This was humorous. Many have come to know Kirk Cameron, child star that "got saved" and started appearing in the popular but pathetic Left Behind films. He's also the host on TBNs "Way of the Master" show.
Watch how Kirk's head is spinning after speaking with a young reformed baptist missionary on how Calvinists approach missionary evangelism. America ain't ready for the neo-puritans.
Why? According to Quebec's education ministry, all schools, including private Christian schools, must comply with the official provincial curriculum, which includes Darwinism and "sexuality" education.
What led to this bureaucratic ukase? The Quebec equivalent of a local public school board complained to the education ministry that a small Christian school in the neighborhood was not teaching children the full curriculum. There were only 20 children in the school, but that was enough to arouse the secular educators' ire.
The case will probably be litigated farther, and may eventually reach Canada's Supreme Court. We deplore this assault on the religious liberties of Canadian Christians; but we also wonder if it poses a threat to our freedom here at home.
How much control can the U.S. Dept. of Education exert over the day-to-day teaching in America's Christian schools? We haven't been worrying about this because so far the department has shown no inclination to lean on Christian schools. This, of course, could change, depending on election results in the future. ("Then arose a new Pharaoh who knew not Joseph...") Meanwhile, there are some straws in the wind.
State and federal courts have ruled that American public schools must teach Darwinism, and may not teach Intelligent Design or any other alternative to evolution theory. No case has come up involving Christian schools. It would make little sense for a parent who wants his child to learn evolution, and the joys of sodomy, to enrol him in a Christian school where such subjects are eschewed--not when he can send the child to a public school, and not even pay tuition.
But we wonder what would happen if some sanctimonious public "educator" sought to bring a case like this before an American court. (It's unlikely any state department of education would want to get involved in such a thorny First Amendment case, so the complaint would probably have to be laid before a judge.)
On the whole, our First Amendment is stronger protection than anything Christians have in Canada; but it is not absolute protection, and it is always subject to the politics of the moment.
This case from Canada reminds us that we must never relax our vigilance, nor concede any portion of our religious liberty.
I simply cannot refer to such people as adults or even decent. The political bantering in this country is at the level of Haiti or Somalia, and I hold no respect for either party or its leadership. The Republicans appear as hypocritical monsters. They are grossly immoral, war-driven power brokers whose hypnotic control is finally loosening from the minds of conservatives. The Democrats are no better, and I anticipate a great many Christians will avoid the polls in lieu of returning in 2008.
There are no political solutions to our national dilemmas. Our reliance must be upon the Lord. The Christian community must return to Him with a repentance made manifest in explicit, determined obedience to His law and covenant. Christian Reconstructionists bear a specific responsibility to speak along these lines, yet a good many theonomic leader has left the fold for the "deeper waters" of triviality, obscure literature, theological revisionism, and hip-hop! They are preoccupied with memorizing the multiple brands of ale and photographing themselves smoking cigars. My goodness, need I remind you men of your calling?
Get back to your post! In the name of Him whose eyes are in every place I admonish you to fall out of love with the latest theologian and work to reposition Christianity back upon its solid foundation -- the foundation of law and covenant.
Enough with metanarratives. Enough with "emergence." Enough with postmodernity. Why do you allow the moorings of a contemporary culture to determine your daily focus? Oh, what an intoxicating spirit is the liquor of relevance! The application of your prophetic office is not relevance to a capricious culture, but rather representation of the righteous Lord. Seek to conform men to God's standards rather than conform yourself to man's cultural folly.
What has happened to the once burgeoning army of reconstructionist thinkers, ministers, writers, pastors, and diligent laymen? Where have they wandered? What great theology carries such a superior allurement than that of applied Van Tillianism? Are they simply war weary? Are their spirits exhausted? Is it the power of the mailing list? What is the great explanation for the great dispersion?
Rushdoony and Bahnsen are gone just a few years and already theonomic leaders are toying with Pharoah and his chariots; and I have no other explanation than that of confusion. As was the handicap of ancient Israel today's Christian is "veiled" from "seeing to the end of what was established" (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14,15). When you lose sight of the direction of eschatological purpose you become consumed with the present. Since Israel could not see the goal of Old Testament history due to the veiling of their hearts and minds they wandered aimlessly and sought only to conform to other nations, i.e., they lusted for cultural relevance.
This led to national confusion and eventual captivity. Their national confusion was typified in the captivity in Babylon (the land of Babel, or confusion). It is therefore not enough to speak only of our election out of the bondage of sin (or "Egypt"), we must now speak of our election out of the captivity of confusion (or "Babel").
Our theonomic leaders used to point a clear path to the advancement of the kingdom. They were thoroughly contra-statist and their theology was the sole helmsman steering the once great ship of Christian Reconstruction. Now, that theology has been replaced. The blurring of the eschatological goal has left them captive in neo-Babylon and they can only think of relevance while dancing close to the precipice of drunkenness. Drunkards epitomize man's loss of purpose and calling. This would explain the blog pages dedicated by reformed men to their favorite brew.
And worst of all, the illustrious allegiance once directed towards Rushdoony and Bahnsen are now granted to the disgusting fascists in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department. And while a few remaining reconstructionists drone endlessly about returning to the "faith of our national founding fathers" they utter not a single peep about the encroaching police state brought on by the false flag terror attacks of the most vicious men ever to call themselves Republicans.
Confusion is our problem -- a loss of purpose and clear direction. This leads one to cushion the present rather than sacrifice for the future. We are doomed because we are repeating history. The fruit of the Reformation rotted due to the climate of modernity. The fruit of the neo-reformation of Christian Reconstruction now rots in the climate of postmodernity. This is a frightening irony, and it is one we must oppose.
Recovering from the Political Hangover of the Religious Right
Our world is in desperate need of Christian action. It is equally in need of a redefinition of Christian action. After nearly thirty years of the Religious Right, the secularist sees political activism as the sole meaning of "Christian action." This political organization, now labeled as "dominionism," is somewhat at fault for misconstruing Christian responsibility both within and without the Christian community. This has also provided the secular left with a useful "boogeyman" as myriads of Internet-based fear technicians prop up a "Christian Goliath" at which to sling stones.
The realm of the political is addictive to both sides. They can't get enough of it. Despite the old warning to avoid all discussions of religion and politics, the contemporary debates are laden with both ingredients. Now the world itself is becoming quite versed in a false interpretation of Christian action. Now any Christian action, whether political or not, is perceived as "dominionist," and therefore a reason for social concern.
This would include something as simple as homeschooling your child, which is now seen as a move to bankrupt the public school system and train young Christian children in militant, and potentially violent, Christian activism. This is not a good thing. The Apostle Paul instructs us to "do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world" (Phil. 2:14-15).
This does not mean a Christian cannot engage in civil or political service. By all means, dedicated Christians must seek to apply their faith to every sphere, but the priority should be placed on conduct and less on political organization. We must not allow "faithfulness" to be defined as merely lobbying for Christian legislation on gay marriage, prayer in schools, and abortion. This is not the primary meaning of Christian action--or, should I say, Christian responsibility.
Our first order is faithfulness to God's covenant and law within the spheres of self-government, family, church, education, and vocation. The view of the state within Christian Reconstruction is the Biblical model of a reduced magistrate responsible primarily for justice and defense. By focusing upon the welfare of our families, and the larger Christian community, we are showing ourselves straight in a crooked nation and pure among a perverse people. Our duty is to shine as lights in the world, not only as lights in Washington.
Our emphasis must shift because we are failing in the fundamentals. Putting politics before family, education, and welfare will only fortify the animosity towards Christianity and weaken the foundations of our faith. However, certain branches within the conservative Christian community are determined to commit all of their resources to political activism. The Apostle Paul writes, "[S]tudy to be quiet, and to do your own business" (1 Thess. 4:11). The wisdom here is that the Kingdom can grow very well in the quietness of faithfulness.
In my opinion, Christian Reconstruction has been weakened by the overemphasis upon the political. A careful reading of R. J. Rushdoony teaches us that humanism seeks its godhood in the state while the church prophetically seeks to inform the state of its limited role under God. Some of us, however, could not resist the temptation to push the agenda of the Kingdom through the conduit of the state. For this we are now perceived as religious power brokers, and less as the faithful servants of our Lord.
Christian duty must never be attached to a particular political party. Granted, our voice must be heard at the political level, but it should not be identified with politics. It is simply a matter of emphasis--let us not neglect the weightier matters of daily faithfulness by only organizing politically. "Taking dominion" is misconstrued when it's portrayed as the Christian seizure of civil power. We are rather "taking back" dominion from the state by self-government and Christian responsibility.
Chalcedon's Chris Ortiz interviews Michael Butler, Academic Dean and Professor of Philosophy at Christ College, on the life and work of Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen and the meaning and application of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. This is must-hear podcast if you want to better understand presuppositionalism.
O'er the Land of the Suspects and the Home of the Fearful
In 1814, Francis Scott Key penned a four stanza poem after experiencing a massive bombardment by the British navy on Fort McHenry in Baltimore. People who watch "The History Channel" think that the attack Key was observing was during the revolutionary war. It was not. This was the War of 1812 -- a second round between the new republic and their former benefactors over trade embargoes and colonial accusation of on-going subterfuge by Britain.
The first stanza to Key's poem was declared our national anthem in 1931, and despite it's continued "airplay" for 75 years, most Americans know only the first and last two lines. Don't believe me? Go to a ball game and watch em! They mumble through the middle portion until they get to that glorious line at the end, "O'er the land of the fre-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e (pause) and the home of the b-r-r-r-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-v-v-e-e."
The self contradiction is staggering. Are we the land of the free and the home of the brave? Hardly. We are trading our freedom like unwanted baseball cards for a promised security bearing the disclaimer, "we have to be successful 100% of the time, but the terrorists only have to be successful once." Okay, so what guarantees do we have then? None. I'd rather take my chances with the meat sticks in Al Qaeda then turn my civil liberties over to Chancellor Bush.
The administration claimed we were attacked because "Islamo-fascists" (whatever that's supposed to mean) hate our freedom. We're also in Iraq to "protect our freedom." So, why sacrifice freedom in the name of protection? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? What is freedom anyway?
Is it freedom to say as you please? Yes. But that's being undermined now. Is it freedom to check out books, make purchases and phone calls without warrantless searches? Yes. But that's no longer the case. Is it freedom to travel without undue search and seizure? Yes. But just try to get through the TAS without getting selected for frisking and an opening of your belongings.
Is it freedom to go about your day without being filmed by surveillance cameras? Yes. You can kiss that goodbye. Is it freedom to keep your money generated from labor without having it automatically seized by the state to fund perpetual war? Yes. Go get your pay stub. Is it freedom to keep your property when the state wants it for civil purposes? Yes. The Supreme Court did away with that last year. Shall I go on?
So, we are losing freedoms. That's factual. If the Islamo-fascists (I can't help but giggle when I read that) hate us for our freedom, then isn't it ironic that their acts of terror HAVE removed some of our liberties? If we really wanted to "show those terrorists a thing or two," shouldn't we be expanding freedom to demonstrate how the "land of the free" will not be intimidated by terrorists? After all, we don't "negotiate with terrorists," why in the world would we allow them to erase our Constitution?
We are not the home of the brave either. We're a land full of scared wet cats. If the media features a big picture of Bin Laden we get a chill down our yellow spines. If the president of Iran is shown we yell and scream like the hate rallies in Orwell's 1984. And when the neo-gestapo SWAT teams are roaming U.S. streets we finally allow ourselves a few moments of hesitated solace. How shameful. How disgraceful. How un-American.
So, after "the rockets red glare, and the bombs bursting in air," the point is to "give proof that the flag" is still there waving over a free land full of brave people. Yet, after the red glare of 9/11 there was no more proof of a free land of brave people over which the "broad stripes and bright stars" could wave. We have lost the "perilous fight."
For your enjoyment, here are the last two stanzas of this great poem. The part we don't sing:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion A home and a country should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation, Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto -- "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
1. I picked up a used book today for a dollar, Peter Lyon's Success Story, The Life and Times of S.S. McClure (1963). Dorothy began reading it while I was in the bank, and she shared this delightful incident with me. In 1902, Miss Ellen Stone, an American missionary, together with a young Bulgarian missionary Mme. Katerina Tsilka, was kidnapped by brigands in Macedonia and held for ransom. (Macedonia was then a part of the Turkish Empire.) American churches began to raise the ransom money. Meanwhile, the brigands were sorry that they ever kidnapped Ellen Stone! She was neither weak nor helpless, and certainly not fearful. When the brigands warned her against trying to escape, she told them, contemptuously, that "since they had stolen her God-given freedom, it was their duty to restore it, and she would not help them to do so by so much as lifting a finger" (p. 197). She ordered her captors about, lectured them about the faith, made some swear off tobacco, and even reduced some of them to tears. They soon wanted rid of her. Was this unusual? No one who knows something about American pioneer women would say so. The feminist accounts of what women were like in those days is a myth. Stephen Perks, when last here from England, expressed amusement at American ideas about the Victorian era. He says it was the time of "the reign of the battle-axes"! In the stories of W.W. Jacobs, a writer of that era, the women came through as the strong characters. People, of course, prefer their myths about the past to the realities.
2. Mark and I have both spoken and written against the voucher plan. Some churchmen feel I am anti-Christian for doing so! The September 1992 Readers Digest, in an article by Murray Weidenbaum on "Robbing Peter to Bail Out Paul," the subject of federal aid to business is discussed. The first myth Weidenbaum cites is the belief that such funding does not involve government control, just assistance. No federal or state funds, he states, go without strings attached. "Any business manager who is so naive (as to believe in no strings) should not be let out alone at night, much less let loose in Washington" (p. 88). Any churchmen who buys the voucher argument is morally derelict.
3. From time to time, I remember with affection and respect and elderly widow I knew from c. 1953 to 1962, Mrs. Ellen Larkin. During those last five years, she was legally blind, and she had to use a walker to get about. She insisted on remaining alone in her book-lined house. Her son, a professor, lived two states away. His strong-willed wife's solution was to put Mrs. Larkin in a nursing home. A neighboring women checked twice a day on Ellen Larkin; sometimes she would fall and wait for help. She cooked for herself. She never complained, and she was a joy to call on. I would, besides Scripture, read other things to her. Her favorite poem was Rupert Brooke's "The Great Lover," wherein the poet celebrates the simple things he loved:
Then, the cool kindliness of sheets, that soon Smooth away trouble.... The benison of hot water; furs to touch: The good smell of old clothes; and others such.
Ellen Larkin never complained, and she was always grateful; she had a joyful disposition.
4. What's in a name? I have raised this question again and again, and I have no answer. We have some surnames on our mailing list inconsiderable numbers; in any telephone directory, these same names take up pages. But, when it comes to giving, some we never hear from, others only infrequently, whereas one common surname, Johnson, marks generous givers and supportive persons. Among familiar but not as common names, Robbins stand out. Why, I don't know! But please, all of you, change your names to Johnson or Robbins, and let's see what happens!
5. The newspapers are full of stories about atrocities perpetrated by Serbians against Croats and Moslems. They may be true, and, again, they may not. I am old enough to remember that, as a child, I heard of all kinds of atrocities committed by the Kaiser's Germany against women and children. These were later proven to be false, and Allied atrocities were real. Recently, we had the evil war against Iraq, certainly a dictatorship, like virtually all the Arab states, and better than most, and more friendly to Christians than almost all others. Iraq fought to regain Kuwait, which had been forcibly taken from them. Why did they suddenly become the epitome of evil.
Wars are fought in terms of power politics, not morality. If, sometimes, a moral issue is present, so much better to drum up popular support.
The Balkans were under Turkish power and oppression until this century. They all dreamed, in the last century, of a united realm and kingdom under Serbia. The great powers, notably the Hapsburgs in Austria, worked to keep them divided in order to make it an area under their control. Germany's dream of a Berlin-Bagdad system furthered this emphasis on dividing the Balkans, and the major target was Serbia. World War I began because ostensibly a Serbian plot led to the murder of the Austrian archduke at Sarajevo. Even during that war, an English scholar wrote that the murder served Austria, not Serbia, which was ready to do almost anything to placate Austria in the aftermath.
It is good, therefore, that Dorset Books has reprinted an important 1917 book, R.G.D. Laffan: The Serbs, The Guardians of the Gate. Read it before you judge a great people. Atrocities? There are perhaps some on both sides, but what is the truth of the conflict? I am suspicious of what the media stridently proclaims as the truth.
6. I love books. They are not only my tools but a source of delight to me. I have maybe forty thousand or more and always want more! (My problem is space for them: I need an addition to house them!) Dorothy's problem with me is getting me to spend money for clothes because I want to buy books instead. I have been stalling her for some time, because, I tell her, at 76, how do I know that I can use new clothes very long? Well, I have been feeling so healthy of late that my excuse is now wearing thin!
7. John Lofton concluded his September 1992, Lofton Letter with these words: "Support Your Local Calvinists."
8. Many of you know that the West in 1992 has had many forest fires, including, one in our county that destroyed between seventeen and eighteen thousand acres and about forty or more homes. Most such fires are started either by arson or by lightening. A contributing cause is that many city people, in moving into the country, refuse to clear out the brush and deadwood and thus leave a dangerous scene around their house. Even more, according to my son, Mark, who is, among his many duties, a volunteer fireman who has fought forest and brush fires from the Yosemite area south of us to some two hundred miles north of us, the forest service has been compelled by environmentalists to give up a safety practice. By allowing cattle to graze on forestlands, brush was previously destroyed by the cows, and fire-dry grass eaten, thereby reducing the fire hazard. Also, the cattle, by breaking down and destroying brush (greasewood and like shrubs) made it easier for young trees to sprout and grow in the available space. Too many natural disasters are man-made.
9. I have a picture, supplied by Ron and Lesha Myers of Concord, California, of a Spray-painted sign on a bridge on Oakmead Drive, taken on December 24, 1991. It read, "Kill Christians." The Christian community had, for the second time, defeated a so-called "gay rights" bill, and this was the response. The media refuses to take note of such things. Can you imagine the reaction if someone maliciously painted, "Kill anti-Christians"? Too often, the "news" is news if it is anti-Christian.
Faith for All of Life host, Chris Ortiz, interviews Chalcedon president, Mark Rushdoony, about the work of Chalcedon, and the life and work of R. J. Rushdoony -- an inside look into the massive reading and writing of this great reformed scholar. Listen to the podcast
Christian teenagers from all around the country are using the Internet to translate their faith into action.
A case in point is Young Christians Fighting for America (YCFA), a new enterprise founded by Christian teens (see their home website, http://www.freewebs.com/ycfa). Their stated purpose is to "involve young home educated people in preserving our nation's heritage" and to "use their influence toward changing laws for the better." Their method is to identify key public issues, draft letters to the appropriate legislators, and collect as many signatures as possible to affix to the letters. Naturally, they will seek to influence lawmaking in a direction more consistent with God's laws.
YCFA is currently seeking new members, ages 12-21. The membership fee is $5 a year, to cover the cost of the letters, and the production of a quarterly newsletter. To find a membership link, go to http://www.freewebs.com/ycfa/index.htm .
YCFA founders include Cole Adema, 16, South Dakota, president; Zach Engelhart, 17, South Dakota, vice president; Jessica Raymond, 17, Virginia, executive administrator; and Jonathan Bartlett, 15, North Dakota, publications manager. Miss Raymond, by the way belongs to the Reformed Bible Church in Appomattox, VA, whose ministry is the subject of this month's Faith For All of Life cover story. Her father is the pastor, Paul Raymond.
The new group is already at work on several public issues--the National Animal Identification System, illegal immigration, abolition of the Federal Reserve, abolition of the income tax, and restoration of Second Amendment rights. For their take on these issues, see http://www.freewebs.com/ycfa/currentissues.htm .
It's encouraging to see talented young people, on their own initiative, taking advantage of the opportunities provided by new technology to serve Christ's Kingdom in an innovative way. All it takes is a computer, a spark of imagination, drive, and a desire to serve the Lord.
Is there something that adults could learn from them? Hmm...
Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"; and every day, our leaders give us something to be vigilant about.
Homeschooling may be increasingly popular, increasingly mainstream, but that doesn't mean its enemies have given up their dream of abolishing it.
The Home School Legal Defense Assn. (www.hslda.org/) has called our attention to perhaps the most ambitious anti-homeschooling scheme of them all--a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to establish a "right" to public schooling (for full details, see http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/HJR29/default.asp).
The HSLDA is tracking this legislation closely. Due to the cumbersome nature of the amendment process, there's no danger of this one sneaking up on us. It would have to pass both houses of Congress by wide margins, and then submitted to the states and the people for a vote.
But it does remind us to be cautious about whom we elect to Congress this fall. In a worst-case scenario, liberals could sweep into power and vote this through. We would then have to fight it on the state and local levels, with the possibility that media spin and the political muscle of the teachers' unions might bamboozle enough voters to win the day.
That would mean that the state would have the power to override parents' educational decisions, and snatch children out of homeschooling to force them into public schools--all in defense of children's new Constitutional "right" to public schooling.
It's all rather unlikely, but it is not impossible. If nothing else, it reminds us that there's still plenty of opposition to homeschooling. Teachers' unions and statist politicians are still avidly looking for ways to kill off Christian education--and we must not allow our votes to provide them with the ways and means of doing so.
Public education and statism go hand-in-hand. Homeschooling, or any kind of Christian schooling, is both a reproach and a perpetual threat to them.
'Off-Ramping' Tries to Shore Up Two-Paycheck Lifestyle
The biggest difference in American daily life, between the way it was some decades ago and the way it is now, is the rise of the two-paycheck family.
When I was a boy, our fathers went to work while our mothers stayed home to raise the children and manage the household. That was the way it was done in America for centuries.
Now, it's more common for both parents to work full-time, with the kids in daycare, public school, or assorted after-school, weekend, and summer "programs." The results of absentee parenting--which is not parenting at all--do not include stronger families.
A new report from ABC News, "Working Women Move From the 'Off-Ramp,'" by Betsy Stark (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IndustryInfo/story?id=2518821&page=1), focuses on new tactics by the corporate world to keep women in business. Because so many women have been deciding to leave their jobs, usually to have children, and then have difficulty getting back into the business world when the children are a little older, companies have found a way to make it easier for them to return.
Rather than completely sever her connection with the work world, a business woman can now take an "off-ramp" which keeps her in the loop by means of refresher courses, mentoring, continuing to socialize with the gang at the office, etc. When she's ready to go back to work, she takes the "on-ramp." See the ABC article for details.
A report by the Center for Work-Life Policy, based on a survey by the Harvard Business Review (see http://www.worklifepolicy.org/pdfs/news-pr10.pdf), says the news media have exaggerated the movement of women out of the workforce. But it agrees with ABC on some of the numbers.
According to the Harvard study, 37% of women in business off-ramp "for some period of time," and 95% of them "want to return to work." Eventually 74% of them do rejoin the workforce, but only 40% to full-time jobs--a pattern which the Center for Work-Life Policy deplores as a "brain drain."
What we deplore is the weakening of the family, especially when it isn't necessary. Is it a question of the family not having a roof over its head unless Mom works--or is it a matter of not being able to afford a brace of new cars every year?
A disturbing finding of the Harvard survey is, "A husband's reaction to a woman's decision to off-ramp is often ambivalent or negative." So we can't blame absentee parenting on feminism alone. Greed and consumerism, status-seeking, and mere selfishness know no gender.
If we need the two paychecks to pay for a big house in an upscale neighborhood, trendy clothes, expensive cars, flat-screen TV, bragging rights over others, and whatnot, we have allowed materialism to usurp priority over our families--definitely not a Biblical course.
It's not as if a stay-at-home mother has nothing to do but stay home and watch soap operas. The Bible's model of a wife and mother is given in Proverbs 31. In modern terms, this model mother would be homeschooling her children, keeping the family finances in order, maintaining the house, and nourishing the family. She and her husband, the children's father, are a team: the one can't function properly without the other.
Women with young children, at least, ought to stay home. Motherhood, as a calling, is necessary, noble, and blessed by God. The payoff is a strong, well cared-for family. "The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her... Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her" (Proverbs 31: 11, 28).
In I Timothy 6:10, St. Paul writes, "The love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred (or, been seduced) from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." In understanding what Paul tells us, we must avoid two errors. First, Paul does not say that money is the root of all evil, but rather that the love thereof is. Second, we must not neglect to understand why the love of money is so singled out as "the root of all evil." After all, according to Genesis 3:1-5, original sin, the root of all evil, is man's desire to be his own god and to determine good and evil, law and morality, for himself. How is this related to the love of money?
Notice that St. Paul does not say that the love of wealth is the root of all evil. Wealth has had a variety of definitions. A man strong in faith is wealthy, because he has riches too many men lack. Again, in much of history, wealth has been defined in terms of a strong family and clan. In some cultures, a man without a family cannot find work and is regarded as an outlaw because he has no family to vouch for him or to make good on any wrong he commits; a man who leaves his family is in such a society an outlaw.
The same is true of friends. For some cultures, a network of friends is wealth and security; they will help or defend you, as you will them. The strength of feudalism was the fact that it was a network of obligations, duties, and ties. Men were not alone.
In the material sphere, the major form of wealth in history has been land. Land provides both a home and a source of potential food. A landed man over the centuries was a free man. (Our tax structure has put an end to that, and this has been done deliberately.) It was once true that "A man's home is his castle," and a man's land was immune to trespass. In my lifetime, more than a few Western ranchers held that they had a right to shoot a trespasser. Their thinking had ancient roots.
St. Paul speaks against none of these forms of wealth. They are, in fact, thoroughly Biblical in character. Why did he single out money?
Money has a curious history. True money is cold or silver, whereas base currencies and paper money represent the statist counterfeiting of money. Rome had a long history of debasing its coinage.
Why was money so dangerously evil in Paul's sight'? The root of all evil is man's will to be his own god and his own determiner of reality, of good, evil, everything. The love of money has the same deluding power: it distorts or destroys reality. In the past two years, one well-known churchman tried to tell me I had no right to an opinion, and he told me how much he was worth, and he asked, "And how much did you make last year?" This man has been seduced from the faith by his love of money: he is now being stripped of his money, is pierced by much trouble, but he lacks godly sorrow. The love of money destroys a man's awareness of reality. Virtue, friends, family, and all other forms of wealth are despised in favor of money.
Moreover, it is interesting that, as material wealth has shifted towards money in the thinking of people, it has shifted from true money, gold and silver, to counterfeit coins and paper money. There is a reason for this. Paper money gives man the opportunity to play god, to "create" wealth by printing paper currencies, and to supplant God's reality with man's new order.
But paper money self-destructs. It winds up destroying its creators and users and the false social order they have created. The essence of sin, the will to be god, means a radical distortion and falsification of realty. It creates an inflationary social order in which man substitutes his own paper-created assets for true and enduring wealth.
The older forms of wealth meant a network of duties and obligations. It meant an awareness that we are all dependent on one another and on the land: "the king himself is served (or, prospered) by the field" (Eccl. 5:9).
Money as wealth, or paper money as wealth, not only is subject to the whims of a planning society and inflation, but it also strips a man progressively of all true forms of wealth unless he is a strong man in the faith and mindful earnestly of the social obligations of his wealth.
One of our very fine Chalcedon friends was an heir to an estate, 300 years in the family, with a village and many farmers. Two deaths, one after another, led to the loss of it because of death taxes. The people on the estate saw with grief their transition from a closely knit and caring family government to a socialist state. It was a disaster and a grief.
How do we change all this? It means a strong faith in Christ as our Savior and Governor, and in God's law-word as our charter of freedom. It means that wealth has a new definition for us, and it begins with our faith.
