Bruce Prescott, the blogging liberal of Mainstream Baptist and Talk2Action, has assigned himself the "simple" task of analyzing the "erroneous" thinking of R.J. Rushdoony in his Institutes of Biblical Law. He's not the first one to attempt such an enterprise, nor will he be the last. I expect that his efforts will present no novelty to the discussion; but since he writes to a small, uninformed audience, he need not bother with a careful presentation. The panicked liberal faction will imbibe any critique of the monolithic Christian Right.
In his most recent post, "Presupposing Theocracy," he begins with what he sees as the fundamental starting point of Rushdoony's polemic for Biblical law as the moral and philosophical foundation for social ethics.
After belief in biblical inerrancy, the central beliefs in the Christian Reconstructionist system are the presuppositions 1) that all law is religious in nature and 2) that all governments are founded on an established religion. Both presuppositions are questionable.
Those who are cogently aware of the foundations of Christian Reconstruction will readily see Prescott's misunderstanding of presuppositionalism, and its centrality to our philosophy. Granted, when discussing law it is imperative to demonstrate, as Rushdoony does, the religious nature of law. However, the religious nature of law is not our philosophical starting point. It's the religious nature of life that is the inescapable concept.
Prescott's concerns are the veracity of whether "law is religious in nature," and whether governments are "founded upon an established religion." The first proposition is demonstrated by Rushdoony, as you'll see, while the second is never stated as such. What Prescott misses in relation to the religious nature of law is contained in the portions of Rushdoony's text that Prescott edits out. Here's how Prescott's cites Rushdoony:
"Civil law cannot be separated from Biblical law, for the Biblical doctrine of law includes all law, civil, ecclesiastical, societal, familial, and all other forms of law. . . . Law is in every culture religious in origin. . . . in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. . . . in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. . . . no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society. . . . there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion." pp. 4-5.
With an undiscerning audience such tactics may thrive, but to garner respectability Prescott is risking intellectual integrity by such hacking. Prescott foolishly states, "There's not a lot of sophisticated thought behind this logic. Rushdoony simply re-asserts political thought that was typical before the enlightenment. In those days most everybody believed that governments derived their authority from the gods and that rulers ruled by divine sanction and decree. All he did was to transpose ancient clashes of civilizations from the realm of religion to the realm of law and jurisprudence."
Prescott has run over the obvious philosophical positioning of Rushdoony's discussion. In this sense, he is the one most distant from sophistication. It is true that Rushdoony asserted that law is religious in nature, and that the source of law is the god of a particular society. However, to liken this to pre-enlightment hero-worship of ancient civilizations disqualifies Prescott as a cogent critic. To aid Mr. Prescott, I will cite the missing portions of Rushdoony's polemic and the meaning will be more than clear:
Law is in every culture is religious in origin (emphasis his). Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law.
Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept. (Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. 1, p.4-5)
Prescott takes Rushdoony to be suggesting a pagan idea of law -- that somehow "governments derived their authority from the gods." First, Rushdoony is making a philosophical case, and is using philosophical parlance. Second, Rushdoony did not utilize a pagan example when addressing a source of law. Rushdoony argued, philosophically, that the source of law is found in that which is considered perfect and infallible by a society. What's interesting, in light of Prescott's accusation, is that Rushdoony's examples were primarily in the vein of the enlightenment -- especially when he directs his polemic against "man's reason." Beyond reason man may place ultimate ethical authority in a governing body (e.g., senate, court) or despotic ruler.
It should be obvious that Prescott is either in over his head or intentionally devious. I believe it is the former. This is clear by how Prescott follows his own faulty starting point into suggesting Rushdoony does not appreciate, or is not aware of such basic information like constitutional democracy. Prescott's arrogance here is breathtaking:
Missing from Rushdoony's political theory is appreciation for social contract theories of social order whereby governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. When he quotes texts from the early laws of colonial America, he glosses over statements about "the fundamental agreem(en)t, made and published by full and gen(e)r(a)l consent," and focuses on any indication "that the judiciall law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, . . . should be the rule of their proceedings." (pp.1-2)
I'm not sure how Rushdoony can be accused of "glossing over" statements in this instance. His point is quite plain. Christendom viewed itself as the new Israel of God, and the puritan adoption of Biblical law, Rushdoony notes, was sure evidence of their idea of theonomic continuity. This in no way is contrary, or demonstrates a lack of appreciation of representative governers appointed by the people. The authority of government "derived from the people" was not a source of law -- which is Rushdoony's whole argument. In this sense, Prescott is guilty of what he charges of Rushdoony -- baseless authoritarianism. Government by the consent of the people does not provide us the source of law. For Prescott, it does. Therefore, Vox Populi Vox Dei.
Rushdoony is only stating that in whatever form of government (senate, court, or despot) what must be examined is the source of law. Rushdoony is seeking the "philosophical" source of law within a society. Prescott is chasing a rabbit by suggesting Rushdoony doesn't appreciate where democratic leaders derive their authority. This is completely off the point. Within a constitutional republic where, philosophically, is the source of law? It's certainly not in the consent of the governed. That would be Vox Populi Vox Dei.
For those who accept Rushdoony's presuppositions, matters of law and governance appear to be readily resolved by the application of some simple, straightforward reasoning. All legislation and jurisprudence is merely a practical extension of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. The laws of the Bible were given by the one true God. He is perfect and just. His laws are perfect and just. Laws derived from and consistent with his laws will be perfect and just. Life regulated by those laws will be a utopia.
I guess "simple, straightforward reasoning" is prohibited in such matters. Is this any different than Prescott's simplistic belief that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of Almighty God and should not be utilized in legislation? If not God's law, then what, Mr. Prescott? What higher law do you refer to? Whatever it is, it is obviously superior to God's law since you readily dismiss His Word as the source of law. If you can identify for all us "simpletons" where your source of law is, then we, as Rushdoony suggests, would come to understand the nature of your god. I thank you for making Rushdoony's point.
Prescott continues:
Utopia for Rushdoony and his followers is dystopia for others. He acknowledges that "many servants who came with the Puritans later were in full scale revolt against any Biblical faith and order." (p.1)
The rebellion of servants against Biblical faith and order was not some noble uprising. But, I understand your point. A Biblically governed society is no "utopia" to anal-penetrating homosexuals or those who slaughter the unborn. It is as Rushdoony says, "in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion... When the legal foundations shift from Biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not from Christian theism" (p.5). It is Prescott's intent to shift civilization from Christian theism to humanistic foundations. I assume he does this because he believes in the divinity of man. He certainly cannot be surprised that we would organize against his enterprise. I'll let him describe our reaction:
It appears that, in Rushdoony's mind, it is unfortunate that the "servants" of the Puritans ultimately prevailed as the "law-system" developed in the United States. His writings have been encouraging the descendants of the Puritans to reassert their "dominion" over American society.
We do not seek to reassert "our" dominion over American society. It is the rule of God over self-governing individuals that we seek. That is a long-term mission that will out-live both myself and Prescott. Theocracy means the "rule of God." Prescott and his posse persistently confuse that with "ecclesiocracy" -- the rule of the church.
This ideological battle is important. Our opponents repeatedly misconstrue our position, and make no effort to adequately clarify the difference between the central tenets of Christian Reconstruction and the political tactics of Religious Right organizations. No matter. We are an educational organization, and therefore, we will labor diligently to educate the likes of Prescott, and those of similar disposition, to return to the "faith once delivered to the saints."
If there were some kind of major award for hypocrisy as an art form, the boys at Talk To Action, our favorite Religious Left website, would win it every time.
In their latest venture into calling the kettle black, TTA complains about "tax abuse" by the "Religious Right," whom they accuse of seeking "to build a church-based electoral movement, bending and breaking the rules" (see "Issue of Tax Abuse by the Religious Right, [sic] Heats Up" by Frederick Clarkson). I wonder why this seems to be so in synch with the comment Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean made last week to the Christian Science Monitor: "The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics". Is the Left trying to intimidate churches from playing any role in this year's national elections?
The North Congregational United Church of Christ (that's the gay-affirming, goddess-friendly UCC) has lodged a complaint against two Columbus, Ohio, churches for allegedly going over the top in their support for Republican candidates. The lawyer representing the UCC, Marcus Owens, accused the churches of "flagrant intervention."
Whoa! The last time we heard from Mr. Owens, he was representing a liberal church in Pasadena, California, that had come up against a warning from the Internal Revenue Service, after comments made from the pulpit by a guest pastor a few days before the 2004 election. He was singing a different tune then, whose lyrics included lines about "First Amendment principles of religious freedom and freedom of speech," and "core values which the congregation of the church holds dear."
Politicking from the pulpit is nothing new for the Religious Left. In his 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore spoke at one black church after another, warning the congregations that if a Republican president were elected, it'd be back to Jim Crow and the slave cabins.
In the 2004 elections, Democratic candidate John Kerry campaigned from several pulpits, while former president and impeachment survivor Bill Clinton stood in front of the congregation at the Riverside Church in New York City and denounced President George W. Bush by name. The Clinton speech (we can't bring ourselves to call it a sermon) was part of the church's "Mobilization 2004" campaign to get out the vote for liberal candidates (see "Leftists Putting a Scare into Pastors?").
It doesn't bother Talk To Action, or anyone else on the Religious Left, when churches are used to support "an electoral movement" on their side. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is hypocrisy.
A 'Risk Audit' for Local Schools and Homosexual Agenda
How deeply is your local school committed to the homosexual agenda?
Some of America's biggest pro-family organizations have gotten together to help you find the answer to that question. The American Family Assn., Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum, and others are cooperating to equip Christian parents with a "Risk Audit." Developed by Linda Harvey of Mission America, the purpose of the Risk Audit is "to assist Christian organizations, churches, and parents in determining whether their local school districts are placing children at risk by having clubs, programs, policies, or curricula that could influence children to regard homosexual behavior as an acceptable lifestyle" (according to a joint press release).
The project owes its inspiration to a resolution approved last year at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Conference, urging parents to "investigate" whether their local schools were promoting homosexuality and, if so, to remove their children from those schools.
Yes, boys, we know--the only faith the public schools are supposed to promote is in-your-face humanism.
Lest anyone believe there is any "demonization" going on it all, the Article 8 Alliance has made available a document describing what was actually "taught" to teenagers at the infamous 2000 "Fistgate" Conference at Tufts University, Massachusetts. Warning: This document contains extremely graphic descriptions of unnatural sex acts recommended to children by employees of the public education system. It is not for the faint-hearted. Again, do not attempt to read this unless you have a very strong stomach and you still can't quite believe that the moral condition of the public schools is as bad as we say it is.
Man is now defined as humanity rather than the individual, and this great one, humanity, to be truly a unity, must exist as one state. In this picture, any assertion of individuality, local or national independence, or the reality of races, is viewed with hostility and as a sign of mental sickness; it is an assertion of plurality which challenges the reality and unity of the universal. (Rushdoony, The One and the Many, p.17)
After the horrible riots in Los Angeles in 1991 in which 55 people were killed and hundreds arrested, the drug-abusing spark of the conflagration, Rodney King, pleaded, "Can't we all get along?" No, Mr. King, we can't. Not so long as God's law is trampled upon, and the religion of humanism imposes its ideal of a man-centered social order. In the name of "unity" all references to diversity are diagnosed as symptomatic of a mental sickness.
America has become an ideological state, a "soft tyranny." where the new orthodoxy is enforced, not by police agents, but by inquisitors of the popular culture... The values of the revolution dominate the medium. Political correctness rules. Defiance of our new orthodoxy qualifies as "hate speech," disrespect for its dogmas as a sign of mental sickness. (Pat Buchanan, The Death of the West, p.89)
This effect has snowballed within the white community as caucasians fear any reference to race could be met with severe reprisals from the bullies of the "politically correct." Rather than say nothing at all, guilt-ridden white Christian leaders are pushing the "Reconciliation" agenda in a way that is more humanistic than Biblical. The fallout is the continued despising of anglo-european culture, and it's gagging by political intimidation.
The Rhetoric of Reconciliation
According to the Scriptures, reconciliation is in terms of man's being restored to right relationship with God Almighty via the redemptive work of Jesus Christ in the removal of sin (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; Col. 1:20; Eph. 2:16; Heb. 2:17). There are references to a reconciliation of community in Ephesians 2:16 that relates specifically to Jew and Gentile, and there can also be a reconciliation between husband and wife, as it states in 1 Corinthians 7:11. In all cases, the reconciliation is in Christ, and it is defined by God's law-word. It is God-centered, and espouses a clear and defined purpose.
Contemporary efforts for racial reconciliation within the Christian community are ill-defined, and lack such a clear purpose. The first reason being that it is difficult to define all outlooks upon race as sinful. No doubt, there are vile forms of racism that reduce to ridiculous ideas of racial superiority, and sport the most heinous forms of slander -- by racial superiority I mean any suggestion that other ethnic groups are somehow "less human" or incapable of the same achievements as other races. This was made clear by a comedic observation a few years ago that noted a modern racial anomaly:
"The number one rapper is white. The top golfer is black. The tallest basketball player is Chinese. France is calling us arrogant, and Germany doesn't want to go to war!"
I do subscribe to a form of superiority -- the superiority of faith, and the intolerance of false religions. I also hold that it is faith that essentially makes the difference in all cultures. This is why despite the 100+ years of Christian missionary work on the continent of Africa there remains the poverty, perversion, and unspeakable violence. Much of the "faith" the Africans have received is an arminian, antinomian gospel that elevates a rank individualism, and isolates the faith to issues of the heart. The bounty of Western society is correlative to the direct and foundational influence of Reformed Christianity, and it's application to the social order. In other words, Calvin, not Finney! Although the Dutch Reformed missionary, Andrew Murray, devoted much ministry time in Africa, his "Higher Life" gospel has left an imperceptible influence upon the structure of African society. His Calvinsim did not offset his perfectionism.
Within the sacred shores of America both faith and race are in their respective fits of struggle. The modern evangelical church is making an effort to resolve the race issues, and as mentioned, the basic theme is reconciliation. The struggle for the identity of the Christian faith within American culture is equally fervent as evangelicals are forced to address social issues in terms of their faith. What they're finding is that "they've not been this way before" (Joshua 3:4). Their pietism is insufficient in examining cultural, racial, political, or economic issues in a thoroughly Biblical manner. They stumble over the stumbling stone, and follow the political lead of the secularist. That's why ministers like Rick Warren are addressing issues like global warming. Political pressure dominates big ministries.
It is much the same with ministers seeking to address issues of race. Their approach is basic, and it overlooks essential philosophical questions. They are simply following the party line, and therefore, neglect a basic element in historical thinking -- diversity.
"I Don't See Color"
I've heard white ministers repeatedly state that they don't see color. They are color blind as it relates to people groups. This is held to be the standard. Now, any recognition of color is the devil's foothold to racism, and any spokesperson is immediately condemned in the harshest terms. This complicates the efforts of any white groups to acknowledge their history, or preserve their posterity.
Radical racists can only be addressed by direct confrontation with the power of law and gospel. Hatred must not reside within the heart of Christians committed to Biblical justice, and any wrapping of Christ around a platform of hate is a demonic mixture. But, there are other forms of racial recognition that are not sinful -- ones that represent concern within a particular community for its future. This has been predominant throughout history with all civilizations, and is still practiced in the majority of nations. A quick excursion to Japan, Korea, India, or Kenya would not be a field trip to study diverse melting pots. Rather, these are homogenous societies that are not typically listed as "hate" states.
One visits Tokyo in hopes of meeting Japanese people, viewing Japanese culture, and tasting Japanese cuisine. Yet, no one leaves Tokyo asking, "where were all the hispanics?" It is understood that Japan is predominantly populated by Japanese people. Other ethnic groups reside within its borders, but I doubt they organize against the Japanese dominated society in the name of equality. The immigrants understand the demands of the Japanese state and the moorings of Japanese culture.
The challenge in America is that ethno-centric cultural lines are blurred, traditions are fading, and socialization is forcing communities together. Despite all efforts to reconcile, race is repeatedly touted as the motive behind every social injustice. This only adds to the ethnic tension. By repeatedly displaying footage of disheveled modern Klan rallies any discussion of race conjures up the image of toothless rednecks bull-horning an NAACP march.
Granted, white people can be ignorant. As a comedian once noted, "only white people can get off a plane in Nigeria and say, 'look at all these minorities!'" Outside of ideology, it is difficult for whites to truly understand what a black, hispanic, or asian man has experienced in terms of prejudice. These experiences are all too real, and cannot be easily dismissed. But, whites do understand social hatred in the sense that they are more despised by the populace than in previous years. Whites are not permitted to acknowledge, or, God forbid, celebrate their accomplishments. White "anything" means racist. This also cannot be easily dismissed.
Race Matters
This past week engaged me in two separate discussions with two fine gentlemen regarding the implications of race. What's interesting is that one of the men was white while the other was black. Both are fine Christian men devoted to the Lord and their families. However, both were challenged by racial issues -- which prompted this post -- and these discussions made it clear to me how important race is to so many. Avoiding these concerns is no solution.
My white friend was concerned about some younger female family members that had a propensity for dating black men. His family are long-standing residents of a great southern state, and are unified in their disapproval of mixed marriages. I have met his mother and father, and they are fine Christians. But, my friend was troubled somewhat about his personal feelings. He had spent many years in multi-racial congregations, and wasn't sure that his perspective was altogether clear.
The second conversation I had was with a black gentleman who mentioned to me that many blacks were upset about the recent protesting by Latinos over illegal immigration. Apparently, blacks are displeased that such a vast ethnic group entered the country illegally and were now a source for job competition.
Both situations are valid issues, and must not be disregarded as ignorant. They represent the feelings of millions of blacks and whites. What should be apparent is that race matters; and it matters to all races. Decades after the civil rights movement race is still a paramount question in the American dialogue. Will it go away? I don't think so. Should it go away? That would be to deny our humanity. A simple illustration should make it plain that race is always a factor when considering the cultural benefits of man.
A white baby is in need of adoption, and two families would like to raise the child. Both families are white, and are virtually of the same status economically, emotionally, geographically, and spiritually. Which family shall the baby go with? It's difficult to say because either one would be ideal. However, let's say the baby in need of adoption is black, and the two families seeking to adopt are also equal in all respects with one exception: one family is white while the other is black. Which family shall the baby go with? If you said, "either one," you're likely in denial. If you said, "the black family," you've taken the first step towards genuine racial understanding. Why should the black baby go with the black family? Because race matters.
To deny this is to ascribe to a more insidious form of racism -- that of "one-racism" -- the race of humanity. This was the racial ideology concealed within the mission of the now defunct United Nations. Their goal was to erase all human distinction in lieu of a one-world state. Rushdoony perceptively uncovered the gross nature of their racial policies:
The U.N. position, ostensibly anti-racist, is no less racist than the most fervent champions of race in history. Indeed, the liberal, religion of humanity faith is simply a form of racism. There are two kinds of racism today. For the first, to belong to a particular race, white or black, Jewish or Arab, is all-important. Membership in a particular group is itself a mark of distinction and discrimination, and constitutes the dividing line. For the second form of racism, to belong to the human race is all-important. For both positions, racial membership is the test, the ticket of admission and the guarantee of status. Against this expanded or liberal form of racism, as against all forms of racism, orthodox Christianity enters a dissent. For the Christian, character, born of faith, is the test of man, not a particular race or the human race. Racial differences are recognized as real and as God-given, but the determinative fact concerning man is his relationship to God, not the fact of his humanity. This is the Biblical position; it is also the position which makes for progress by emphasizing quality. Quality is sought out and emulated. A people, discriminated against at one time, by emulation advance themselves, as witness the Irish in America. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the orthodox Christian must regard the universal racism of the U.N. as a menace, destructive of the Christian faith and detrimental to man. (Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System, p. 142)
This ideal of the one-race of humanity lies behind much of the evangelical rhetoric on reconciliation. And, unless the emphasis of "unity" is placed squarely upon the foundation of Biblical justice -- rather than base sentimentality -- the coercive power of the state will impose harmony with the sacramental "sprinkling" of the church's endorsement. The unity of humanity that disregards Biblical distinction is a social pillar to the totalitarian state. Rushdoony elucidates for us the proper and Scriptural means of social distinction:
[T]he essence of ethics is man's unity. This unity of humanity means mutual love irrespective of all moral and religious factor, irrespective of anything save the obligation to be one unified humanity. This, of course, is a radically different concept than the Christian division of mankind into the saved and the lost, the regenerate and unregenerate, the requirement of extending the second table of the law, love of neighbor and of enemy, to all persons. (Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System, p.102)
Instead of denying racial distinction in the name of unity, Christians must offer the Trinity as the philosophical starting point to framing all social inquiries. Denying the particularity of the "many" grants reality to the "one." But, in the Godhead both unity and plurality have equal prominence, and this apparent contradiction is needed when approaching the race issue. The U.N. solution of the "one" will end in tyranny. The emphasis of the modern church upon the "one" only creates an ostensible unity while Christians -- like my two friends -- conceal genuine racial concerns within their hearts -- hesitant to speak up because of the threat of ignorant backlash.
I have so many dear brethren that are black, hispanic, asian, and white. I've preached in predominantly black churches, fulfilled an interim pastorship at a Korean congregation, and worked side-by-side with many fine black and hispanic Christian leaders. A good many of them recognize these same problems, and we are all agreed that we must look to the Lord for answers.
Denying diversity is not helpful. It is most needed in fully comprehending the needs and concerns of each community. The foundation, as Rushdoony mentioned, is character -- Christian character -- the applying of the second table of the law to whomever we meet. This was Moses' declaration to the people of Israel:
And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? (Deut. 4:8)
It's difficult to predict where our nation is headed. Not since the 1960s have we witnessed such mass social upheaval. My prayer is that you and I will remain faithful and informed, so that we might be prepared to offer solutions to an increasingly disillusioned American citizenry.
Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor. Proverbs 12:24
Since the War of Northern Aggression (i.e., Civil War), America has suffered no small neurosis whenever slavery is mentioned. It is still common slander to portray both white and black conservatives as either "slave-owners" or "Uncle Tom's." The most basic term being "racist." Therefore, any intentional instruction on slavery is met with gasps, fainting, and eventually outrage. So, for those critics who decry all mentions of "slavery," they may prefer the euphemism of "forced labor" (NASB) or "tribute" (KJV). Either way, the meaning of Proverbs 12:24 remains the same. An individual is being forced to labor by the power of those who rule. And this leads to other despised term mentioned in Proverbs 12:24: "rule."
What should be apparent is that rulership and forced labor (viz. slavery) are inescapable concepts. To rule (Heb. mashal) means simply dominion; and slave -- or tribute in the KJV -- (Heb. mas) interprets as a burden, or tax, in the form of forced labor. Therefore, Solomon bifurcates society into rulers and slaves, or those put to forced labor. The language is somewhat exaggerated in that all diligent people are not rulers and all lazy men are not slaves. This should help critics of dominionism to understand that the term itself is so much broader than securing the presidency. Dominion can be taken over ones thoughts, finances, emotions, business, etc. It is simply the consistent application of God's law-word to each area of their life.
The same is true in terms of slavery, or forced labor. Laziness, or lack of diligence, leads to dead-end jobs, crime, lethargy, poverty, and welfare. These are all forms of slavery, or "forced" circumstances. Socialism itself is mass political slavery. State regulation at every level undermines God's desire to cultivate self-government for the Christian man in a free society. Therefore, it is imperative that a socialist system condition and suppress its citizens to accept a slave's mentality. The greater tragedy being the Christian's acceptance of the slave's mentality, since the Christian is given the means to dominion in the Holy Scriptures.
Socialist elites sell their regulatory policies to the uncritical population by the false assurance of personal security, financial freedom, and emotional well-being. Rushdoony criticized such false-flags in uncompromising terms:
The road of pseudo-security, or pseudo-liberation in slavery, socialism, and welfarism, is forbidden to the Christian. (Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law V.1, p136)
The secularist seeks to enslave the Christian to a socialist tyranny with extortionate taxation, forced schooling, planned parenthood, imposed racial harmony, and the exclusion of God from the public sphere. This is their proposed utopia. But, the absence of Biblical law from this pseudo-society guarantees that America shall go down the path of all socialist systems -- straight into the arms of despotism. We will rather obey God than man (Acts 5:29).
Slaves by Nature
Rushdoony persistently argued that some men were slaves by nature (ibid., 485). The Bible is replete with regulations concerning slavery because most of the world's historical narrative contains a back story of slave societies. In addition, much of the Biblical instruction is directed towards the slave-owners themselves. Justice and equality were to be provided slaves by their masters because the masters themselves were also slaves to God:
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. Col. 4:1
The perpetuity of slavery is because freedom requires responsibility; and lazy men shirk responsibility because of what it requires of them. Yet, if the slothful are to remain alive then someone else will bear their responsibility. And when you carry the responsibility of a lazy man it usually means you rule that individual in terms of their labor. This is no longer the case as through state-sponsored welfare the responsible man is now slave to the sluggard. The responsible and productive man labors diligently while bleeding heart socialists confiscate his labor by unjust taxation in order to subsidize the irresponsible.
The underwriting of a man's laziness is considered "love" by the socialist; but it is demonstrative sin in Biblical terms. The lazy man must be put to forced labor or his productive neighbor will be put to extortionate taxation. This is love demonstrated towards the obedient. The disobedient should not be rewarded. Work is a commandment of God (Ex. 20:9) and "if a man shall not work, then he shall not eat" (2 Th. 3:10). You read it right. Let them starve. How's that for compassionate conservatism?
If liberals would truly like to care for individuals that refuse to work, then they must penalize the lazy by forced labor. Penalizing the productive is theft, and a subsidizing of evil. I'm not sure which is the case: do they love the poor, or simply hate the rich? If they do care for the poor then they must recognize that the poor will always be among us. The Great Society cannot change that. Only regeneration and Biblical law can reverse that trend.
Freedom and Responsibility
The purpose of freedom is that man exercise dominion and subdue the earth under God. A man who abuses his freedom to steal can be sold into slavery in order to work out his restitution (Ex. 22:3). If he cannot use his freedom for its rightful purpose of godly dominion, reconstruction, and restoration, he must then work towards restitution in his bondage. (IBL, V.1, 485)
Of course, both secular and Christian alike shriek at the mention of slavery, but their distaste is an uninformed morality. In fact, it's sinful, and reinforces the anti-Christian character of modern culture. Today's Christian is more cognizant of Alex Haley's Roots than the economic and social wisdom of the pentateuch. The modern Christian is intimidated by the race-baiting threats of left-wing groups rather than government by the fear of God -- the slave-master of us all.
My discussion of slavery, or forced labor, is not that of the 19th century African slave-trade, which was based upon man-stealing by other Africans to sell to Eureopean slave-traders. Kidnapping was forbidden in God's law and was clear grounds for execution (Ex. 21:16). What I'm discussing is the penalizing of the slothful and criminal by forced labor; and that discussion is contemporary.
Since labor is a commandment of God it's incumbent upon civil authorities to protect the wealth of the productive from the unjust seizure of the sluggard. If you want the man to eat, then he must work. If he refuses to work, he should be compelled. The late David Chilton observed, "the biblical institution of slavery has as its basic purpose the elimination of poverty and its foremost cause, the slave mentality" (Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators, 59). Slavery, therefore, is not sin. Chilton continues:
If slavery were a sin, God would not have provided for it. Indeed, since God is the standard of right and wrong, the fact that He gives rules for the proper management of slavery shows that to disregard the laws of slavery is a sin. For example, since fornication is a sin, God does not give directions for the right management of a brothel. Nor does he offer instructions about successful methods of murder or theft. Slavery is not a sin, but the violation of God's slavery laws is. (ibid., 60)
This is also compassion for it teaches the sluggard the habit of productivity. Apathy can be converted into abundance once the lazy man renews his mind to the law-word of God and its authority over him. This was St. Paul's solution for the thief (Eph. 4:28). He must not be enabled by welfare, but rather must embrace his calling to work and then use his productivity for the feeding of the truly poor. Chilton is again helpful in making this point:
Since slavery will always exist, the biblical answer is not to try to abolish it, but to follow God's laws for slavery. While many of these laws seem harsh, we must recognize that, first, these laws are remedies for irresponsibility, and seek to drive men out of slavery; and second, the laws of God are not nearly so harsh as the laws of men. (ibid., 61)
And, once made free, the slave could become a responsible and respected member of society. Their debts were removed, their crimes were annulled, and their liberty was secured. It was truly a jubilee for the freed slave, and they would walk forever in the knowledge of costly freedom. It doesn't come cheap. You pay in spades with the currency of diligence and responsibility.
There is sound reason to conjecture that the harshness of Biblical slavery law was intended to dissuade an individual from selling their freedom into forced labor. I've not found any clear data on just how prevalent slavery was during Israel's history. It was utilized, no doubt, for the purposes of restitution and the allowance of bondservants, but Israel cannot be propped up as a total slave state with no other form of national income -- it was not Stalin's Russia. Yet, slavery laws are featured throughout the Biblical text. This is due also to the spiritual and political implications that God intends to communicate to all of us. We were slaves to sin (Rom. 6:16-23) and the heartbeat of God is to see us delivered from the fetters of sin into the glorious liberty of the children of God. It is also a constant reminder that though we are freed from sin, we were only transferred to become slaves of righteousness (Rom. 6:18). To be redundant, slavery is an inescapable concept.
So, today's Christian will readily admit that they are "a slave to God," but balk at the discussion of Biblical slavery laws. What then makes their slave status so comfortable? It is because the slave-master is God. Will not then a godly society produce a benevolent and productive system of forced labor as a means to eradicating poverty and converting the criminal?
Neo-Slavery: A Day Job
Laziness ends in slave labor (Prov. 12:24). It also ends in a day job. The majority of the work force is in some form of forced labor. We simply don't call it that. Do you think every worker on the Ford assembly line dreams of such a job? Of course not. Some may dream of other forms of employment, but they lack the diligence necessary to bear rule on their own. The opposite of forced labor is the rule of entrepreneurship, and that requires a diligence uncommon in the average citizen.
However, a season of employment can be useful. It can teach one a craft or trade. It can help them develop the needed skills for their own business. But, such business independence is prefaced by a season of dependence, or forced labor. Either way, it's diligence that delivers one from slavery. It's a lack of diligence that delivers one into slavery.
The present generation is so deeply involved in slavery that it cannot understand its meaning. Slavery is damned even as it is pursued by men, and freedom is called slavery because freedom means problems. Slavery is the risk-free life; it means full employment, total care by someone else, and cradle-to-grave security. Freedom means problems, losses, and constant risks, but it also means the possibility of success and prosperity.... The modern lust for a risk-free life is an invitation to enslavement; as a result, freedom is rapidly waning. (Rushdoony, Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Exodus, 61-62)
Freedom must be our central concern, but freedom thrives only when men are responsible under God.
The present political climate highlights some of these concerns. As I write, French youth are protesting a proposed law ("First Job Contract") that would allow employers to fire anyone under 26 years within the first two years of their employment. The intent is to help business owners from being drained by guaranteed job security to young, lazy, socialized Frenchmen. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of hispanics are protesting legislation that would make illegal immigration a felony. However, in this case, the crime is not laziness, but illegal entry. In both cases are the unjust seeds of revolution; and revolution is the enemy of freedom because it is the manufactured tool of a dictatorship:
We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. (George Orwell, 1984)
Both the French and Hispanic protests are rooted in socialist ideals, and socialism is a scientific means to tyranny. Socialist societies are total slave states, and not the Biblical form of slavery. The revolutionaries that run the streets of America and France are in indirect collusion with the unproductive elites who contrive revolution as the means to expand power and secure their existence. They manipulate the envy of revolutionaries to their own advantage:
Elitism and envy are productive of guilt and inaction. They are also destructive of work, because their essence is inaction, and they are non-productive social forces. (Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, Vol.2, p.1051)
There is a genuine partnership between the sluggard and the destructive financial elite:
One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. Proverbs 18:9
There is no future freedom in the modern slave state. There is no jubilee for faithful labor. This is because, as Orwell noted, "no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it." And, slavery that leads to freedom and responsibility is not the form of slavery socialism ascribes to. This is why the sluggard is subsidized in a socialist society -- he is the ideal citizen for totalitarians -- he is a complete social dependent. Biblical slavery laws war against such tyranny.
Our remedy is in godly responsibility and Christian Reconstruction. Christ's Kingdom is the stone cut without hands that destroys all ambitions to worldly empire (Dan. 2:44-45). But, the Kingdom of Christ must be established in time and history. This means the faithful application of God's law; including the laws regarding forced labor. By compelling the lazy and the criminal to become productive we can remove the foothold of statism, and the lust for power that lurks in the heart of the shadow elites. It is to the world's benefit that the righteous rule:
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:2
I've heard it said that, "on September 11, 2001, America was viciously attacked by 18 Arab terrorists. On September, 12, 300,000,000 Americans became the primary suspects!" This was reflected in the Virginia Terrorism & Security Awareness Orientation for State Employees in which domestic terrorists are identified by such wicked traits as being property rights activists, religious extremists, separatists, or evironmental activists. It appears that once again, Virginia is the first line of defense in federal aggression.
Check out Butler Shaffer's article The People's Republic of Virginia for a telling analysis of the government crack down on patriotic Virginians.
Babylon, Agrarianism, and the Military-Industrial Complex
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:4
Warfare proceeds from the heart of man according to James 4:1. It is sin, and the sinful pursuits of men, that spurs the national conflicts in world history. Whereas God intended an agrarian-based society, tyrants converted that productivity into the tools of war. Although 2,700 years have passed since Isaiah penned his prophecy, this manipulation by the oligarchy remains the central strategy of elitist dominion. Orwell's 1984 suggests this very thing:
The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living...
The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare...
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed...
In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population.
Modern warfare is reliant upon technology, and technology is consumed by the incessant war project; and the war project is central to maintaining the dominion of sinful man. This is why modern man relishes in his technological achievements -- they are the primary evidence of man's developing omniscience. In this sense, there are many similarities to the nature of God and the divine attributes that oligarchs seek for themselves:
God is omnipotent (all-powerful), and man seeks this power through imperialism. God is omniscient (all-knowing), and man seeks this through technology. God is benevolent, and man seeks this through socialistic control of the economy. God is sovereign, and man seeks predestinarian control through central planning.
In addition, the growing surveillance society of Big Brother is also a feeble attempt at matching a god-like ability to monitor every man:
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. Proverbs 15:3
Restraining Technology
God surveys what man has done and is doing (Gen. 11:5). The people are one in this new world order; their language is one and now they are creating a world government to play god over mankind (v.6). With such a power over mankind, "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" (v.6). Total power will mean total government and control. When men play god, they primarily seek to dominate other men. They then turn science and knowledge into strategies of control in every sphere of life and thought. (R.J. Rushdoony, Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Genesis, p.110)
The Tower of Babel was the original manifestation of a unified statist system. The sin of their hearts became the "sin made flesh" when they said, "let us build." They would use the technology given by God to replace the throne of God in history. Yet, babylonian man was viciously humbled in a surprising counter move by Almighty God. He assaulted their highest technology--the one technology they could not manipulate: He confounded their language.
The result, according to Gen. 11:8, was the scattering abroad of man and "the leaving off to build the city." God frustrated the project of man by restraining his technology. While man had the physical means (tools and materials) to build the city, he could not succeed without the God-controlled element of speech. This basic technology trumped all other technologies.
Agrarianism and Technology
Technology is inescapable. It's apparent in the simplest and most complex of systems. Technology is not a cell phone or a television. Technology is an invisible attribute hidden in the mind of God that He transfers to man in history:
When a farmer plows for planting, does he plow continually? Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil? When he has leveled the surface, does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin? Does he not plant wheat in its place, barley in its plot, and spelt in its field? His God instructs him and teaches him the right way. Caraway is not threshed with a sledge, nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin; caraway is beaten out with a rod, and cummin with a stick. Grain must be ground to make bread; so one does not go on threshing it forever. Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it, his horses do not grind it. All this also comes from the LORD Almighty, wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom. (Isaiah 28:24-29)
God instructs man by His sovereign illumination. The error is when man assumes that he has "discovered" a technology. He hasn't. "God instructs him and teaches him the right way" (v.26). This idea presupposes an ethical restraint upon man and his technological pursuits. There is only so far God will allow man to go. However, we must also restrain ourselves so as to avoid aimless inventions that merely facilitate slothfulness, indulgence, and war.
I find it interesting that when Isaiah prophesied (chapter 2) of the glorious kingdom he described it in terms of a repentance in technology: swords are made into plowshares, and spears are converted into pruninghooks. Converted hearts lead to converted technology. This is ably demonstrated by the present emphasis upon agrarianism. The movement is emblematic of a righteous "restraint" upon the abuses of technology and the sin it inspires. All to say, the fulfilled kingdom may appear more Amish than the steel and stone of Huxley's Brave New World.
The same has often been said about hunting -- old-school rocker Ted Nugent is one of the most outspoken advocates of this idea. Christians are rediscovering a lost world, by discarding much of the plastic society and the cultural control grid of corporate advertising. By removing their children from public schools, and by disengaging from certain social tentacles, today's Christian can better taste the potency of God's creation.
The issue here is not isolationism -- far from it. It is a counter-revolution to an exclusively institutional and industrial existence. It is a self-imposed restraint upon the use of certain technology, and the adoption of older technology that is pure and God-sanctioned.
The new Tower of Babel is a vast system contrived and built by humanistic man, and is intended to have dominion over every area of life. We, as modern Christians, are plugged into this system. We should always be looking for ways to "unplug" so as to circumvent its control in our lives. Educating our children is the first step. Removing ourselves from the neo-babylonian churches is next. These mega-wonders of institutional worship are drenched in technology, and serve as faithful ambassadors of the state.
I find other movements, such as agrarianism, as helpful to the cause of Christ. I also see a helpful trend within the family-based churches, despite the shrills of patriarchy. My goodness, so long as sinful people are involved any system can be abused! But centering on the family helps to de-tox Christians from their slavish adherence to institutions. We can only rejoice then as faithful Christians work to decentralize a one-world order. Bureaucracy is a great opponent to the expedient application of Biblical law.
Meanwhile, hundreds of accredited scientists have signed a document professing their rejection of Evolution and their belief in Intelligent Design--which, of course, implies an intelligent designer. (Hint: it is not Bill Gates.) Maybe some of these scientists ought to be in the pulpit; it might be in improvement over some of these pastors.
In addition to being sloppy, antiquated, 19th-century science, the theory of evolution contradicts the Bible. But contradicting the Bible is a daily activity in some of these churches, what with goddess worship, feminist theology, the social gospel, and celebrating homosexual behavior. This latest declaration by 10,000 mainline clergy is only the latest evidence of their desire to please men rather than God.
Man-pleasing and ear-tickling have become endemic in much of the American church, and it's due to a dearth of sound theological teaching--in the seminaries and from the pulpit of the local church.
R.J. Rushdoony always stressed the clergy's teaching function, and so does the Bible: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). But don't forget the rest of the quote: "because thou has rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of they God, I will also forget thy children."
Can there be a free society, the professed goal of modern men, when God's perfect law of liberty is despised? How free can any society be when it drops God's Ten Commandments, and the whole body of His law? It is no accident that the Western World, no longer Christendom, is moving into statist tyranny. (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. III, p.48)
Two forms of tyranny are consuming our national dialogue: the increasing tyranny of the state, and the perceived fear of an impending theocracy. Both plaintiffs appeal to the Constitution and a generic concept of personal liberty in their public resistance.
But, is the Constitution a guarantor of liberty? Apparently not. At least not in the pragmatic sense. Therefore, request is made for a return to both the ideal as well as the praxis of the Constitution as the primary means to an American reformation.
However, what is being damned in the discussion is Biblical law--the only true source of liberty and freedom. Why is Biblical law the source of freedom? Because the question of freedom is an ethical, and not a procedural question. Therefore, an appeal to the Constitution as the standard for liberty is like grabbing your wallet to make a phone call. The Constitution outlines procedural policies for the state, and does not declare whether homosexuality or abortion are ethically permitted. The Constitution is designed to restrain the state, not liberate the individual to live licentiously.
The Constitution secures liberty indirectly by restraining the federal government from impinging upon the establishments of the individual states. So, the first line of defense for personal liberty is within one's home state. And, those liberties contained within the Bill of Rights are essentially means of protection against the tyranny of federal encroachment. But, again, these are procedural forms of legislation and not "substantive" forms of legislation that define right and wrong.
The idea that one can appeal to the Constitution in the question of gay marriage, abortion, or pluralism is questionable in that the Constitution does not protect immoral freedom. To better understand this concept we must examine the idea of freedom.
Making Freedom the Absolute
[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. (Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. I, p.581)
Rushdoony makes a salient point. When freedom is the primacy ethics is pushed aside as secondary. We are not "free" to do what we want. We are restrained at every point—as the old saying goes, "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose." But, the modern idea of freedom essentially makes too much room for irresponsibility, not protection for responsibility.
The modern cause of freedom is an empty pursuit in that it cannot create the utopia humanistic man desires. By granting freedom to his sin man in essence creates a living hell. Freedom must only be sought in terms of an abiding ethical standard:
The cause of freedom is a futile one on anything other than God's terms, His Son the King, and His law our way of life. For men to seek freedom apart from God is comparable to seeking heaven in hell. (Institutes Vol. III, p.48)
This point is demonstrated in the incessant pleas for freedom of speech. The rankled corps of civil rights activists utilize The First Amendment as the go-to text for saying whatever they please—without responsibility, or constraint by Biblical law. But, as mentioned above, the Constitutional provisions only restrained the state from interfering in the affairs of the individual states. The Constitution did not compel states in the establishment of religion or freedom of speech. Those issues were left up to the states to determine.
This is the crux of the war between the states. In the 19th century America was comprised of free states and slave states. The war only broke out only at the imposition of federal morality upon sovereign southern states. The Constitution was not intended to compel the states to national conformity. It was designed to keep Washington out of Alabama. The South had a reason to fight, and with their loss came the rise of American tyranny. The slave question was to be resolved at the state level. Resolution was not come by Northern aggression.
Personal liberties, such as the freedom of speech, cannot be legislated from Washington. Certain states may be more Christian than others, and therefore restrain such transgressions as blasphemy. This diversity of state laws is true today as some states still outlaw sodomy while others see it as a "laymen's proctology." Will Congress then compel states like Texas, North Carolina, and Tennessee to conform to the idiotic Supreme Court ruling that sodomy laws are unconstitutional? Would that in itself be unconstitutional?
Freedom of Speech
By making freedom absolute, as Rushdoony noted, the way is made for mass irresponsibility. This is where we presently suffer most. Freedom of speech is creating a profane culture where all forms of media are awash in foul language, defamation, and blasphemy. These illicit forms of speech are granted freedom because they are granted equality with responsible speech. This is where the Bible is more helpful than the ACLU--who are more concerned with protecting the speech of derelicts than protecting my family from perversity.
The Bible in no way permits such egalitarian liberties. The Scriptures rather restrain speech for the sake of the truth, which is often lost in the national permissiveness of lies and defamation. Rushdoony makes this plain:
The Biblical law with respect to speech is therefore not a declaration of freedom of speech but a prohibition of false witness in court, and of malicious and false statements with respect to men and events in everyday affairs. The distinction is a very important one. The Biblical law gives freedom to the truth, not to false witness in its broadest sense. True freedom of speech rests on the prohibition of false witness. (Institutes Vol. I., 580)
Humanistic freedom of speech is eroding our national morality. So is freedom of the press and freedom of religion. They are all distortions of the Biblical idea of freedom, and are marginalizing the truth by their distortions. The present whining over freedoms is because of a perceived threat to perversity. Man wants to live free and clear of God's law, and he will reshuffle our founding documents to secure that Sadean liberty.
No True Hope in the Constitution
It should be plain that genuine hope cannot be placed in the Constitution. A simple national restoration to 1787 will not secure liberty for our progeny. Although it would be delightful for a season. Our constitutional republic was subverted once, and it can easily be subverted again. The only founding document to return to is the whole Word of God. Human documents, like human systems, are fallible and subject to subversion. Martin Selbrede recently made this point in a personal dialogue in which he stated:
"Man's problem is ethical, not institutional or organizational. Men can be just as sinful in decentralized situations as they can when power is concentrated centrally. Rush made a point of this because to argue otherwise is to concede ground to those who want to manipulate man's environment to improve man's situation, when in fact man's basic problem is sin. Rush taught us to NEVER buy into a metaphysical solution to an ethical problem. This is implicit Manichaeanism."
How true this is. The issue is man's character, which is shaped by his core beliefs. Therefore, our true work is a gospel project where we proclaim the message of salvation and then disciple the nations in terms of God's commandments. This is long-term and not for the feeble Christian. Until today's believer can elevate their perspective beyond the constraints of personal well-being, and their "relationship with Jesus," we are pulling a corpse. Until churches leaders can pull away from the building committee, we are left with the strategy of the fictional "Morpheus" from the Matrix Trilogy: scour the sewers in search of those who might be receptive to illumination--then unplug them from the system. With each convert the systems of tyranny lose a bit of their power supply.
In conclusion, I appreciate those brethren who labor for a return to Constitutionalism because I know many of them embrace Biblical law and the necessity for ethical conversion. I would seek to provoke others who have reduced our national debate to a "War on Christianity," and only see solutions in national conferences and the election of conservative judges. To them I offer this simple reminder that it is "to the law and to the testimony" (Is. 8:20) that we are to return, not the documents of men.
Recently published satellite photos show a strange anomaly that fits the Biblical measurements for Noah's Ark. Located some 15,000 feet in the mountains of Ararat this object has attracted the attention of the intelligence community since 1949.
