Five Point Calvinism represents an important development of the implications of God's sovereignty and is in this respect in the mainstream of theological development. However, contemporary Five Point Calvinism has reduced the faith too often to these abstractions and lost all the power and vitality of Calvinism on the social scene; it does not speak to the problems of the day. (Rushdoony, Systematic Theology Vol. II, p.669)
If you want to know what separates Christian Reconstruction from every other reformed group, it's applied Calvinism. For example, when you examine the numerous writers of a reconstructionist persuasion you see very little on reformed dogmatics. The exception would be Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who left us with untold hours of lectures on the reformed faith, including a chapter-by-chapter discourse on Calvin's Institutes. Yet, on the whole, most reconstructionists breathe their Calvinism through the conduit of application. They're more interested in constructing the type of civilization Calvin envisioned, than pursuing a concrete definition as to how God can be sovereign, yet man responsible.
But, this is the essence of Calvinism, is it not? Is not the heart of the reformed faith the building of the Christian commonwealth? Isn't that the thesis that fueled the passionate drive of the early Puritans? Or, were they simply content to perpetually debate infra-lapsarianism? I think not. But, don't take my word for it. Richard Tarnas, professor of philosophy and psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, wrote a concise summary of Calvin's worldview from an outsider's perspective:
With Calvin, a Christian's worldly vocation was to be pursued with spiritual and moral fervor in order to realize the Kingdom of God on earth. The world was to be regarded not as the inevitable expression of God's will, to be passively accepted in pious submission, but rather as the arena in which man's urgent religious duty was to fulfill God's will through questioning, and changing every aspect of life, every social and cultural institution, in order to help bring about the Christian commonwealth. (Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding The Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View, p.245)
Tarnas gets it, even if WTS and RTS don't. In fact, some instructors within these institutions are sporting an unhealthy alliance with certain aspects of contemporary cultural decadence. If not that, they stumble over the stumbling block of theological inquiry. This is no slight to the study of theology, but study for study sake is no calling. Theology is not an end in itself, it's a means to an end. It's the primary means to Christian social action:
It is a serious mistake to see theology as an academic exercise. The word theology means God's word; it begins with the presupposition that Scripture is the word of God, and the duty of the theologian is to understand it and to apply it to every area of life and thought. Theology belongs in the pulpit, the school, the work-place, the family, and everywhere. Society as a whole is weakened when theology is neglected. Without a systematic application of theology, too often people approach the Bible with a smorgasbord mentality, picking and choosing that which pleases them.... For me theology means the total mandate of God through His word. What I have written only scratches the surface; it is an introduction to the subject, and it is written to move men to faith and action. (R.J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p.xv, xvi)
This is my great concern for young seminarians, and why I ain't one! Within the halls of higher learning discussions bend toward the abstract. It's only after the graduates hit the mission field, or the pastorate, that they realize Vos' biblio-theological method was interesting, but more of a backdrop. When they were in school, it was all they thought about. That's fine, so long as the future ministers are aware that numerous transitions lie ahead. Better they prepare for Christian action now then get run over by a deadbeat congregation still sitting in a hundred year-old church building atop a community now teeming with humanism and a compromised Christianity.
Herein lieth the purpose for Christian Reconstruction: applied Calvinism. It's the recognition that since God is wholly other, and superintends all things through creation and providence, then we are dependent upon His infallible revelation as creatures a part and distinct from His eternal being. And, knowing that the primary intent of His written revelation is to teach us "what we are to believe about Him, and what it is He requires us to do" (WCF Larger Catechism, Q.6), then we must move beyond abstract discussions of His anomalies and move ourselves to Christian action. We have spent much time on the first aspect of the catechism in determining what we believe about Him. Now let us discuss what it is He requires us to do.
I am thankful, therefore, for the work of reconstructionist authors and leaders that have helped set me on the path of productivity. I have certainly not arrived, but thank God, I've left!
Christian Educators and Gay Activists... Perfect Together?
When St. Paul asked, "What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (II Cor. 6:14), he might have been talking about the new partnership between the Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) and GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
The Christian Educators have collaborated with GLSEN to produce a document, "Public Schools and Sexual Orientation: A First Amendment Framework for Finding Common Ground." Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy (AFA Law Center), has been the first to sound the alarm bell over this (see the Agape Press article).
The reason for this extraordinary action by the Christian Educators cannot be fathomed by reading their cryptic public statement on the matter. Although no one is saying so, the deal appears to be a simple trade-off: Let us have our student Bible clubs, and you can have your Gay-Straight Alliance clubs without us complaining. Of course, since the homosexual clubs are already in the schools, and there's nothing the Christian Educators can do to get rid of them, it's not even a good trade-off.
GLSEN is to pushing "the gay lifestyle" in schools what Microsoft is to computers. GLSEN has set up thousands of Gay-Straight Alliances in public schools all over the country. Under the leadership of its founder, avowed homosexual and former "educator" Kevin Jennings, GLSEN has become notorious for its campaign to sell teenagers on the benefits of erotic anarchy.
This being a G-rated blog, a detailed description of GLSEN's agenda will not be reproduced here. But the Internet is awash with documentation of GLSEN's infamy. As an introduction to GLSEN and its founder, we recommend "GLSEN and Its Influence on Children" (http://www.narth.com/docs/glsen.html). It makes for pretty strong reading, but you need to learn what GLSEN is all about. If there were an enemy country we wished to destroy, not only medically but spiritually, we could do no better than to infiltrate GLSEN into its school system.
The Christian Educators seem to be in need of education about GLSEN.
For those who still argue that Christian parents should keep their children in the public schools to be "salt and light," the Christian Educators' lining up with GLSEN is the utter refutation of that argument. The public schools are GLSEN's happy hunting ground, and America's children are its prey.
While whiney liberals drone on about how Judge Roy Moore is such a major threat to a free America--because of his alleged theocratic political aims--the Alabama gubernatorial candidate is raising flags against tyranny in his own state.
I've never seen so many examples of government officials, families, and celebrities speaking out against the present despotism in America. Stars like Charlie Sheen are questioning the official story of 9-11, and noble men like Roy Moore are scrutinizing the new cases of mad cow disease. But, it seems most Americans are numb to the encroaching totalitarianism, and equally blind to the growing surveillance society. And yet, through it all, the president keeps talking "freedom." Yea, well, freedom for whom?
The church has the primary responsibility "to speak truth to power." It is our prophetic obligation. Although the nature of prophetic ministry changed in the first century, we are still in need of prophetic ministry. Not the foretelling espoused by contemporary charismatic gurus, but covenant proclamations by anointed spokespersons for Biblical law:
The inspired, predictive role of the prophet ended in Christ; the duty of the prophet to proclaim God's word to church, state, and all of life remains. It was the duty of God's prophets and Levites to declare God's word to all men, to reprove kings and governors, and to "accredit" or refuse to certify in terms of God's law-word, the things of this world, including the state. (Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction, p.20)
Rather than rebuke the state for it's radical pursuit of totalitarianism, the Religious Right is a strange bedfellow of the contemporary GOP. Whereas "old-school" conservatism represented small government and personal responsibility, today's Republican advocates massive state expansion in both entitlements and national security. Sometimes I wonder if protestant leaders can even spell "t-y-r-a-n-n-y."
Judge Moore is lifting his voice because he represents both traditional conservatism and Biblical law. For this he's hated. While many conservative Christians stand beside his advocacy of the Ten Commandments as America's moral foundation they are unable to connect the dots politically. The state is stealing, bearing false witness, promoting another God, murdering, and coveting private property. Yet many Christians are oblivious to statist sin because they're busy "bootlicking" the administration--they heard the president reads Oswald Chambers! Until our leaders are reading Calvin, Dabney, and Rushdoony they are still heathen in my mind. Ideas have consequences.
So, where are the prophets? Especially the reformed prophets? Calvinistic professors are introverted in their theological academic focus. Young seminarians are boasting of the latest thing they've learned from Vos and Berkhof. While many others are swooning over the rediscovered "Jesus" of N.T. Wright, and the redefinition of justification. Compounding this is the incessant dialogue with "contemporary culture." Oh boy, Christian hip-hop! How long before we get a Christian Brokeback Mountain? I could see the ads now, "Christian Worldview Conference: Rethinking Gomorrah."
Much of this is due to humanistic foundations. This was made apparent to me recently when an 18 year-old Christian girl was perplexed by my comments regarding homosexual culture. She said she could understand God's condemnation of bestiality and pedophilia, but struggled with Him condeming gays. I told her, "now you know how the devil works."
Humanism is redefining ethics for the modern Christian. Christian children are easy prey because a fair majority spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, in the philosophically immoral public school system. In addition, they are not trained in God's law by their parents nor intellectually prepared for cultural confrontation -- parents prefer acclimation to confrontation. These children then attend weekly services in churches that serve a steady diet of greasy grace and sloppy agape. The once great faith has been reduced to the "gospel of Dr. Phil."
We are headed for trying times. Humanism has undermined the larger Christian community with liberation theology. When nearly half of all Christian men are experimenting with pornography there arises the need for creative self-justification. Therefore, if a good many of our church leaders are themselves guilty of perversion, they are tempted to comport with the plight of homosexual culture. Then, both the heathen and the Christian communities will unite against Biblical Christianity and it's advocacy of Biblical law. This was always the goal of the Marquis de Sade, as Rushdoony notes:
"Sade thus is the most modern of men. He is ahead of these liberated people in that he openly vindicated murder and all other offenses. If there be no God and no fall, then nature is normative, Sade held, and nothing can be called a sin or a crime, and all things are permitted except Christianity. The world will soon catch up with Sade, unless it abandons its humanistic foundations." (Rushdoony,Noble Savages: Exposing the Worldview of Pornographers and Their War Against Christian Civilization, p.5)
How shall this be resisted? God has chosen the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1:21), but we lack a sufficient number of prophetic preachers. Today's pastor wants to be cool. Today's preacher wants to be perceived as "successful." At the end of the day it's church attendance and the mailing list that rules. That's why we need tent-making ministers, like Paul, who would rather preach the gospel faithfully than be compromised as a servant of man. When you pay your own way then you can say what you please. When the people pay your salary you are enslaved to their whims. And the people want pop-psychology, not Calvinism. They prefer the watery mixture of universal acceptance and religious toleration to the responsibilities of an uncompromising faith.
OPC Pastor G.I. Williamson has provided some honest, inciteful questions, and some friendly advice concerning the theonomy ("law of God") conundrum. The following are exerpts from his article published in New Horizons in 1994:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2Tim. 3:16, NASB). By "all Scripture," Paul meant the Old Testament, including the whole Law of Moses. It follows, therefore, that Old Testament laws have permanent value. It was for this reason that Calvin, in his commentary on the five books of Moses, showed how every "case law" taught an abiding principle. He did this by arranging all of these laws under one or another of the Ten Commandments. He showed how each of them helps us understand the intent and meaning -- and proper application -- of the ten central commandments.
I remain convinced that the Reformer was essentially right. I don't think he was always right, or that he necessarily organized every case law under its proper heading (some could arguably be placed under a different commandment). But he has convinced me that there is an abiding principle in every Old Testament case law. In my opinion, the theonomists deserve credit here. They are trying to do in our generation what John Calvin did in his.
You can read more of Pastor G.I. Williamson's insights on Doug's blog.
To these, I'd like to add the basic question that the Christian non-theonomist need answer honestly. If not theonomy, then what? The only answer is autonomy (law-of-man), for any mixture of the two places authority in man to decide who is to compromise on what; the result of which is, in the end, autonomy.
If final authority rests in finite, subjective man then it will rest in either individualistic man (which leads to total anarchy as each man is his own god) or in collective man in the form of the state (which leads to totalitarianism). Both forms of autonomy are a death to freedom and liberty and both deny the God of the Bible.
"Those who denounce God's authority as the ground of coercion and tyranny always end up with a social order which, in the name of reason, institutes the most drastic tyranny and coercion men can force upon society." (R.J. Rushdoony, Salvation and Godly Rule, p. 47.)
When you ask the average Christian to name any of the Ten Commandments the standard response is, "love the Lord your God," or, "love your neighbor." Yet, neither of those are featured in the Ten Commandments. The same can be said of the Constitution. Ask the average American to cite any portion of the Constitution and you'll now hear, "separation of church and state!" But, that phrase is also not featured in the founding document. Although, some would argue that the idea is found in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
This idea is exaggerated by secularists. I would agree that there is a nebulous of collusion between Religious Right organizations and the GOP, but the creation of outrage by critics is not helpful in resolving the issue. Like most on the Left, they can tell us what they oppose, but are shallow on solutions. That's typical of reactionaries.
The abuse of some on the Religious Right now taints anyone bearing the label "Christian Conservative." But this is only because the secularists have painted with too broad a brush. Now a simple prayer at a football game is a strategic step to dominion. Start a Christian "anything" and you're labeled a dominionist, and therefore linked to a national conspiracy.
Secularists make much of the separation of church and state yet overlook basic issues of religion. Although harping back to the Constitution, they still miss many significant issues regarding the Christian view of the state.
The Religious Nature of Life
Life is inescapably religious, and religion is a system of faith or worship. Abiding within the concept of "faith" is the idea of infallibility. This is important to note since many on the secular Left espouse to be Christians. A good many of those reject the doctrine of inerrancy, or an infallible Word of God. But, infallibility is unavoidable, or inescapable, as Rushdoony often states:
The doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture can be denied, but the concept of infallibility as such cannot be logically denied. Infallibility is an inescapable concept. If men refuse to ascribe infallibility to Scripture, it is because the concept has been transferred to something else. (Rushdoony, Systematic Theology Vol. 1, p.2)
Modern man transfers infallibility to his own reason and elevates himself as supreme judge. Man's reason is perfect, inerrant, and infallible. Although a man may err in an equation, the mistake does not abrogate the infallibility of reason. This is humanism. It's the ascribing of ultimate authority to man and his infallible word.
In this sense, life is inescapably religious. The issue is not whether or not religion should be in marketplace, but "whose" religion will dominate the marketplace? The humanist claims to use reason in his dismissal of the inerrant Scriptures, yet he never questions the integrity of his reason. Reason is untouchable because reason is infallible. For example, it is perfectly "reasonable" that an all-powerful God could preserve a perfect written revelation, but the humanist denies this as a possibility. That would open the door to a competing god.
Modern man, therefore, begs the question by assuming what he's trying to prove. Christians do this as well. Everyone does. It's inescapable. However, as Van Til has noted, the circular reasoning of the Christian is not "viciously so."
To admit one's own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting point, the method and the conclusion are always involved in one another. (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p.118)
The reasoning of unbelieving man is vicious because it begins with finite man -- from which infallibility does not logically flow. The Christian reasons from God to God where infallibility is an attribute of the infinite Creator. Rushdoony understood this well:
All reasoning is either from God to God-given and God-interpreted facts, or from man to man-made interpretations of brute factuality. All reasoning is circular, but man refuses to admit of the circularity of his reasoning because he assumes that an infinite and exhaustive view of things is possible to himself, that he can, in other words, reason like God rather than as a man. (Rushdoony, By What Standard?, p.29)
Church and State?
Rushdoony argued that "the term 'church and state' simply serves to obscure rather than present the problem." He described it as a "now obsolete imperial papal debate." The medieval issue of "church and state" was not Christianity versus some form of paganism, "but who should have predominance and priority in the control and maintenance of a Christian social order." (Rushdoony, Christianity and the State, p.6)
This is not the problem today since there is no longer a Christian social order to regulate. "In no historic sense is the ancient struggle between Church and State for priority in a social order a problem in modern society." (ibid.) He continues:
[I]ncreasingly, religious liberty is being replaced by religious toleration. The difference is very important. Religious liberty has meant, historically, the freedom of the church and of the believer in his worship from state control and jurisdiction. It has meant that the state cannot interfere in a sphere where it has no authority nor jurisdiction any more than it can interfere with the internal affairs of a foreign power. Religious toleration has meant that the state claims the right to govern and control religion and to declare which church or which religion has the right to exist. Religious toleration places the power in the hands of the state. (ibid.)
To tout a separation of church and state is to position the present dilemma on the wrong footing. The modern issue is one of "religion and the state." Rushdoony elaborates:
[T]he real issue is not between church and state, but is simply this: the state as a religious establishment has progressively disestablished Christianity as its law foundation, and, while professing neutrality, has in fact established humanism as the religion of the state... The basic reason, however, has been the theological collapse of the churches..." (ibid. p.7)
The present debate does not hinge upon church and state competing for corporate control of America -- it is Christianity versus secular humanism. The doctrine of the state is devoutly humanistic and it advocates control and limited expression for Biblical Christianity and it's binding faith. Notice I said, "Biblical Christianity." The state is quite fond of conservative evangelicalism and its sophmoric constituency. The groupthink of the Religious Right has provided neoconservatives with massive national support. How else could moral zealots like the Religious Right rant about Intelligent Design and yet remain quiet as a church mouse on eminent domain, torture, domestic surveillance, and the secrecy of the executive branch?
Therefore, it is NOT mainstream Christianity which the humanistic state seeks to oppress. It's those who advocate Biblical law as the foundation of the human social order. That's why Dobson is dined and Judge Moore is disregarded. The difference between them is law. Dobson caters to the GOP's platform of "values" while Roy Moore points to the Ten Commandments.
The founding fathers assumed a Christian social order. That was not a mandate for church attendance. Early America was essentially Christian and therefore the Constitutional writers sought to fetter the state from establishing religion or prohibiting its exercise. Yet, the modern state has established the religion of humanism, and absorbed a theologically weak evangelicalism as its bedfellow. As Judge Moore was cast down from his Alabama seat so also will the state seek to prohibit the exercise of Biblical Christianity. This will be done in clear violation of the First Amendment, and the separation of Church and State will be stepped over as blatantly as Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
The next General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA will be asked to ratify a report that seems to take liberties with biblical language and doctrine. See "Trinity paper invites female view of Trinity" by John Adams in The Layman Online, http://www.layman.org/layman/news/2006-news/trinity-paper-invites-female-view.htm .
It seems some PCUSA ministers are uncomfortable with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and would prefer to speak in terms of "Mother, Child, and Womb." The ten authors of the report are mostly feminists or men who have urged their church to affirm homosexual relationships. As described by Mr. Adams, their report contains a great deal of shilly-shallying that boils down to one thing--they don't like God's word the way it is.
At the rate the PCUSA is driving members out of its fold, you'd think they'd want to stop doing it while there were still a few people left in the denomination. Besides feminists and gay activists, I mean. Mr. Adams, who has taken on the depressing job of monitoring his denomination's vital signs, has admitted (in a conversation with me) that the prognosis is not good.
Since the days of Tyndale, and the invention of the printing press, it's no good pretending certain things are in the Bible when anyone can open it up and see they're not. Feminist theology is one of those things. It's poisoning those denominations who indulge in it.
I've been tied up recently with numerous deadlines, projects, and meetings; and, therefore, unable to post anything of significance lately. Today is no exception. HOWEVER, I do have some images to show you.
I was recently "hanging out" in Rushdoony's massive personal library. Mark Rushdoony and I were escorting a film crew recording a documentary that includes an examination of R. J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon, and Christian Reconstruction. I took advantage of the moment to snap a few photos to provide you with a little perspective on the size of Rush's study. Here's a shot of Mark standing in the library.
There's no way to take a wide shot, so I photographed each of the five long rows of bookshelves, and pieced them together to convey the breadth and depth of his personal collection. Bear in mind that there were floor-to-ceiling shelves lining the entire back wall at the end of the bookshelves, and more shelves behind me from where I was shooting. Unreal.
While standing in between the cramped shelves, I told Mark I wanted to get a shot of one of the insides of a book to show you some of Rush's personal indexing. Mark said, "well, we just have to look." The first volume he grabbed was highlighted and indexed. Did I expect anything less?
This particular book shows Rush's personal index, and what you can't see is that he usually wrote the date and location of the reading. In this instance the book was read in Santa Cruz, CA in 1961.
Rushdoony had read the majority of the books in this library. He then wrote upwards of 50 books and monographs -- several of the books being massive themselves.
This is why I'm always astonished at the sheer disrespect shown this tireless scholar. Agree or disagree, you need to show respect for his work ethic. He bore a giant intellect, a profound memory, impeccable writing skills, and incredible analytical acumen. Critics dismiss him in the harshest terms, yet he could easily undo their most complex positions. It takes more than a "theocracy watch" or critical liberal blogger to contend with the prolific work of R. J. Rushdoony. But they keep trying.
You'd think the only people left to defend the public schools today would be teachers' unions, gay activists, politicians supported by teachers' unions and gay activists, and persons who are abysmally uninformed. So it's with some astonishment that we find a Baptist pastor upholding Big Education and voicing his "Concern About the 'Exodus' Movement" (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=7091).
Ed Hogan, pastor of Jersey Village Baptist Church, Houston, Texas, doesn't like home schooling. He says it's because a) proponents of alternative education just want to scarf up the "huge dollars at stake," b) anyone who wants to pull his kids out of the public schools is probably a racist, and c) home-schooling parents teach their children to be intolerant--which would never, never happen if they went to public schools.
Mr. Hogan's wife is a public school teacher, so he can't claim ignorance--although his article does reveal a comprehensive lack of knowledge about home schooling. So why does he say what he says?
First, he has a personal and professional vested interest in the public schools--and I don't mean just his wife's paycheck. No one wants to admit he's totally on the wrong side of an issue, and working for a bad cause. Some, like Mr. Hogan, will probably never admit it.
Second, by his pre-emptive play of the race card--ignoring the fact that the fastest-growing demographic in home education is black families, and that the widest support for school vouchers is in the black community (how could he ignore that?)--Mr. Hogan tips his hand, politically.
Hogan wrote his piece for Ethics Daily, a solid Religious Left publication. See their "Talk to Action" website (http://talk2action.org/).
These are the folks who are delusional. They claim that their incredible shrinking denominations represent mainstream Christianity in America. Their definition of "mainstream Christian values" includes abortion, gay rights, feminism, confiscatory taxes, an all-powerful federal government, and hysterical fears of an impending "theocracy" in an America where The Sopranos dukes it out with Desperate Housewives for the top TV ratings on Sunday night. Now that's delusional.
Without the oceans of money and the hosts of unpaid campaign workers provided by the teachers' unions, liberal politics in America is dead. That's why the Left defends the government schools. To them it doesn't matter how poorly these schools perfrom academically, how many crooked school administrators get caught with their hands in the till, or how many school sex scandals they have to hush up. If the public schools fold, they've had it.
As for Hogan's charge that home schooling "teaches our children to be intolerant," can he really keep a straight face if he denies that public schools have become notorious as vehicles for political indoctrination?
Hogan bemoans "that lack of respect for public educators and what they do."
According to Chuck Baldwin, Pastor and 2004 Constitution Party Vice Presidential candidate,
People need to realize that the Dubai companies are owned and operated by the government of the United Arab Emirates. These are not private corporations. Does everyone understand what is happening? President Bush wants to give port security and the control of at least nine U.S. military facilities to a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
Not since the Carter administration gave away control of the Panama Canal (which was bought and paid for with billions of American dollars and gallons of American blood) has a U.S. President been so blatant and determined to give away sovereign American property to foreign powers! Carter's treachery gave control of the Canal to the Chinese communists. Bush's treachery will give control of several U.S. sea ports and military facilities to Middle Eastern Muslims.
With the apparent death knell of the port deal close at hand (maybe), it seems President Bush is determined to hand something over to the UAE. Read the full article.
In a related article, the UAE seems dismayed "over the rejection by Congress of a proposed takeover by a state-owned company of six major U.S. ports." Interestingly enough, "the main obstacles to an FTA [Free Trade Agreement between the US and the UAE] were Abu Dhabi's restrictions on foreign investments." Seems they want to own us, but do not what anyone owning them. Read the full article.
But what is the real problem? Why should you and I care (other than the fact that other countries are slowly taking control of the US and have been for some time)? The real problem lies with the way we make treaties. Treaties are covenants and therefore are religious in nature. The establishment of treaties with nations of ungodly faiths is a violation of God's Law (Exodus 34:12-16; Exodus 23:31-33; Deuterononomy 7:1-6). And according to Exodus 34:12-16, making such treaties violates the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3).
What is the penalty for violating these laws? The judgment of God. Is there any wonder why it is now more politically correct to be a Muslim than a Christian?
"They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you." (Exodus 23:33)
"We the People" have played the harlot with other gods!
Our prayers must freely confess our sin and foolishness; we must own up to frustration, anger, and doubt. In asking for stronger faith, we ought to acknowledge where we have shown a lack of faith.
Asaph confessed his frustrations in Psalm 73. He poured out his thoughts and feelings to God. As a good confession, though, he did more than say what God wanted him to say. Confession involves an understanding of our error.
Asaph was frustrated. He took the evil around him personally (see vs. 2-16). He admits to being envious of the foolish who seemed to prosper rather than the godly. They seemed to have "more than heart could wish" (v.7). Asaph was bothered that the ungodly seemed immune from the consequences of their own sin. They were corrupt and arrogant (v. 8) and spoke freely against God (v. 9), yet they increased in riches (v. 12). Personally, Asaph was heartsick: "My feet were almost gone, my steps had well nigh slipped" (v.2) and "it was too painful for me" (v. 16).
These words of Asaph are not words of godly wisdom. They are rather his confession of the foolishness of such thinking. In recalling how he thought about the ungodly, he says, "So foolish was I...as a beast..." (v. 22).
Asaph's words were his personal reaction to evil. Like an animal that thinks first of its own needs, Asaph had a false perspective, a limited viewpoint.
What pulled Asaph out of the spiritual dumps? It happened when he went into the sanctuary of God (v. 17). Then, he said, he understood. In the temple, it was clear that God was central. There Asaph remembered that sin was against God, not him. He re-evaluated his perspective. Once Asaph refocused on the primacy of God, he saw not the prosperity of the wicked but their certain destruction (vs. 18-19). He was grieved by his foolishness in focusing on sinners rather than God. He had previously erred in seeing sin from a human perspective -- they are evil but they prosper; I am righteous but I suffer; I am discouraged.
In the sanctuary the centrality of God was apparent. Asaph's epiphany was in realizing that He is always central despite man's limited perspective. It was not Asaph's any more than it is our place to feel indignant or frustrated over offenses against God. He is in charge and the pride of the wicked in their evil should only confirm to us the certainty of their judgment.
Sin is not against us, so we must get beyond personal frustration. What must be personal is our own responsibility to righteousness. Realizing that God governs all keeps us from focusing on the evil and gives us peace. We must learn, with Asaph, that we must let God be the Judge of the wicked. It is not for us to be indignant at evil because the wicked never for a moment escape God.
'Point of View" Radio Show Devotes a Week to Exposing Public Education
We hope there aren't many Chalcedon readers left who believe in public education. But there are probably a lot of you who have family and friends who've left their kids in public school and won't believe a word you say when you tell them that they shouldn't. After all, things can't possibly be that bad... Frustrating, isn't it?
The Point of View talk radio show has devoted their entire programming this week to an expose of public education. For you that means 15 hours' worth of ammunition you can use to try to break down the wall of denial. There's no charge; all you have to do is listen on your computer. Go to http://pointofview.net/ and listen to experts like E. Roy Moore Jr. (Exodus Mandate), Robert Knight (Concerned Women for America), and many others slice and dice the government schools. You can also read articles by John Stossel (the teachers' unions are very mad at him for his recent ABC-TV documentary, "Stupid in America") and others.
Here at Chalcedon we've spent 40 years telling our fellow Christians to pull their children out of public education. It seems like everybody you talk to thinks, yeah, sure, home schooling would be great, but has some ironclad reason why his own kids have to stay in public school, at least for now.
But home education is growing fast, and Point of View can give you a lot of the reasons why. The shows are in a conversation format with live phone calls from the audience. Tune in to learn how the pros make the point.
A New Jersey State Assemblyman has introduced a bill that would, if it were by some mischance enacted into law, choke off political speech on the Internet. For the text of the bill, see http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_l1.HTM .
Bill A-1327 would require operators of computer services and Internet service providers to keep track of the names and addresses of every person posting messages on their public forums, and to provide this information to anyone who can claim he was damaged by false information published on the site. In other words: No more anonymous postings! (And never mind that the New Jersey Supreme Court has already ruled it unconstitutional to ban anonymous speech online.)
The bill does not define terms like "false or defamatory messages"; it just makes them illegal. So if you set up a blog or a website, you've got to take the name and address of everybody who posts a message on it--greatly increasing your operating costs--and then hand it over to anyone who says he was damaged by a message and wants to sue the writer. If you fail to provide that information, you'll be in hot water, legally.
Does anyone in government anymore take the least trouble to learn the Constitution, let alone abide by it? And we can hardly expect them to understand the Internet, can we?
If A-1327 were to become law (and get a pass from the Supreme Court), the 21st century equivalent of The Federalist Papers would never see the light of day. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay published their columns anonymously in various newspapers; today they'd probably post them on the Web.
These columns played a key role in convincing voters to ratify the Constitution, but without the shield of anonymity, they might not have been written. (The writers would have been accused of having a conflict of interest.) Throughout history, anonymous essays and pamphlets have always played a part in shaping public opinion.
Without that shield, a blogger might think twice about accusing a powerful individual of wrongdoing. Under A-1327, all an aggrieved party has to do is claim he was injured; he doesn't have to prove it. And having made the claim, and gotten the writer's name and address, he'll be free to take action to silence him.
What forms such actions might take, we'd rather not find out.
Under the new law, abortion would only be allowed to save the life of the mother: given today's medical technology, virtually never. No exception would be made for rape or incest.
The law will not be enacted until court challenges are resolved. This one's probably on the fast track to the Supreme Court.
There is much ado about culture. Godly culture, ungodly culture, white culture, black culture, and hip-hop culture. Yes, I had to throw that one in there. We are inundated with hip-hop culture. Millions of dollars are thrown at these no-talent lyricists and they respond by flooding our national community with images of their arrogant flaunting of ostentatious "bling-bling." My son asked me in jest the other day, "Hey, Dad, what does candy and music have in common? You gotta throw out the wrappers!"
Culture is usually defined as the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group. Taken from the Latin it essentially means to cultivate, grow, or develop. One cannot ignore, however, the idea of "cult," and rightfully so. The Latin cultus means to worship, and these tangible expressions across the horizon of society (i.e., our culture) reflect not only what we worship, but that which we believe (i.e., our faith).
This is why I still agree with Dr. Henry Van Til's definition that "culture is religion externalized" (See The Calvinist Concept of Culture). Though at base there is a corruption in the religious outlook of modern man the cultural manifestations serve to reinforce those core beliefs in a vicious loop of a never-ending tune.
The Worship of CULTure
Culture is a buzzword and ministries stumble over themselves to cater to it. It's their pursuit of relevance that distorts the Biblical idea of engaging a fallen world. The foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1:21) is by no means a license for Christian boy bands or Strippers for Christ. That is not the meaning of foolishness.
The foolishness of preaching is intended to both "confound the wise" (1 Cor. 1:27) and "DESTROY the wisdom of the wise" (v. 19). Preaching was foolish because it lacked the apparent wisdom sought by the Greeks and avoided the sign-power demanded by the Jews (v. 22). Preaching was to be without worldly wisdom. In other words, God did not need Paul to "dress up" the gospel "with the wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect" (v. 17).
Yet, today's minister exhausts his (or her!) resources by remaking the gospel in the image of contemporary CULTure. The result: the cross is made of no effect. Oh sure, people might be raising their hands in the altar but the future will prove if "affliction or persecution... the deceitfulness of riches, and the lust of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful" (Mk. 4:17, 19).
Seeker CULTure
Modern ministers love to get their hands on the gospel. They enjoy dressing it up in the wares of modern culture. Everybody knows that sinners respond better to Starbucks in the vestibule, big screens in the sanctuary, and a thumpin' band on the stage. In addition, the newspeak removal of redemptive keywords from contemporary Christian parlance is designed to "help" postmodern sissies embrace an otherwise "bloody" gospel of Christ. Like Zipporah (Ex. 4:25) these seeker pastors of postmodernity are casting the crimson stained foreskins at the feet of Christ declaring, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me."
What these seeker shepherds are incapable of recognizing is that however you usher in the postmodern convert is the way you must sustain them for the duration of their walk. Meaning, if you bring them into the Kingdom with espresso, plasma screens, shorts and sandals, and no serious commitment, then you CANNOT introduce, later on, the kind of radical commitment Christianity demands. They'll walk on you and head straight for the Emergent Church. God help us.
The CULTure of the New Rome
This is the conduct of life in the new Rome. We are wading in the culture of death and we are awash in the symbols, arts, and institutions of death. Much like ancient Rome and Greece we worship the personified ideals of the mythological heroes. Only now those heroes are celebrities.
Celebrities advise us on politics, life, marriage, taste, and economics. Daily they sit on the multitude of Oprah-like talk shows sharing with us mortals how "human" they really are and that they encounter similar psychological setbacks as the impoverished populace. Americans listen with stupified gullibility.
Like ancient Rome the average citizen of today's city-state is drawn by lust to the modern coliseum. The desire for base carnal entertainments are the traits of a people who think their empire is secure and the rest of the world worships Caesar as they do. It is false security and it dulls their minds to circumspect living and serious thinking.
Today's coliseum in which we are all gathered is the television. Day and night millions congregate around the tube to watch the reality competitions and see who will be the new gladiator in music, relationships, or business. The West has fallen in love with Caesar's entertainments and their blood-lust screams for more.
The Response of the Church
And what has been the response to this nonsensical culture? What has the church, whom providence has granted a national platform, proclaimed to this culture of death?
Rank individualism of the grossest kind. It is the celebration of the self. An exaltation of man from the result of his sin through an encouraging word. Much like spraying Lysol on a mound of manure. Joel Osteen is saturating America with a book entitled Your Best Life Now and Rick Warren is setting record sales with The Purpose-Driven Life. It is solely by the grace of God that I do not own a copy of either book. Although to be fair Warren's book is still a far cry from Osteen's self-absorbed doctrines. But then again that's like saying "I'm the best sinner that ever went to hell."
God the Cultivator
One need not read much of the Bible to see the constant reference of agrarian analogies to describe the work of God in history. This is because God portrays the history of man and his religious task as akin to soil and land. The word that God repeatedly sends to man is likened to sowing seed in the ground. In addition, the priesthood of God's nation is given the task of caretaker and expected to deliver the "fruits" of God's investment. This is Christ's point in Matthew 21:33-46 where God is likened to a householder who establishes a vineyard and lends it out to husbandmen before He departs to a far country.
In the parable the householder sends servants when the time of harvest drew near. Yet the husbandmen repeatedly beat and stone each dispatch sent by the householder. Eventually He sends His son which the husbandmen assassinate in order to steal the Son's inheritance.
Today's husbandmen betray a strange resemblance to these ancient caretakers. They likewise do not acknowledge that they labor for another's inheritance. The fruit does not belong to them. It is the property of the householder, and He's promised it to His Son. We are merely hired hands given a responsibility to make sure that harvest is full, healthy, and delivered on time.
Our harvest is weak and sickly. The manifestations of modern culture -- it's fruit -- are not what the householder desires. And like the Israelite headship of old today's popular leader scorns the servants of God that are sent to them.
Give Him What He Wants
God desires a new culture -- that which arises out of the Christian faith. He planted seeds as the sower and He expects a hundred-fold return. What He's getting from us is instead weeds and thistles. The kingdom, He said, was to become a great tree to fill the whole earth (Mark 4:30-32). This is the culture He desires. One which leads to His rule and not the pluralistic compromise with fallen man's refusal to give up his sinful pursuits.
Modern man must not be catered to, he must be countered. He needs revelation, not relevance. The church has granted the sinner openness and not opposition. Yes, man must be engaged. He must be commanded to repent:
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." (Acts. 17:30)
So, why do we continue to "wink" at modern man's ignorance? What friendship is there between Christ and Belial? I'd rather stand before God and risk Him saying I was too firm rather than too weak and compromising. Grant me, O God, the same "business card" as that of Elijah:
"As the Lord of Host liveth, before whom I stand." (1Kings 17:1)
I don't stand before men when I stand before men! In the presence of Ahab, an earthly king, Elijah insults the paper monarchy by acknowledging that the prophet stands perpetually before the King of the Universe. We must walk in that same awareness. I don't stand before 50 Cent, Eninem, Oprah, Bush, or Michael Jordan. I stand before God and command every man every where to repent. I cannot pluck the fruit; I must sever the root. Today's culture of death must be unearthed at the level of it's faith, not approached wearing the same bling-bling and spouting an equal knowledge of pop-culture parlance.
From the featured article in the March/April issue of Faith for All of Life...
By the 1980s the dynamics of the mega-church challenged the way pastors approached their clerical office. The early church was analogous to the family, but the modern church saw more similarity with the corporation. Senior pastors became CEOs, churches started hiring comptrollers and administrators, and church secretaries became executive assistants. Though the Apostle Paul sought church elders who could "manage their own households well" (1 Tim. 3:4-5), today's church demotes domestic credentials by courting those who can "manage their own businesses well." Read this article...
Thanks to a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, pro-life demonstrators can stage protests outside abortion clinics without having to worry about being charged with racketeering.
After 20 years and three separate trips to the Supreme Court, pro-life activist Joseph Scheidler and Operation Rescue are out from under a campaign by the National Organization for Women to silence them and stifle their message. The unanimous ruling removes a nationwide injunction against the pro-life protesters. They can now go back to the clinics and demonstrate against the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies. (For more details about the case, see http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=10217)
Relying mostly on perjury to make their point, your friendly neighborhood feminists at NOW alleged that the demonstrators were "violent," and therefor guilty of "extortion" under the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations). Finally even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court had enough. You know NOW put on a really poor show when Justice Stephen Breyer winds up reading a unanimous decision against them.
For people who always claim to believe in "open debate" and "the free exchange of ideas," NOW and the rest of the American Left have a bad habit of trying to win arguments by jailing, suing, firing, or assaulting their opponents. Heck, why try to win the argument when you can bust the other guy for hate speech, sue him for creating an uncomfortable workplace environment, get him fired for saying something you disagree with, or throwing pies at him when he tries to speak in public?
Is it possible that things are going to change in the court system--I mean, like the judges are going to wake up and realize they're not in Canada? Are John Roberts and Samuel Alito the guys who are going to start rolling down the curtain on 50 years of outrageous judicial activism? Are we going to see the end of NOW, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood dictating to the country through the courts?
Meanwhile, the great State of South Dakota has enacted a near-total ban on abortion (the only exception being to save the life of the mother--and who knows how often that happens in reality?), and maybe, just maybe, a very dark chapter in American history may be coming to an end.
One of the great problems with Pietism is its focus on the inward man. When presented with a Christianity that is about personal salvation, personal blessing, personal joy, and the personal leadings of the Holy Spirit, it is not hard to think, "It's all about me."
The Christian faith is based on the doctrine of justification by grace. Theologically, justification is God's declaration of man's justness, or righteousness, because the atonement of Jesus Christ has been applied to him. Justification, then, begins with the justness or righteousness of God and proceeds to His act of grace to men. It is not about you; it is about the righteousness of a merciful God. Grace emphasizes that though it is not about us, it is for us; it is an act of God that does for us what we cannot as sinners do for ourselves.
We use the term justification in a more common usage as well. We say a man justifies his words or actions; he vindicates his words or actions as proper or right. Even this usage is, at heart, a theological use of justification, for it places it in the realm of an affirmation of morality.
The justified must think and act in terms of the justness or righteousness of God. Those declared righteous by God's act are regenerated so that, by the Holy Spirit, they are empowered to be the righteous people of God. God makes us the righteous and then enables us to live righteously.
Justification is not a theological abstraction. It is a legal status to which we are first called and then empowered. The term justification only appears in the Authorized Version three times. The term justified is used another 39 times and just, 87. The term righteous, however, is used 225 times and righteousness, 289 times. The emphasis, clearly, is on our understanding of what is just and righteous; it is not on the personal joy of being one of the justified. The just of God must understand and desire that which is just and righteous.
Psychologically, salvation for man means more than acquittal: it means adoption, the confidence of the sons of God, and the ability to face the problems of the world in terms of the law of God and in the power of the Holy Ghost. For man, justification means transfer from a death cell to a room in the royal mansion: this is its effect. Theologically, the term justification means to acquit and to declare legally righteous; it has reference to a judicial fact, a juridical transaction which is strictly separate from its psychological consequences. A judicial pronouncement of sentence always affects us strongly, but the sentence and its effect are two separate facts although inseparably linked. [Rushdoony, R. J. Salvation and Godly Rule (Vallecito, California: Ross House Books, 2004), 340.]
Pietistic religion emphasizes "what’s in it for me?" Biblical religion emphasizes what God expects of us as the regenerated, righteous people of God.
At the end of His Sermon on the Mount, Christ gives two illustrations of the Christian life. One is of a tree bearing fruit. It is expected to bear good fruit. The purpose of the tree is not to feel blessedness and joy because it is God's tree; its purpose is to be productive as God's tree. A second illustration is that of building a house. Christ is not a rock from which we are to enjoy the view; He is the rock and foundation on which we are to engage in building. Fruit represents the productivity of a tree for its planter. Building is a development on the basis of a foundation. Christ called us to be doers, to be the just, not only the justified, to be the righteous of God, not only those right with God.
Justification is our legal status as the just or righteous people of God's grace. It is a status, but it is also a call to think and act in terms of the righteousness God has revealed in His Word. Our calling to be the just is not about us; it never is. We are called to bear righteous fruit, to build in terms of the justness of God.
