho hath despised the day of small things?" (4:10).
"Small things" we are not to despise may be ministries or works such as the foundation of the temple Zerubbabel had already laid. Certainly the small beginnings of such activities had begun in Jerusalem and would be used by God. A vision to Zechariah revealed even more -- that people would be used by God to further His Kingdom.
The vision was of seven lamps, supplied with oil by conduits from two olive trees. Zechariah did not quite know what it represented. He could presume the seven lights were like the seven eyes God promised (3:9). In Revelation 5:6 Jesus Christ as the lion of the tribe of Judah is described as having seven horns (omnipotence) and seven eyes (omniscience), which are the "seven Spirits of God [the fullness of God] sent forth into all the earth." Thus, the seven lamps, as seven eyes, clearly indicate the reign of God's Kingdom going forth in the power of God's Spirit.
Still, Zechariah was puzzled at the two olive trees. Olive trees normally only give oil after much labor is exerted in their processing and crushing. These trees supplied oil for the seven lamps of God miraculously. A supernatural power made them productive in giving light to the lamps God provided. Zechariah had to ask what these trees represented. God answered him, "These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth" (Zech. 4:14).
The "two anointed ones" were prince Zerubbabel, who faced a daunting task with insufficient resources, and the high priest Joshua, against whom Satan stood as an adversary. God's word to these men and us is that it is not by might or power, but by the Spirit of God. And mountains that stand in our way may, if God wills it, be made into plains by the Spirit of God. Do not despise the day of small things or small beginnings. When God's Spirit moves, everything changes. If God's Spirit moves in our age, the mountains of opposition and the rubble of the past will be made a plain. Be part of that change now, and prepare so that, like God's anointed, you might be a conduit of His miraculous work.
Until now I've tried to ignore the bantering and perpetual whining of the Southern Poverty Law (or Lie) Center. They are by far the most notorious left-wing windbags spouting the most extreme theocracy conspiracy theories anywhere. They could use a personal visit from Chip Berlet and Fred Clarkson on how to properly dialogue with religio-political opponents.
One entry from the SPLC "Intelligence Report" is supposed to be some sort of expose on Chalcedon's 40th anniversary conference held last September at Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Cumming, GA. A brief look at this sophmoric hit piece demonstrates the difficult task I have as communications director.
Draped in a stark black suit with a shiny gold cross pinned to its lapel, Mark Rushdoony peered down from the pulpit through glasses tinted the color of hellfire. "We are authorized by God to challenge all that is not godly!" Rushdoony thundered. "God is angry with the wicked every day, and the sins of the wicked deserve the infliction of God's wrath in this life as well as the life hereafter!"
For anyone who knows Mark Rushdoony you probably just spit out your mouth full of water reading that. "Stark black suit." Ooooh, how scary! I guess you can't wear black these days. "Rushdoony thundered." That takes the cake. Mark is one of the most soft spoken people I know. In addition, it took a bit of arm twisting just to get him on the platform. In short, Mark doesn't thunder.
What's horrible though, is Mr. Holthouse is lying. Mark never said ANY of the above mentioned diatribes. We've had posted the complete transcript from Mark's message and you can read for yourself that those comments or any like them are not featured. Holthouse continues:
"To oppose us is to attack God's law," Mark Rushdoony testified to nearly 200 followers from four states, "and to attack God's law is to attack God himself!"
Followers from four states? I spoke with people from Canada, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, California, Texas, and Illinois. I don't know what conference Holthouse was attending, but it certainly wasn't ours. And again, what he claims Mark said is no where found in his message.
Holthouse continues to spew more lies in the following paragraph:
Morecraft said the September conference was a preview of a planned speaking tour of Reconstructionism's leading voices, including Rushdoony, Selbrede, and DeMar, that will be traveling to non-Reconstructionist fundamentalist Christian churches around the country beginning this winter as part of the Chalcedon Foundation's missionary effort to "convert" already conservative congregations to full-blown Reconstructionism.
First of all, it was "I" who discussed the speaking tour -- not Morecraft -- and DeMar was not included in the travel plans as Holtouse alleges. Secondly, Holthouse said we would be "traveling to non-Reconstructionist fundamentalist Christian churches." I said nothing of the kind. In fact, I said we would likely rent small hotel conference rooms in regions of the country where our supporters were. Thirdly, Holthouse said the effort was to "convert already conservative congregations to full-blown Reconstructionism." Nonsense! The point of the mini-conferences was get out with our readers and supporters for some face time and provide an environment where they are there friends and loved ones can ask questions and learn more about Chalcedon. Besides, no non-reconstructionist church would ever allow us to hold conferences at their respective churches unless they were reconstructionist!
There's more but I won't bore you with it. I think you get the point.
I've come to one of three conclusions about Mr. Holthouse and the SPLC:
1. He's a moron and he works with morons 2. He's intentionally lying and works with liars 3. He's a part of the left-wing "controlled opposition" of the global elite
This was a hit piece, plain and simple. It's designed to create outrage and fear. It's lying and that removes any credibility, integrity, or moral standard from the SPLC -- not that it ever had any in my mind.
Our opponents lack reason. They lack an old-fashioned work ethic and the professional integrity to read our materials to determine the context and accuracy of our views. This is too much for them. Lying is easier, quicker, and carries a greater punch.
Hmm... let's see. Does that mean you can't show The DaVinci Code in Oslo's movie theaters? How about The Last Temptation of Christ on late-night cable? Can John Dominic Crossan be prosecuted for saying the Gospels are fiction and denying Christ's resurrection?
Won't Norway be in dutch with Europe for passing a law that might make celebrating a gay marriage in a church be grounds for jail time? And what are they going to do with some of the more over-the-top rock groups?
Is it just maybe possible that the only blasphemy that'll be illegal in Norway will be blasphemy against Islam? (Never mind that technically speaking, it's not possible for a Christian to blaspheme against Muhammad.)
On Jan. 10 a Norwegian magazine published the controversial Muhammad cartoons, originally published in Denmark in September of '05. Since then, Muslim rioters in Syria have burned the Norwegian embassy, Muslim demonstrators in Norway have threatened Norwegian media types with grievous bodily harm, and quite frankly, Parliament got good and scared.
We don't know for a fact that this latest move is simply the latest step in Europe's endless dance of appeasement. We can't wait to see how they enforce the new law. Dollars to doughnuts it boils down to, "Respect for Islam, and everybody else can go stick rast in his hat and punch it." St. Olaf must be spinning in his grave.
This just in, from The Guardian (UK): "Russia clamps down on religious insults" (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1711422,00.html). An arm of the Russian government, the Federal Service for the Oversight of Legislation in Mass Communications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage (and you thought our bureaucracy was top-heavy!) has warned of sanctions against any Russian media accused of "insulting religious feelings."
Do you get the impression that Europe just might not be able to stand up to Islam?
Well, I've seen a few news stories this week on the "suckers" who've allowed themselves to be implanted with RFID microchips. If I weren't preteristic I'd think we were in the last days!
The ultimate in Orwellian population control is the implantable microchip. The U.K. will soon pass the National ID card and it won't be long before we'll have the option of both. The ideal, however, for Big Brother is the implantable chip.
Congratulations are in order for the Liberty University School of Law, which has received American Bar Assn. (ABA) accreditation at the earliest possible date, and on its first try.
Founded by Dr. Jerry Falwell in 1971, and billed as "the largest evangelical university in the world," Liberty opened its law school in August of 2004, and will graduate its first class in 2007. It took only 18 months to win provisional accreditation from the ABA.
That means that Liberty law graduates may take the bar exam in any state in the Union.
Mat Staver, head of Liberty Council and vice president of Law and Policy at Liberty University, explained the purpose of having a law school at an evangelical Christian university: "The law school is training the next generation of lawyers and world leaders to use the law as a fulcrum for good."
Eighty-five persons described as "evangelical leaders" have signed onto some kind of faith-based effort to stop global warming. For the full story, see http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?ArticleID=486. Is there a psalm somewhere that I don't know about, that says something about the Earth being man's, to trash or to gentrify as the fancy takes him? Stay tuned.
British Christians this month united with political conservatives, political liberals, and entertainers to block the enactment of a harsh new hate speech law. But there's already a bigger battle looming on the horizon.
I often receive inquiries from journalists seeking the "truth" behind Chalcedon: the shadowy think-tank and it's controversial doctrines regarding theocracy, slavery, democracy, miscegenation, and the infamous "stoning of homosexuals."
One such interview was with the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper that was investigating a European gallery tour sponsored by "right-wing Christian philanthropist" Howard Ahmanson. A simple Google background check yielded suspect connections of Ahmanson and the Chalcedon Foundation. Yet, I don't recall discussing much of Mr. Ahmanson. The inquiry centered on homosexuals and the Chalcedon espousal of capital punishment as a quick cure for this social ill.
For some reason I was in a funny mood that morning. When the London reporter asked me if we supported the death penalty for homosexuals, I responded, "only English ones!" He said, "you're joking, right?"
After a long discussion of the intricacies of Christian Reconstruction the reporter asked, "Mr. Ortiz, how do you respond to the allegation that your views on homosexuality are extreme?" I'd had enough at that point. I replied, "Sir, let me tell you what is extreme: one man penetrating the backside of another man -- that's extreme!" I'll tell what else is extreme: swooning over gay culture in direct defiance of the Lord Most High. Thank God for Leviticus
Where would be without the law of God? What atrocities and perversion would we be submerged in were it not for the clarity of commandment in the ordering of our personal desires. Man's inclination is "evil continually" (Gen. 6:5) and to spare society a flood-like judgment the law of God is graciously given to curb demonic appetites. Leviticus states the matter plainly:
If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Lev. 20:13)
Why the death penalty for sodomy? It has something to do with this antiquated term abomination. The Hebrew word means "filthy, loathsome" and connotes an "idolatrous object" in it's secondary meaning. Here's the challenge: what is filthy and loathsome to man and his reaction to it is a far cry from what is filthy and loathsome to God and how He responds to it.
To man the only loathsome thing is the justice of God. Man despises God's standard and reckons God harsh and evil for His penal (no pun intended) sanctions. Why is man shocked at the death penalty for particular sins? Because man's concept of sin is so distorted. It's like whining about dust on a manure pile. Man has no concept of the holiness of God and therefore cannot assess sin's abomination properly. Man finds quite tasty what turns God's stomach.
If we stagger at the penalty for sin it's only because we cannot comprehend its offense to God. Brokeback Mountain
The world is swimming in hogwash over the release of Brokeback Mountain. Critics are falling over themselves to laud compounded praise over this story of two ranch handlers who can't keep their hands off each other. What is disturbing -- beyond the celebration of sodomy -- is the idea that "love" redefines all God-created categories of the Biblical social order. God created man and woman and ordained their consecrated union as the covenantal unit upon which civilization find its fulcrum. Yet, Joe Bob and Jethro can two-step over divine order "cuz they love each other."
It's Romeo and Juliet from the pit of Gomorrah -- forbidden love that leads to self-destruction. And, again, it is the oppressive authority of Christian culture and the Christian family that forbids "lovers" from fulfilling their persecuted desire and drives them to self-destruction. The victim is now the sinner, and God and His order are the tyrannical perpetrators.
Is Brokeback Mountain a great movie? I'll never know. Is it superbly acted? Who cares? It's celebrated for it's "bold statement" more so than it's creative content. Much the same as Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ was held up as creative genius. Yea, right. What men love is not art, they treasure war against God. Producing such movies is their way of thumbing their noses at the pious ethic of Christianity. Their target is the Church and it's 2,000-year reign of puritanical morality. Perverted man seeks freedom to sin but obtaining a gay marriage license will never quiet his God-given conscience. Removing the Church will never stifle the Spirit that strives with man (Gen. 6:3). The Idolatrous Object
As mentioned above a definition of abomination is an idolatrous object. The modern glorification of the homosexual is due to its representation as the ultimate symbol of freedom. It therefore garners religious praise for it's triumph over the obstacle of God and His law-word. If the homosexual can be embraced then all things can be embraced. This is the pagan doctrine of ascension -- when the homosexual ascends to heaven in a cloud and receives his/her approval from God. After his ascension all things are permitted for whosoever will. And they are taking this message to all nations.
Secularists will reduce the argument to paganized democracy. For them the debate hinges upon personal liberty. Yet man's idea of liberty is a mask for lasciviousness. It's a freedom to sin as he pleases. But the law of God opposes him at every point. He must prove then that his desire for perversion is socially acceptable and to a media generation no veneration compares with the silver screen; and better yet, a few Oscars!
Homophobia
This is defined as "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." The key terms here are extreme and irrational. Based upon this definition God is the ultimate homophobic because He denounces it repeatedly and pushes the severest penalties for it's practice. Again, in the ultimate sense, the war is against God. And, if aversion to homosexuality is extreme and irrational then anal sex is normal and logical.
Despite the miniscule population of homosexuals existent since ancient civilization; and despite the obvious and standard use of the male and female genitalia throughout history, any disapproval of homosexual behavior is labeled extreme and irrational. This is the height of absurdity. God condemns homosexuality. He has not changed His mind. He offers redemption in exchange for repentance not relationship while retaining rear entry.
A homosexual culture is a culture of death and it's open manifestation and celebration are signs of a nation's decline. Since coming "out of the closet" their pursuit of sexual liberty is becoming a national stain as both secular and saint embrace the humanistic doctrine of toleration. I conclude with the words of Rousas:
"When a people reaches a certain level of moral depravity, punishment cease to be particular and becomes national. The civil order has lost its ability to act for God, and God then acts against that order. In other words there is punishment, but the punishment is from God and the people or nation shall fall. Homosexual cultures are at war with God; in this war, there are no negotiations possible. That the modernist and the open unbeliever should be in the enemy camp comes as no surprise, but what shall we say of ostensible evangelicals who hold that the individual homosexual would appear to be more sinned against than sinning, because his condition is either genetic or environmental in nature and thus not his fault!"
It is unlikely that the death penalty would ever be enforced in cases of sodomy. Therefore, the great sin is the sin of thinking homosexuality is sinful. Homophobia is the new thought crime because it leads to oppressive theocracy. But the rule of God is not oppression for God gives life and that more abundantly (John 10:10). Salvation brings freedom from the miry clay of sexual perversion. The homosexual's utopia is a den of filth and the enlightenment of the eyes of their understanding would elevate them to the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints (Eph. 1:18). What they claim to love is the devil's distortion of pleasure. God has something better in mind for them. I suggest the gospel of salvation as the starting point to their desired liberty.
How come judges say it's unconstitutional for us to bring "religion" into the science classroom, but nobody has a problem with bringing Charles Darwin into church?
I'll bet you didn't know Feb. 12 is "Evolution Sunday." To celebrate the 197th anniversary of Darwin's birth, 412 church congregations in 49 states have elected to observe "Evolution Sunday," as reported Feb. 8 on the "Get Religion Blog," www.getreligion.org (see "Coming soon to The New York Times). On that site you can read "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science," purportedly signed by 10,000 assorted clergymen. Most of the congregations involved represent the usual suspects among the dying-on-the-vine mainline churches: UMC, PCUSA, Episcopals, Unitarians, et al.
The Open Letter claims that "the overwhelming majority [of Christians] do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook." Are we to understand that science textbooks are always to be read literally, as repositories of inerrancy? Or just until the next edition comes out with new sets of "facts" replacing the old?
It goes on, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts." How very postmodern. So if a deliberately contrived fable is able to transform someone's heart, is it "true"? What they're getting at, of course, is that the Bible is a work of fiction.
"We the undersigned Christian clergy from many different traditions..." who all have members stampeding en masse from their denominations, "urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."
What they're talking about is a package of 19th century hugger-muggery that was very cutting-edge in Rudyard Kipling's day, but can't cut it anymore and only survives because it has become a kind of religion among the science establishment.
"We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." How many different forms of truth do these people recognize?
"If you would like to sign this letter, please send an email to mz@uwosh.edu..."
That email address belongs to the brains behind this effort, Michael Zimmerman, a dean at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, b'Gosh--a biologist who also happens to be a long-time left-wing culture warrior. His publications, 60-plus pages of them, are listed on www.uaa.alaska.edu/provostsearch/index.cfm. When he's not proposing various Big Government actions to "heal our wounded planet," he's fulminating against "the threat of creationism." In fact, he's been denouncing creationism since 1986: a sure sign of a man in need of a constructive hobby.
That you could get 10,000 "clergymen" to sign this Open Letter doesn't speak well of the critical faculties of mainline churchmen. They're so afraid of being "close-minded" in matters of religion that they've jumped into bed with secularism's equivalent of the Inquisition.
Don't they know that no man can serve two masters?
The Christian life is not a holding pattern awaiting eternity. We are redeemed to reign in life by the Sovereign King of kings and Lord of lords.
In Romans 5 Paul speaks to two reigns. First is the reign of sin and death because of Adam's sin (vs. 14). The second is the reign of grace through righteousness by Jesus Christ (vs. 21). The reign of grace involves those saved by grace, for Paul says that "they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (vs. 17).
Christ's gift has brought us righteousness in two distinct ways. The first we call justification. It is God's declaration we have a new legal status before Him. God does not just fix our legal problem, however. We do not leave His court the same as we entered it. We are also regenerated, empowered by God to actually be righteous. Justification is our legal change; regeneration is our moral change.
The reign of sin over the redeemed man has been removed. Sin has not been removed, but its reign, its power, its sway, has been defeated. Instead grace reigns in us.
Paul said more than grace reigns, however. He said "they which receive" this grace "shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (vs. 17). Reigning represents an authority and power by right of office or position. We have that right because we are the "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20). Our authority to reign comes from the King we represent.
Our life of faith is not about our personal joy and fulfillment. These, though entirely real, are but the results of our restoration to our Creator. Paul associates the reign in the "abundance of grace" with righteousness. Our regeneration is to a newness of life (Rom. 6:4). We reign because we are regenerated, empowered, to live the life of justified men and women. God's righteousness lives in us.
Paul brings the law into this regenerated life brought by Christ, but not, as antinomians contend, to dismiss it. The law represents the righteousness of God. It always, therefore, reveals man's sin: "[T] he law entered, that the offence might abound." Then Paul adds, "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (vs. 20). Note that grace is not contrasted with the law or its role. Paul is not saying that grace is greater than law; he is, in fact, describing the grace that the law represents. Paul is contrasting sin and grace and says grace is greater than sin. Twice Paul speaks of grace reigning in us through righteousness (vss. 17, 21).
Righteousness cannot be separated from God and His revelation of moral law. Subjective piety is, in the end, self-righteousness and moral lawlessness. We reign in God's will, His revealed righteousness, or we reign in terms of our own self-will and self-righteous piety.
Man was made to have dominion, to exercise authority, power, and justice. Natural man does so in terms of sin, and sin reigns in him, and his reign only furthers its sway. The redeemed of God are called by His grace to reign instead in terms of His righteousness. Regeneration means that the power of God's grace restores us to live in terms of this reign of grace and righteousness in us.
Just when you thought PC silliness couldn't get any sillier, along comes Tina Jackson, head teacher at the Oaks Primary School in Ipswich, UK, with a ban on buns (see www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48700). She's afraid some will be "offended" by the intersecting lines of white icing, the "cross" atop a hot cross bun.
If Ms. Jackson rigorously follows her own logic, her school will have to teach arithmetic without using "plus" signs. You can't write 2+2=4 without offending some secularist. There might also be a problem with window panes, telephone poles, and anything else that features two straight lines intersecting at right angles.
Is it possible that these so-easily offended secularists are really vampires? That would explain the intensity of their reactions. I'll have to watch closely, the next time I see one of them exposed to natural sunlight.
Meanwhile, the kiddies at Oakes Primary School will have to have their hot cross buns without crosses.
Whining by the left over political aggression by the religious right, muslims throwing temper tantrums over a stupid cartoon, Iran responding with a cartoon contest for the holocaust, the White House playing "hide and seek" with its own citizens, while the U.S. population is babysat by the mesmerizing affect of hip-hop culture and fabricated reality T.V. The world is now run by children -- children with plenty of money and power.
Paul wrote to Timothy that Christians must "endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." He said that "no man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier." (1 Tim. 2:3-4) Yet, when I look out at the majority of American churchgoers I see a compromise with popular culture and blatant statism that boggles the mind.
I find no solace in the agendas of contemporary religious leaders. They are more obsessed with Intelligent Design than catechism. They seek amendments for marriage rather than covenant living. They want to "reclaim America" rather than build the kingdom. In short, they gag on a knat while swallowing a camel.
The "purpose-driven" Christian must become the "covenant-driven" soldier who imposes the rule of God's law in their personal lives. Church leaders must seek to represent the covenant to their congregations instead of aiding and abetting the growing biblical illiteracy. The Church must "rock up" like an army of good soldiers that demonstrate the maturity of wisdom that will shame the childishness of a world that looks more like Sesame Street on rydalin.
You have to marvel at the European Union. Here they are with stagnant economies, double-digit unemployment, hordes of unassimilated Muslim immigrants threatening to wreck the place if they don't get their way, and puny birth-rates that won't see some of these countries to the year 2100--and what are they worried about?
Homophobia!
The EU Parliament (the only parliament in the world that isn't elected) has threatened sanctions against EU member countries who won't allow homosexual "marriage" [see "Christians slam 'homophobia' resolution," http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLEID=48601]. The primary target of the threat is Poland, where they don't allow "gay pride" parades, either.
I understand why Muslims think they can conquer this continent. What I don't understand is why they would want to.
Along with Poland, Estonia and Latvia are also on the sanctions hit list, and Italy's in hot water for voting down same-sex "civil unions." Somehow it's expected to help the EU, to drive out the only nations who are still reproducing themselves.
For hundreds of years, Europe was Christendom. Now Western Europe is apostate, nihilistic, and spiritually dead. It's very sad, and a fearful thing to contemplate.
The despisers of Christian Reconstruction are all the same. They rarely read deep enough to fully comprehend the lifted quotes they post on their sites or publish in their books and articles. They love to quote Rushdoony on mixed-marriages, slavery, democracy, or this one on toleration:
In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed. (Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, p.294)
At this point the whining secularists shriek in horror at such an inhumane statement. "How could Rushdoony say such a thing?" "What bigotry." "What a mean-spirited man."
(I keep asking if they'd like some "cheese with that whine," but have yet to get any takers.)
I find the above mentioned quote wherever I read a critique of Christian Reconstruction. In the hundreds of instances this quote is cited I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE THAT CONTINUES THE PARAGRAPH. My guess would be that the very next sentence that Rushdoony writes takes the "bite" out of the soundbyte they need to create public outrage. So, I'll do it for them. Rushdoony continues regarding the toleration of the believer:
The believer has a duty of lawful behavior toward all, an obligation to manifest grace and charity where it is due, but not to deny the validity of the differences which separate believer and unbeliever. (ibid., 294-295)
Well, now. It looks like a different picture emerges. Rushdoony is saying that the Christian must exhibit lawful behavior and manifest grace and charity TOWARD ALL! Need I say more? How devious of the secularist to slant Rushdoony's words.
Falling into Rushdoony's Trap
What's humorous is that secular critics REPEATEDLY fall into a snare when they take on Rushdoony's intellect. The man is deceased and he is still able to demonstrate the folly of his opponents. Rushdoony continues:
In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to tolerate all things because the unbeliever will tolerate nothing; it means life on the unbeliever's terms. It means that Biblical order is denied existence, because all things must be levelled downward. (ibid., 295)
Ah, there it is -- the trap. Can you hear the hoq squealing? Rushdoony snags yet another unprepared critic!
He's right. The unbeliever refuses to tolerate anything outside of his worldview -- specifically, the Christian. The unbeliever wants to deny existence to the Biblical order. He's radically intolerant yet accuses the Christian of intolerance. And, whereas Rushdoony exhorts the Christian to charity despite his intolerance the unbeliever has no obligatory ethic. He can only whine.
Tolerance is tied to the idea of separation and segregation -- something the "white" unbeliever practices all the time. In fact, he agrees with Rushdoony in practice, though he decries the doctrine. Rushdoony says:
The religious and moral separation of the believer is thus a basic aspect of Biblical law. Even as segregation from disease is necessary to avoid contagion, so separation from religious and moral evil is necessary to the preservation of true order. (ibid., 294)
As I mentioned, the unbeliever practices this very thing -- especially the white ones. That's why, for instance, many of our critics are not blogging from the ghetto. They "segregate" themselves in safer, middle-class communities where the anglo population tends to be larger. Why? Because, as Rushdoony says, "separation from... moral evil is necessary to the preservation of true order."
That's why I don't live in the ghetto. That's why I don't live in Baghdad either. It tends to breed moral evil. Are there decent people there? I'm sure there are. But I'm not about to invest my family and personal property by dwelling in the community. I'm sure the living spaces are cheaper in the ghetto, but I'll probably get what I pay for.
I'd love to see the ghetto change. I'm glad that churches work there to bring change. There's a long road to haul though. Until that time, all of us practice a form of segregation. We separate from moral evil -- or what we consider moral evil -- and congregate with those of like faith and culture. However, this segregation does not mean I am now free to do evil or defraud those I separate from. That would be a violation of God's law. In fact, I must grant grace and charity when it is called for. It doesn't mean we all have to live together.
I've worked hard for the living comfort of my family, and I bear no guilt for it. But if wisdom is proved by her actions than I must work hard to preserve that well being. My daughter can play outside without threat because of what my hands -- and God's power -- have provided for her. This is segregation. I am avoiding communities where moral evil is rampant.
As I drive down the roads of my town I see rows of lovely homes, manicured lawns, and orderly families that watch diligently over their playing children while respecting the property of their neighbor. This is order. This is the influence of a Biblical world and life view. It's safe for my family and conducive to preserving my heritage and creed. But, the intolerant seek to deny me this way of thinking. There efforts at "thought police" are to drag my name through the mud as a racist or bigot because they possess no law to force me out of my "gated community."
Forced busing is an example. Socialists will use the force of legislation to create their idyllic utopia by relocating children outside of the communities their parents labored to provide them. It's a new form of segregation: forcing separation from one's own community. Yet, the socialist sees it as "integration." It's not. It's a radical reductionism. It's intolerance of Biblical order and is rightly resisted by hard working families nationwide.
Now, Rushdoony did not mention "race" in this portion on tolerance and segregation but smart people should recognize that race often makes the difference. Acknowledging that fact -- which we all do -- is not racism... it's realism! I applaud black and hispanic leaders who work to transform the inner-city. They'll do a much better job than I ever could. But avoiding the issue because of fear the "race card" might be dealt only delays the repairing of our truncated society. Honesty is the best policy.
Rushdoony was right. The intolerance of the unbeliever will "reduce society to its lowest common denominator." Socialists place faith in the messianic state and messiah's need people to save. Those communities rampant with crime, drugs, sex, and violence are the utopia of the guilt-ridden bleeding heart. But, like the rich young ruler the secularist must sell all his possessions and move downtown to avoid hypocrisy and contradiction. Otherwise shut his mouth.
