Chalcedon Blog

These are some of the items covered in today's Faith for All of Life podcast. Joining Chris Ortiz is Chad Bull, long-standing JBS member and Chalcedon supporter. Chad recently penned an article on the John Birch Society for Chalcedon and it's a pleasure to have his participation.

Check out the podcast.

By R.J. Rushdoony

It is a mistake to assume that a word means the same thing for everyone. The very word God means a variety of things even within Western countries, and, the world over, has many strange definitions. Man's faith and its culture define meanings. Definition is determined by religion; it is a religious task and has been so ever since God commanded Adam to "name" or define the animals.

The many definitions of freedom essentially resolve themselves into two, and it is useless to champion freedom unless we know what it is that we are advocating. The conflict of our time is between, first, freedom from the law as antinomianism and lawlessness, and, second, freedom under God and His law.

A while back, an "artist" who saw a copy of the Chalcedon Report reacted angrily. We were, he felt, fascists and anti-freedom, and he singled out some of us, naming Otto Scott for his article on the Zurich drug-park experiment, because we are anti-"gay," anti-drugs, and so on and on. This made us also anti-art! Clearly, for him both art and freedom mean a radical lawlessness and an active promotion of all that is anti-Christian and anti-law-abiding.

The "champions" of freedom are obviously not all in the same camp. Those who believe that freedom means the right to be lawless can damn Christians as hate-mongers and spew endless venom in the name of freedom! They sincerely believe that they are defending man's freedom against an evil power!

Over the years, I have known about or heard of professors who have routinely stolen valuable university library books on the grounds that they could best appreciate them. Now, in the June 18,1992 World News Digest (p. 7), there is an account of the troubles of Dr. James Billington, director of the Library of Congress. He closed the stacks to library employees, "because of the incredible amounts of thievery." The union chiefs told Billington that they were entitled to these books. When Billington told the union bosses of his stand, they were especially angry when Billington said that most of the worst offenders were Ph.Ds. As a result, union leaders "are going after the head of the director, Dr. James Billington."

The right to steal? Well, it is a logical conclusion of the belief in freedom as antinomianism, as freedom from law. Should we be surprised that even pastors and priests are too often guilty of stealing church funds, and of sexual sins?

No society ever stands still. It pursues the logic of its faith to the reasonable conclusion thereof, and an antinomian faith will in time be lawlessness in practice. This is what we are witnessing increasingly. We see the "right" to steal affirmed by scholars and by street gangs and rioters. They are akin in faith, a radical antinomianism which they define as freedom.

Our Lord, in John 8:33ff., makes clear what freedom means. First, men who are lawless are sinners, and they are the servants or slaves of sin. Original sin is the desire of man to be his own god and law (Gen. 3:5), but this sin in fact enslaves man and renders him a helplessly evil person. Second, we are made free in Christ, who makes us a new creation (II Cor. 5:17), enables us to live in obedience, even though not perfectly in this life, and makes us the people of His righteousness or justice (Rom. 8:4). The law of God becomes then our way of life, not lawlessness.

For true Christians, the antinomian view of freedom means slavery. The world, by its present policies, is actively courting slavery as its higher freedom. Our politicians talk about freedom as Lenin did, meaning controls and slavery. All who deny God's law are denying, the very foundation of our freedom and are therefore to some degree in the camp of the lawless.

It is inconsistent and foolish to oppose our homosexual culture, to hate the rapid growth of totalitarian controls, and to bewail the growing immoralism around us if by our antinomianism we are promoting the world's doctrine of lawlessness as freedom.

That doctrine is marked by perversity and evil. In recent years, someone has defined freedom as "the right to heckle," and this concept has been common to many university students, to whom it means the "right" to silence all with whom they disagree.

Others, while denying that there is any given or inherent element in human nature, still insist that freedom is an essential attribute of human nature. We must say that the will to be free of God and His law is basic to the life and nature of fallen man. John Stuart Mill held that freedom is an end in itself, and it is an absolute and sovereign freedom insofar as it concerns man's own being. The only limit on man's freedom is that he must not harm others. But who says so? Who can restrain a sovereign being? Mill's anarchistic idea of freedom rested on nothing more than his fiat idea. Moreover, Mill's doctrine of freedom in his Essays on Liberty, (1859) held, "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling would be an evil still." This means the advocacy of every kind of evil is to be protected: freedom becomes the only absolute. The antinomian doctrine of freedom ends up subverting and denying the validity of all law in favor of freedom as an absolute, in effect the only good.

The issue is very clearly freedom from law versus freedom under law, God's law. It is impossible for us to develop a free and Godly society unless we see clearly what the alternatives are. Failure to understand what freedom means has cost us dearly. Under the banner of a false freedom, people are marching into slavery.

Ready for more discussion on the faith for all of life? Then give a listen to the new Faith for All of Life podcast featuring in-depth interviews with various leaders, thinkers, and practicioners of applied Christianity. Check out the first episode (Vol. 1).

By R.J. Rushdoony

On his visit here in November, 1991, Ian Hodge, the leader of Australian Christian Reconstruction, raised a fundamental question about economics. Himself a practicing economist, he asked if economics had any right to exist as an autonomous realm? Of course, socialists have an answer to that: they subordinate economics to politics. But what is the Christian solution?

The Christian must begin by separating himself from the world of John Locke. In Locke's thinking, property took priority over everything else. To a very real degree, it can be said that for Locke the state is a social contract whose fundamental purpose is to protect property for the individual. In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke said,

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. (Chapter IV, para. 27)

We have here the foundation for non-Biblical capitalism, as well as socialism in every form. We have the essential ingredient for the labor theory of value, and labor's "right" to property. Although John Locke paid lip service to Christianity, he did not recognize God's sovereignty over man and the earth, nor man's status as a steward or trustee under God. Neither did Locke recognize the fallen nature of man, because his belief, after Aristotle and Aquinas, in the mind of man as an innocent and blank tablet undercut the basic premise of Christian faith, man's fallen estate and his need of a Savior. Having separated property from a theological to a natural origin, he became thereby the father also of Marxism. If property is not under God (The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein" [Psalm 24:1]), why should it be under the individual's rather than the community's control? The world of Locke leads straight to Karl Marx.

Now God's law not only controls property (not taxable by the state because under God), it also controls money and debt. The law against false weights and measures had essential reference to money: gold and silver were not coined but were used by weight (Lev. 19:35-37,- Deut. 25:13-16). American coinage began by weight, a $20 gold piece being ounce of gold, 90% fine, and so on. Debts could not be contracted by believers beyond six years (Deut. 15:1-11); they were cancelled in the seventh or Sabbatical year. When Rome fell, the land tax disappeared, although William Carroll Bark, in The Origins of the Medieval World, 1958 (pp. 14ff.), could not understand why.

As Christianity began to penetrate the European mind, men's views began to change. "A man's affairs were everybody's business." A debt was seen as a promise, a commitment which had community-wide ramifications. In England, Magna Carta forbad the seizure of any man's land or person for debt: every man was king in his own place under God. "Neither the debtor's person nor his land could be seized. . . . The sheriff could go on receiving rent and other income from the land until the debt was paid, but he could not take the land." (The United States reverted to this for a time after the War of Independence. Talk of Magna Carta was not hyperbole but an insistence on Christian freedom.) Moreover, "As religion was a state matter, so was business." The idea of a just price did not mean taking a loss; it meant that a man could not take advantage of a crisis to charge a price far in excess of his cost. While the gilds had a monopoly, they also had a responsibility to make good the dishonesty or debt of a member. (Hugh Barty-King: The Worst Poverty, A History of Debt and Debtors, 1991, pp. 1-16).

Roman law, in its fundamental Twelve Tables, gave a creditor the right to seize and dismember the debtor and to sell his wife and children into perpetual slavery. This premise in part came into English law, although Cromwell sought to alleviate it. (Another evil borrowing was the essential Roman legal premise: "The welfare of the state is the highest law." This now governs all countries.)

After Locke, the debtor's prison became an increasing force in English life. A man sent to debtor's prison was not discharged until his debt was paid. Unlike other prisoners, he was not fed, so he routinely starved to death. Many of these debtors were men who lost everything in some natural disaster. From 1750 to 1950, 10,000 or so debtors were sent to prison each year. "Imprisonment for ordinary civil debt was abolished by a statute in 1970" (p. 173). Contemporary culture, being consumption rather than production oriented, has seen a startling increase in debt, unprecedented in all of history. The result is a debt ridden world, currencies with only debt behind them, and a coming world-wide economic collapse. Economics separated from religion, from a Biblical theology, are leading to history's greatest disaster.

If economics be separated from Biblical faith, it becomes a form of totalitarianism. The marketplace becomes the new god, and all things are governed by the premises of Lockean economics. I am regularly told by some that they cannot support me because they do not believe in non-profit activities. This would eliminate all churches and charities, and good music, and replace God with the marketplace. Not surprisingly, it leads, as Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard have often said, to libertinism. I have been told by such economic totalitarians that prostitution is good because it operates in terms of a free market, whereas marriage does not. Totalitarianism bears more labels than simply Marxism and fascism.

If all life is a stewardship under God, and all property and economic activity are stewardships, then our contemporary economic theories of the right and the left are alike immoral. Republican George Bush and Marxist Gorbachev are indeed bed-fellows of an anti-Christian order. (Howard Phillips has rightly termed some members of Congress "Gorbachev Republicans.") It means too that Ian Hodge is right: all our economic theory needs re-thinking in terms of Biblical faith.

Solomon was right: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" (Proverbs 6:27). We have taken fire into our bosoms, and more than our clothes will be burned. It is time to renounce the evil heritage of John Locke. May God have mercy on us, but some Christian schools have in effect canonized him!

We cannot begin our economic theories with property, nor anything other than the triune God and His law word. In every sphere of life and thought, this must be our starting point. But the church has become antinomian with respect to God's Law, and devout nomians with respect to man's law. There is no fear of God before their eyes (Psalm 36:1). To them we can say, when we believe and obey God, "Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul" (Psalm 16.16).

By R.J. Rushdoony

My editorial on "Coarseness" produced quite a reaction: some angry letters from church members, and some very sad ones from pastors. One thing was clear from some of the letters from laymen: they demand the best from a minister.

Back in the 1930s a fictional letter from a pulpit committee to St. Paul circulated among pastors; the pulpit committee rejected St. Paul as a pastor for a variety of reasons, as I recall it: bad tempered, given to long, involved sentences, short of stature and somewhat beaten up, too controversial, and so on. Things are worse now: Jesus Christ would be rejected at once as a bad-tempered trouble-maker!

One of my favorite (and true) stories concerns Queen Victoria and Gladstone, the prime minister of the moment. Queen Victoria told Gladstone, when faced with a vacancy at St. Paul's, that she hoped a good preacher would be chosen for a change. Gladstone answered, Madam, there are not that many good anythings! How true! We all want the best of others but are rarely ready to give the best of ourselves.

Another problem is the definition of the best. Too often our idea of it is one governed by the world. I must confess my own sin here. When Chalcedon began, I was determined, as far as possible, to help the superior minds in the Christian community. I, through Chalcedon, helped several students through seminary and graduate studies, and it was largely money wasted; I don't even remember the names of some! When I became controversial, they forgot me! Only one has been grateful, and a blessing: David Chilton. In the course of all this, I met one seminary student, was twice invited to dinner at his home, and once preached for him. He was unforgettable because what he had was not intellectual claims or showmanship, but solid Christian character, and a pastor's heart. His name: Byron Snapp, a pastor, I believe, in the P.C.A. How much he agrees with me, I don't know, but that he is in line with the Lord is obvious. I learned the expensive way that the mind does not make the man: faithfulness to Jesus Christ does. It is "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).

The church is too full of pew jockeys, demanding but not giving the best. Scripture compares the Church to a body: it is even called the Body of Christ. In that local body, are you a sick liver, an ailing lung, or lazy legs that will not move? Perhaps your complaints about the pulpit have some validity. The clergy, even when they do their best, are not perfectly sanctified, and perhaps some of you would try the patience of a saint! I once knew a couple who sorely tried each other's patience, and they let everyone know it, but they never could understand why the pastor was avoiding them; they felt there was a "need" for a "better man" in the pulpit! Their lives were not a song of love but a long whine of complaints.

As a student, on occasion I went with a professor, a psychiatrist, Dr. Anton Boisen, M.D., when he lectured to various groups and I took charge of his book table. Dr. Boisen had lost an arm in World War I, and it had left him mentally shattered. He recovered and did some remarkable work among the "mentally sick." Although a modernist of sorts, he compiled a hymnal of some of the great hymns of the ages and started a choir among the asylum inmates. His only "problem" with his chapel choir was that the choir members would quickly graduate out of the asylum into health! He had found that a grateful and rejoicing heart is quickly healed, and that Paul's words are strength and healing when he says:

"Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Let your moderation (or, forbearance) be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand (or, is near). Be careful (or, anxious) for nothing, but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God" (Phil. 4:4-6). It is only then, Paul says, that "the peace of God, which passeth all understanding" (v. 7) will sustain us.

How long since you last prayed for your pastor, or for your congregation?

Dr. Boisen's patients gave themselves to the music praising God, and they gained sanity. We must give to get. Our Lord tells us, "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give unto your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again" (Luke 6:38).

Now, before you sit down to write me a foul-mouthed and anonymous letter, take stock of yourself. Your pastor may not be perfect, but neither are you. And God knows what you write and think, and he knows who and what you are better than you do. (By the way, thanks to zip codes on letter cancellations, and to computers, we know who sends anonymous, trashy letters!)

We are all the soul of patience with ourselves. Why not be patient one with another? We are all full, too full, of self-love. How about love for the brethren, and Christ's under-shepherds?

We have enough wars to fight in the world. In our local church community we need to further communion, grace, and love. David's counsel is wise: "Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it" (Psalm 34:14). St. Paul, the warrior, says all the same, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18). Here we have two great warriors of the faith in agreement. Is it not time that we agreed with them?

Start demanding the best of yourself.

R.J. Rushdoony

1. This is a problem that comes up regularly, in various publications, to me in person, or by telephone calls. It is the matter of the growing and disrespectful casualness of dress on the part of church-goers. It marks an unconcern for the dignity and holiness of worship. One pastor had a couple who would dress for worship as though for the beach yet insisted on the utmost formality at their wedding! Their idea apparently was that sneakers and shorts are good enough for God, but their wedding called for formal attire by everyone! This disrespect for God's House now marks Catholics and Protestants alike. And few women now worship with their heads covered with a hat or mantilla. Please, don't waste time telling me that St. Paul did not mean what he said; some people also deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality! If you are casual about God and His House, don't be surprised if He is casual about you. I have never liked going to church made into a fashion parade, but there is a sensible alternative to shorts and a halter! The last pastor to mention this problem to me remarked facetiously that perhaps the solution was taking a valium pill before facing the congregation!

2. The following letter, dated October 12, 1991, just reached me; it is better than most such letters, and it is signed, unlike most. It reads:

Dear Dr. Rushdoony:

Your editorial in the October issue of "Chalcedon" will probably go unchallenged. Dissent is unpopular and the Biblical recommendation that timely confrontation is superior to peaceful error is seldom accepted.

A couple of years ago, at a meeting in Tampa, I asked who you felt was at fault for the sad state of affairs in our nation. Your response was Leadership and laymen on a 50-50 basis. I know Paul felt a great responsibility for bringing about the maturity of the Christians in the churches he started. His Biblical letters are mainly directed toward that end. Israel's leaders in the Old Testament were held responsible for the spiritual state of the nation. I believe God still holds Leadership responsible for the state of Christianty in our nation.

I agree with you - pettiness is wrong. However, having said that, let me say, sir, that there is much wrong with church Leadership and it is hardly fair to chastise the sheep when the shepherd is derelict. Pettiness among preachers is rampant. Strife, discord, ambition, and pride often replace harmony, peace and humility. Many words are spoken and written, but you must search long and hard to find genuine self-sacrifice.

I enjoy "Chalcedon" immensely. It is a lively and truthful publication. Nevertheless, it is one thing to write or preach the truth but a far more difficult thing to live it. Leadership in the Christian community is an awesome and difficult responsibility. Those who aspire to it must realize they are to be held to a higher standard, and that the demands of ministry are a terrible inconvenience.

With all the people who have converted to Christianity in our country during the past 40 years the morals of our nation have still deteriorated, you may rail at the pettiness of people all you want, but I believe the lack of a spirit of genuine servanthood among Christian leaders is the culprit.

A.W. Tozer, a long time ago, decried the pride and arrogance that infects many leaders. He said if you don't believe it exists go and find an errant preacher and try to correct him - hard to do, probably even in your own case.

Sincerely,
A.C.

Now in the August, 1991, issue of the Chalcedon Report, I described some of the clergy as "Dumb Dogs, That Cannot Bark." Mr. A.C., must a critique go only one way? If you " enjoy Chalcedon immensely," how often have you told us so, or supported us? How many faithful pastors have you encouraged? Remember, congregations call a pastor, so they must want what they have. Do you tithe? Do you give to faithful ministries? Never before in U.S. history have people professing to believe the Bible from cover to cover, and to be born again, been as high a percentage of the population, and Christianity less influential in public affairs. Obviously, something is wrong in most pulpits and pews.

Let me make a practical suggestion. As a young man, and even into middle years, I had a practice regularly of writing a letter of gratitude to men whose lives and writings had influenced my life. I kept no record nor copy of such letters and made it clear I wanted no answer: I was simply expressing gratitude. Twenty or so years ago I was startled to find one of these men, a truly great man, at my door. His offices were in Washington, D.C., and I was here in California. We spent a few hours together, and he began by telling me that my letter was framed and in his office and a frequent source of encouragement. Here was a man who had been a counsellor to heads of state, a writer of some excellent books, and a person of considerable note, and also a strong Christian. No one had ever written to him before to express gratitude for his work. It still distresses me to think that we are so ungrateful a generation. Try writing a letter of appreciation to your parents, a former teacher, a pastor, a parishioner, anyone great or small, anyone to whom you should be grateful. I heard from one man only, but I believe the Lord has blessed me for what I did.

3. We are often a very generous people with advice and misplaced attention. Some years ago, I had a woman attending services who, at the door, always had the same comment. It became embarrassing because others had trouble avoiding laughter. Her stock comment was this: "That sermon was exactly what my husband needs; I wish he had been here to hear you." Since then, her husband and children have all made her happy by saying "yes" to Jesus, without changing their lifestyle, except that her husband has aged and no longer can chase girls! I wonder, wherever she goes to church, whom she has in mind as needing each Sunday morning sermon!

4. In 1987, at Oxford, I met a then professor of neuro-surgery, Dr. Raju Abraham. He encouraged me in an interest we both share, folk proverbs. He said their rapid disappearance is a problem. Many people suffer from problems due to a lack of common sense knowledge such as proverbs, once taught by mothers and schools, gave to a person. Instead of a physical problem, they suffer from a lack of moral sense. He uses proverbs to sum up many of his patients' problems. I know this is true. I have often used them myself. I recall the shock of a young man, in deep trouble because of his evil companions, when I quoted, as I have to many, an old folk proverb, "He who lies down with dogs will rise up with fleas."

Now, I have something to ask of you, I do not have time to answer my mail, but I will be very grateful if you jot down some of the favorite proverbs your parents or grandparents used with you, and then mail them to me. I am, slowly, writing a book on proverbial wisdom, and if time permits, Dr. Abraham will be a co-author.

5. Recently, a television evangelist destroyed his worldwide ministry when he was caught, for a second time, with a prostitute. This man's preaching was radically antinomian; having no belief in God's law, his behavior was logical. Expecting also a rapture soon, there was no long-term thinking on his part. All this adds up to something rather close to existentialism, living for the moment and with no law other than your own biological fancies.

6. Speaking of proverbs, here are some old American proverbs about the church, the first of which is very cynical:

The nearer to church, the farther from God. Bring yourself to church, not your Sunday clothes. If you go to church for an evil purpose, you go to God's house on the devil's errand. New churches and new bars are well patronized. A church debt is the devil's salary. Let the devil get into the church and he'll mount the altar.

I like the one about church debt especially. Here are some American proverbs about religion:

A man without religion is a horse without a bridle. Religion is the best armor but the worst cloak. A woman without religion is a flower without perfume The danger past and God is forgotten.

What folk proverbs did was to sum up the experience and wisdom of a people. Some proverbs expressed also their cynicism. At any rate, all nations have had their proverbial wisdom, and an important part of all teaching in the past, in school and home, was in the form of proverbs. My wife Dorothy's family migrated from Scotland to Pennsylvania in the colonial era, but her mother would still use proverbs of Gaelic origin; Dorothy did not know what the words meant, but the meaning was clear!

7. Speaking of die-hards, Burke Davis, who a few years ago wrote a biography of Robert E. Lee, had this comment from MacHyman, author of the comedy No Time For Sergeants: "Every time I read a book about that war, I have the far-off hope that maybe this time, just this one time, we will win it."

8. One of the neglected stories of that war is the life of Claiborne R. Mason, Stonewall Jackson's very remarkable engineer. He was illiterate, except for tracing his name, but he made a fortune as an engineer. With a tiny pocket rule, he could estimate the required amount of earth-moving in any situation. On one occasion, Jackson summoned him to a staff meeting. Mason sent word that he was cooking turnip greens for his supper and would come when they were cooked and eaten. Other men would have been arrested for such behavior, but not Mason. Jackson waited. When Mason arrived, he was asked how long it would take to build a long bridge across the Chickahominy. Mason answered, "General, give me two hundred men, and I'll have you over in twenty-four hours." Mason kept his word, to the hour.

9. Lamarckian thinking holds that evolution occurs through the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Both Darwinian and Lamarckian ideas are held with religious intensity and faith. According to Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, in Roots of Radicalism (1982), Paul Kammerer "Committed suicide after his 'proof' of the Lamarckian argument was invalidated." (p. 119).

10. Some time ago, a newsletter publisher told me that when he met subscribers at conferences many told him how intelligent and fair-minded he was. Then, when they disagreed with him, they called him unfair and "authoritarian. " I was amused yesterday, on receiving a note asking to be dropped from our mailing list (by a person who has never sent us a penny), to have the same charges levelled against us in virtually the same words! The substance of it was common in the mail we receive, but now the wording was an echo of what I had been told. On sober reflection, I realized sadly that this letter (and others like it) reflected the growing totalitarianism of even church people. Agree with me or else! Right now, a book heavily promoted among church people is revealing in this respect. It is against sin, against Marxism, humanism, the sexual revolution, etc., but only vague and general about Christianity so that there is nothing there for anyone to disagree with - or even agree with - because it is so general. No one will grow reading it, but then not many people want growth, only agreement. Affirm my position, or else!

On an average, I read and index some 250 books a year; I take some 30 or more periodicals; all our staff, here and abroad, read more or less similarly. Most of what I read, I do not agree with, but I learn from people whom I strongly disgree with; my own position is developed thereby, or I learn of some areas that need strengthening.

Some "Christian" periodicals deserve Nobel prizes for dullness: they work to avoid upsetting anyone! I can understand why most church people do not read the Bible from cover to cover faithfully and regularly! They would be offended by much in it - unless they dismiss it as belonging to another dispensation.

11. A good many years ago, I read L. Finkelstein's carefully documented two-volume study of the Pharisees, the fathers of modern Judaism. It was obvious that in one respect they were the finest people of their day; yet our Lord attacked them as the worst. A clue to the reason why they were the worst was their hypocrisy: they were "whited sepulchers." There was, however, another aspect to Phariseeism: their haughty and critical spirit. They opened their mouths only to criticize from the vantage of their supposed superiority. Our Lord refers to both these sins of Phariseeism in Matthew 23:15, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." The Pharisees were routinely critical and hostile: they never praised our Lord honestly, in spite of His all miracles, but were constantly critical.

The churches today are full of such Pharisees; nothing pleases them except to criticize, and they delight in that, whatever their mock concern. The better the pastor, the sharper their criticism. No man should be better than they are! We hear from such Pharisees also. From year to year, they neither support us nor ever write a letter of encouragement. But let one writer say something they disagree with, and we promptly get a many-paged letter! Such people, whatever their verbal profession, are not true believers.

Surprise your pastor next Sunday. Take such verses as Psalm 100:4 seriously: "Enter into his courts with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name." Go to church in this spirit, and you will please God and the pastor. And let a little of that thanksgiving come our way! Or are you one of those perpetual critics whom our Lord describes as "twofold more the child of hell"?

12. My wife, Dorothy Barbara Ross Rushdoony, is a very wise woman. She commented at breakfast on why so many people now oppose capital punishment. Her comment was this: "First we must accept the justice of God's punishment for our sins (the death penalty assumed by Jesus Christ), before we can mete out justice to others or accept it for ourselves." The death penalty rests on a theological fact.