(Note: The Life of the Church was a communion sermon at the Chalcedon Chapel evening service, October 27, 1991. It is published here because it answers so many questions raised by readers who find the church attempting to govern like the state. Also, many lone women, single, widowed, or divorced find the church acting as though they are their legal guardians and should control them, their lives, activities, and possessions.)
1. Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren; 2. The elder women as mothers,- the younger as sisters, with all purity. - Timothy 5:1-2
The Lord God is very blunt about the care of the helpless in society, i.e., single women, abused women, widows, orphans, and aliens. To abuse them incurs God's death penalty on a nation (Exodus 22:21-24), and certainly a church. Whenever and wherever God's people have been faithful to Him, they have cared for the helpless, and protected them. One of the first problems faced by the church, and this shortly after the ascension of Christ, was that the Grecian or Greek-speaking widows "were neglected in the daily ministrations" in favor of the Hebrews (Acts 6.-1). For this reason, the apostles created the diaconate and entrusted the deacons with the ministry of care and charity (Acts 6.-l-6).
Having said this, let us turn our attention briefly to the church as we know it in the Western world. As against the eastern churches (Orthodox, Armenian, Syrian, Nestorian, etc.), the Western churches are known as Latin Christianity because they arose where the Western Roman Empire had existed. The Church of Rome is known as Roman Catholic; the other Western churches could with equal justice be known as Roman Protestants. Why? Rome built its power on controls by various devices, including humanistic Roman law. Despite the importance commonly given to God's law, the Western churches have very strongly affirmed the necessity of governmental controls over the people in the Roman pattern, a Vatican, a general conference, bishops, a church board, a classis, synod, general assembly, presbytery, and so on. Western churches are more governments and courts than they are the family of God. This is not to say the Eastern churches are better; our concern is with our problem. The church must be primarily a family in Christ, not a Roman imperial power.
Now the church in Scripture is essentially the family of God in Christ; it is not a Roman-style court and government. It is a family, and, while there is government in a family, it is mainly through loving care and teaching.
This is what St. Paul is telling Timothy in I Timothy 5:1-2. As a young pastor, at least much younger than Paul, an old man, he is given fatherly counsel. He must treat the church as family members. The elders, meaning here older men, are to be entreated as a father, the younger men as brothers. Older women should be treated as mothers, and younger women as sisters, "with all purity."
The church must thus function essentially as God's family. If there are young men and young women in the church, as yet unmarried, they are to be regarded as the children of the church and given the loving care of all members.
The concern is not one to be passed on to a church court: it belongs to all the church family. Members of a family help one another.
Too many churches feel that it is the duty of the church court to govern and rule over all such persons. There is nothing in all the Bible that gives a church court the right to rule over widows or single women, many of whom may be and often are much older and wiser than they. The Lord God does not ask us to follow the Roman but the family pattern.
There are Roman Protestant churches, however, which deny anyone the "right" to move to another city without permission; to do so means excommunication. Rev. David Chilton has cited from his experience one church which insisted that its session had the "right" to order its members to use white sidewall tires on their automobiles, or to forbid their use. This is not the meaning of being a father, or a brother, a son, or any other family member!
The diaconate was not created to add an office to the church but to further and guide a necessary function of Christ's family.
Calvin called attention to an interesting fact now forgotten but basic to the life of the early church. There were "daily contributions of believers" for the care of the needy members.[1] A few centuries later, and Calvin quotes him, Pope Gregory 1 (590-64), known also as St. Gregory the Great, declared:
It is the custom of the apostolic see, at the ordination of a bishop, to command him that all the revenue received by him be divided into four portions; namely one for the bishop and his family for the support of hospitality and entertainment; the second for the clergy; the third for the poor; the fourth for the reparation of Churches.[2]
Our concern is this: the evidence is clear from scripture and church history that the church once saw itself essentially as God's family, not as a lordly Roman power over the people.
The Lord's Table reminds us of that fact. To share a meal has during most of history had a profound meaning. It makes people fellow members. In many parts of the world until recently, a man's life and safety depended on whether or not he was asked to eat with a powerful lord of that area. Breaking bread together meant sharing a common life as family members; it assured a man of protection and care of a generous nature.
This was the reason for the daily contributions. I can recall when every church family had a wooden box or two for daily gifts. Coins were added to the boxes for missions or for charity, and this was done at dinner time. As the family thanked God in prayer, they remembered with their giving the needy and the mission fields. Children were given pennies (then worth more than today!) to add to the boxes in order to teach them the meaning of being a family in Christ.
The church must abandon legalistic authoritarianism and once again become God's family in Christ. To do so means also to abandon humanistic law for God's law, and ungodly controls for Christian grace, concern, and love.
The central sacrament of the Christian faith is a family fact, a common sharing of bread and wine from the Lord's Table. We do not cease to be a family, nor do we become Roman consuls and senators, when we leave that table. To be a Christian, a living member of Christ, St. Paul tells us, is this: "we are members one of another" (Eph. 4:25).
1. John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 11, chap. IV, sect. V; vol. 11, p. 337. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936. 2. Ibid., II, p. 339; Book IV, chap. IV, sect. VII.
Dr. Gary North is now a permanent fixture on the YouTube video community. He's doing what he does best: laying out practical advice on how to maximize life's resources. For years I've heard him both speak and write along the lines of securing an inexpensive route to higher education. This is important for Christian families who don't want to send their kids off to far away places, or cannot afford a college education. This is also practical advice for those who desire to increase their value in the marketplace. Check it out!
Tens of thousands of war protestors are in Washington D.C. to protest the war in Iraq. They were joined by smaller rallies in a few cities in California. Participating in the rallies are numerous veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with a handful of celebrities, including the infamous Jane Fonda.
Isn't this a meaningful and important event? Or, might it be overshadowed by such stories as Prince Charles visiting a Presbyterian church in Philadelphia? According to the web sites for FoxNews and CNN (as of this morning), the war protest isn't even worth a single sentence:
In this sense, today's protest against the war is not like that of Vietnam since there has been a consolidation of corporate media into a few corporate hands - some of which, like GE, are themselves defense contractors. How shall we fare with such reporting?
Why do too many Christians turn an obstinate ear to the law of God? Why is there such virulent reaction to the notion that keeping God's commandments is our only true means of loving God? Christians shudder at the suggestion. Their concepts of grace and love are polarized to the inhuman suggestion that the New Testament requires comprehensive adherence to God's written statutes. God has done away with such a rigid impersonal system. We are from free such a regulated religious life, aren't we?
Should it be a surprise that many of God's children oppose the idea of keeping the commandments? After all, aren't these often the same people that likewise dissent from the doctrines of grace, viz. sovereignty, predestination, etc? Are the doctrines really that horrible, or does man just oppose those theologies that most assault his autonomy? Predestination removes any human possibility of boasting in works, and law-keeping suppresses the liberal idea of "following the Spirit" -- which usually means making it up as you go along. More often than not, man opposes what opposes him. Predestination and theonomy don't comport with a man-centered version of Christianity.
In my opinion, there's one simple reason why most of us oppose God's law -- we're sissies. That's right. We are a weak, spiritually obese people that labor to facilitate comfort and work to evade difficulty. We do not have the fortitude to persistently resist sin, evil thoughts, nor change our habits because we deem it beyond our capacity. Therefore, we rewrite our doctrine to reflect our apathy, laziness, and lack of diligence. We're sissies, and we subscribe to sissy doctrines.
Ye Have Need of Endurance
Endurance means "the fact or power of enduring an unpleasant or difficult process or situation without giving way." It's a term typically identified with athletes -- those who overcome remarkable odds and grueling trials to achieve a goal or prize. The greatest contemporary example is the "Ultramarathon Man," Dean Karnazes.
This maniac is a part of small clique of super men and women that subject themselves to the most difficult forms of human endurance imaginable. They run. Not 26-mile marathons, or wind sprints. They run long distances that often equate to several marathons put together; and usually in the most difficult terrain available.
Dean Karnazes, author of the 7th biggest sports bestseller Ultramarathon Man, is in a class by himself. To give you an idea, his last major run was 350 miles without stopping or sleeping. His daily routine is to rise early -- he only lives on four hours a sleep a night -- at 4:00 am and put in a quick 20 miles and then come home and cook breakfast for his children. He regularly participates in the most fantastic endurance marathons ever conceived by man. One he did through Death Valley.
Reading his story will turn your stomach. Outside of the crucifixion, I've never heard a greater story of personal suffering. This man has often come close to imposing permanent damage -- even death -- by his chosen hobby.
In 2005, he completed the North Face Endurance 50 which consists of 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 consecutive days. He's run the South Pole marathon, went 148 miles in 24 hours on a treadmill, and even completed the 199 mile Providian Saturn Relay six times by himself. The relay is just that -- a relay. Karnazes was competing against full relay teams all by his lonesome.
When Karnazes ran his 350 miles it was at the Providian Relay. But that relay, as I just mentioned, is only 199 miles. How then did Karnazes run 350 miles? Simple. He backed up 151 miles and ran that distance to the start of the relay race and then joined the other teams -- again, by himself. Amazing.
When asked, Karnazes will often say that he runs to see what the body can endure. He wants to reach the limits of human capacity. He's not hit the ceiling quite yet. One thing he has done: he's left the circle of sissies a long time ago.
Jesus: The Ultraspiritual Man
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Hebrews 12:1-3
We grow weary in our struggle against sin; and this is when we are to consider the endurance of Christ. Weariness is a plague on the people of God. It stifles progress and limits our spiritual growth. And where do we grow weary? The writer of Hebrews says we grow weary and faint "in our minds."
In his first endurance marathon, the 100-mile Western States, Dean Karnazes learned that the first 50 miles you run with your legs, but the last 50 miles you run with your mind. Though the body is writhing in the most extreme pain, it is the mind that determines the outcome. The U.S. Navy Seal trainers will tell you that people are capable of 10 times their normal potential, and that surviving their training program is 90% mental. Big, muscular men will often fail while smaller, leaner sailors will go on to become Navy Seals. It's all in the mind.
Obeying God's law is only difficult because resisting sin is difficult; and most Christians have a high tolerance for sin. Therefore, rather than buckling down and finding the inner fortitude to live a life in compliance with God's law, they rewrite the Gospel into a recipe for "greasy grace" that fully permits and condones their half-hearted way of living.
But, Chris, what are you suggesting here? Does God want us to labor like that to achieve a more perfect obedience? I think so. I believe this is clearly what the Scriptures teach. Knowing our attitudes, the Bible addresses us like whiners -- like sissies:
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Hebrews 12:4
There you have it. Are you prepared to bleed in your striving against sin? Dean Karnazes was fully prepared to bleed and more to achieve his goals in endurance running. Jesus Christ was fully prepared to endure the horrific crucifixion that was set before Him. Are we, then, the only ones to be excused from such superhuman struggles? Have we rewritten our doctrine of ethics, and created a shallow standard?
God requires full compliance to His commands. There is room for debate as to which laws are applicable, but the starting point must be a diligent compliance. Maybe you'll find out that you were capable of a whole lot more. Maybe you'll discover that what you thought weighed so much, actually weighed very little:
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. I John 5:3
"Euthanasia is a better alternative to sitting in a stinking pound."
So says PETA spokeswoman, Kathy Guillermo, regarding the recent revelation that two PETA employees in Hertford County, North Carolina were "tossing garbage bags full of euthanized cats and dogs into a dumpster" behind a local grocery store. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are well known for using extreme tactics in their advocacy for animal rights. While I deplore the cruel treatment of God's creation -- and there is plenty of that -- PETA is off the charts in their definition of cruelty.
Apparently "cruelty" is now loosely defined by PETA. With the public shock that the animal rights organization is killing thousands of animals a year in the Southeast, they are being most up front about what was previously kept secret. Guillermo said that PETA never wanted to get into the business of euthanizing animals, but couldn't ignore the horrible conditions in the North Carolina animal shelters.
But, how do they explain dumping loads of dead animals behind a grocery store? Hardly a sanitary means of dealing with these animals. Of this you can be sure: PETA must be accruing some form of income from euthanizing.
PETA now stands alongside the other Nazi-like murderers so rampant on the far Left. They are the culture of death. Assisted suicides, abortions, and now the extermination of animals, represent the "kindness" of a twisted ideology that calls itself "loving." I'm still squeamish every time I read or hear another Left Wing nutcase refer to abortion as "reproductive rights." How hellish can you be? Reproductive rights? Sorry, but the elimination of life is not a right. Reproductive rights means NOT GETTING PREGNANT! It's a woman's right -- her choice -- NOT to practice unprotected sex. She has a right NOT to reproduce. However, if due to her negligence and irresponsibility she throws all caution to the wind, she cannot exercise that reproductive right by euthanizing the unborn child.
This neo-Nazi eugenics holds a satanic logic in the justification of death. Old people, babies, and now animals are easily extinguished in the name of their own concept of "cruelty."
"I consider nothing human alien to me." --Robinson Devor
"She overcomes all the hard things in her life through Elvis..." --Dakota Fanning
Which of these quotes reveals the most bizarre and ungodly mindset?
Never mind--let's call it a tie.
Both quotes refer to movies shown recently at Robert Redford's annual Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. Robinson Devor is the director of Zoo, a documentary about men who have sex with animals. Twelve-year-old Dakota Fanning is the star of Hounddog, a movie whose claim to fame is a graphic reenactment of a little girl being raped by her father.
It's hardly necessary to discuss the depraved subject matter of these films, or to plead with readers not to buy tickets to them. Nor do we need to spend much time with movie critics who have praised these films. Zoo is "strangely beautiful," they say. And they've left it to little Miss Fanning to describe Hounddog as "emotionally moving."
G.K. Chesterton said, famously, that when you abandon belief in God, you don't believe in nothing: you'll believe in anything. Here we see living proof that he was right.
It's a form of believing in anything: anybody's moral standards are good enough to them.
Hounddog offers us salvation through Elvis, a mortal man who has been dead for some years, a victim of bad drug-use habits. Any actor or film-maker at the Sundance Festival would probably shrink from expressing a belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, who was without sin, who died and rose again, and lives forever. But salvation through Elvis and his music--hey, that's deep, man.
Belief in anything must certainly include belief in just plain poppycock.
The Bible gives us an insight into the creation of such films as these.
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:32--italics added).
The Bible lists both bestiality and rape as offenses meriting the death penalty. We are not accusing these film-makers of doing such things; but they obviously have pleasure in them that do them--and profit, too. Nor are they able to offer any reason not to do them. Having rejected God, their moral anchor is unable to find a bottom anywhere.
We can't stop people from making films like these, or watching and applauding them. But we do point out that they will have to answer for it someday, to God Himself.
"For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:14).
At that judgment, we doubt that a portfolio of box office receipts and rave reviews from newspapers will be an adequate defense.
"Half my Democratic constituents were African-American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty.... They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African-Americans."
There is no written policy that the caucus must remain all black, but the black Rep. William Lacy Clay of Missouri said, "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
Let me make clear that this is not racism. And that's for one simple reason: if ANY ethnic group forbids by reason of race, it's legitimate. However, if any white group forbids by reason of race, it's an outrage. I'd like for the Southern Poverty Law Center to please add the Black Caucus to their extensive list of hate groups. Or, maybe the Anti-Defamation League will step in because Rep. Cohen is Jewish.
However, I perfectly understand the Black Caucus' reasoning for restriction regarding race. And, I think they should be permitted to do so without rebuke -- as they will likely receive no rebuke. Just be sure that all groups -- in this allegedly democratic and pluralistic society -- have that equal opportunity.
When are we going to learn not to believe things we read in The New York Times?
On Jan. 16 (see our blog post, below) the Times reported that 51% of American women now say they're living without a husband. The story exploded into the media. Some pundits said the findings were grounds for changing various government and business policies.
"The entire story," wrote Medved, "has been cooked up from willful, blatant, and shameful distortions" by "one axe-grinding, agenda-driven journalist for the New York Times."
Consulting the 2005 Census figures, Medved found that 56% of women over the age of 20 are currently married. How, then, did the Times' Sam Roberts come up with 51% not married?
Easily, Medved said--and dishonestly.
First, he added to the "not married" category some 10 million unmarried teenagers, ages 15-19. That knocked the "married" women down to 51%. The Census, by the way, reported that 97% of "females" (not "women") aged 15-19 are not married--as anyone with common sense would expect to be the case.
He made up the remaining 2%, another 2,400,000 individuals, by counting women as "not married" whose husbands were temporarily absent (on business assignments, military service, hospitalization, incarceration, etc.).
So, by adding some 12.5 million women and girls to the "not married" category, Roberts got the number he wanted. It reminds us of the old chestnut: How many legs would a sheep have, if you called the tail a leg? The answer would still be "four," because calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.
What would Robert have done next, if after adding 12.5 million to the "unmarried" category he was still short of 51%? We're sure he would've thought of something--maybe throw in "women" aged 12-15.
So the story isn't true, and marriage isn't dead. Nevertheless, it could still use a strong recommitment from American families and churches. The Bible teaches us that marriage and family are the basic building blocks ordained by God for human society. Statistics for or against the strength of marriage don't let us off following God's word.
It is all too common for theological pundits to point to the major work, the magnum opus, of the late Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, and declare that volume to be his seminal work, the book containing Rushdoony's "big idea." Such an approach to the book embodies a common misconception. The reality is far more stirring: every single paragraph in every book Dr. Rushdoony wrote contains the big idea. We're simply too blind to see it. Familiarity has bred contempt, and confusion has bred unwarranted familiarity. Read more.
Christians disagree on whether the Republican losses in the November elections were a blessing or a setback, because they initially differed on how to characterize the contest. Those who saw it in terms of the liberal-conservative model saw it as a gain for liberals and a setback for conservatives. Those who saw the elections as a referendum on the enlarging powers of the federal government at the expense of its citizens saw the election results as a healthy repudiation of that loss of liberty. Define the issue differently and the analysis might again change. Read more.
In yet another hit piece targeting Christian homeschooling, Bob Allen of Ethics Daily writes the following regarding Robert "Fourth" Reich's criticism of homeschooling studies:
Stanford Professor Robert Reich said he is skeptical of studies showing homeschooling to be superior, because most are based on research done by homeschool advocacy groups. He also argued the state has an interest in knowing its children grow up to be well-rounded citizens.
You wanna run that by me one more time, Mr. Allen? The state's children? Where then, did I ever get the idea my children belonged to me? Here's a direct quote from Robert "Fourth" Reich:
"If parents can control every aspect of the kids' education, shield them from exposure to things that the parents deem sinful or objectionable, screen in only things which accord with their convictions, and not allow them exposure to the world of democracy, well the children grow up then basically in the own image of their parents, servile to their own parents' beliefs."
As I've mentioned earlier, the rhetoric from the Left is heating up. They plan on using the power of the state to suppress Christianity. They plan on acting in the very manner of which they accuse their opponents. They worry about a religious tyranny that will clamp down on personal liberties. Their solution? Preemptive strikes against homeschooling families.
Most women in America today now live without a husband, said a recent article in The New York Times (Sam Roberts, "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse," Jan. 16, 2007).
The finding rested on the last census, which reported that "In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000."
"Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways governments and employers distribute benefits," the article said.
Why is this? The writer's sources gave two main reasons.
First, women live longer than men and are more likely to be widowed, and Americans in generally are living longer nowadays (hence more widows). And once widowed, women are less likely than men to remarry.
Second, the statistics are "reflecting the culmination of post-1960 trends associated with greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women." We think this means the influence of feminism, no-fault divorce laws, and a greater societal toleration for cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth.
But we're more interested in factors that the sociologists did not mention.
1. On the whole, the church in America has not sufficiently supported families--morally, doctrinally, and economically (when necessary).
2. The entertainment industry and the public education establishment work very hard to undermine marriage and the family.
3. Certain government policies discourage marriage. For example, if two Social Security recipients marry, one of them will lose his or her monthly benefits. We all know senior couples who live together without marriage for that very reason.
4. The Bible says, "For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware to their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten, and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then they will turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant" (Deuteronomy 31:20). In other words, life in America is too easy! Our very affluence saps the self-sacrifice and self-discipline so necessary for lasting family life and faithfulness to God. "Single moms" no longer need husbands to support them and their children: they can work and earn more money than they used to, and there are government programs to "help" them.
To remove the family is to remove a barrier between the individual and the state, and to remove the state's chief competition for the people's loyalties. This is also why secular statists seek to undermine the church. The erosion of marriage in America has received much encouragement from this quarter.
Is it possible to reverse this trend?
We can't control what other people do, or how they live their lives, or what messages they choose to listen to. But we can recommit to our own families--stay married, "for better or for worse," have children, and raise them up to be godly adults who will establish godly families of their own.
We can recommit to the church--insist that whatever church we join be biblically faithful, strong in its support for the family as the basic social institution ordained by God. And we must tithe (or at least come as close to it as possible), so that the church has the resources to support families. Churches with plenty of money, but no commitment to God's word, will not apply their money in a godly way; but biblically faithful churches will.
Christians in America have let the family slide for too long. Even the sociologists cited in the Times article admit that a stable marriage is good for both the adults and the children in the family. But too many people are too selfish, too shallow, or too distracted by personal and career considerations to make a strong commitment to marriage and family.
Meanwhile, reconstruction of family life must, as always, start with us--our families, our churches.
Are secularists fundamentalists in their own right? And, are they preparing for a violent, authoritarian suppression of conservative Christianity? The evidence appears to indicate so. The militaristic rhetoric is heating up, and with the recent transfer of Congressional power to the Democrats, along with a soon-to-be-elected Democrat president, we are sure to see the most sustained aggression against conservative Christendom in modern history.
Over the weekend, an unusual commentary was published in the U.K.-based Guardian Unlimited: "Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians." The rhetoric is a bit over the top, but there is validity to the premise. Author, Tobias Jones, writes:
There's an aspiring totalitarianism in Britain which is brilliantly disguised. It's disguised because the would-be dictators - and there are many of them - all pretend to be more tolerant than thou. They hide alongside the anti-racists, the anti-homophobes and anti-sexists. But what they are really against is something very different. They - call them secular fundamentalists - are anti-God, and what they really want is the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth.
I've encountered this very dynamic among the more radicalized elements of the secular Left. They hide behind the facade of tolerance while harboring a Taliban-like intolerance that is fully prepared to use "force" to suppress the so-called "intolerant" conservative Christian. The latest installment in this literary diatribe is the recently published American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by critic Chris Hedges. In the first chapter (published online) he opens with a favorable citation from Karl Popper:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Popper is prepared to declare as "criminal" any person that preaches intolerance — at least what he and the secular Left determine as intolerant. And, the criminal act of intolerance should be slated in a category equal to incitement to murder and kidnapping. So, if on a Sunday morning a preach to a congregation that homosexuals must repent of their sin, then I should be arrested and convicted of the same crime as that of Charles Manson, who did not do the actual killing, but only incited others to it. Popper is out of his mind. I hope Mr. Hedges can retain objectivity. He may be inciting his own constituency to desperate measures. Will there be a crime for that?
I encourage you to read the radical rhetoric in Hedges opening chapter. It's most disturbing. It's more disturbing to me personally because I've actually met Chris Hedges twice. First, we did a brief radio debate on NPR, and then I met him a couple days later in NYC at the initial Open Center conference on Dominionism. My impression of Mr. Hedges? A very nice person. Soft-spoken and polite. I was introduced to some of his Princeton students that had accompanied him to the conference, and Chris seemed genuinely interested to meet me.
I expect more objective criticism from someone like Chris Hedges. I'm no fool to believe he and I would ever to see eye to eye -- except on war maybe -- but resorting to threats of criminal prosecution is a clear step away from seeking political solutions. Hedges appears to be discarding democratic procedure in an effort to secure it.
Hedges is guilty of holding the broad brush -- the Achilles Heel of most secular critics. They simply cannot, or refuse to differentiate between the hundreds of millions of Christians that are as diverse politically and ideologically as is American culture. Within a single local church -- especially the mega-church -- you'll have Democrats and Republicans, Blacks and Whites, lower and middle class, educated and non, etc. Some support war. Others do not. Some are politically active, while others hold to a religion isolated to the heart.
They do not desire any sort of religious tyranny. This is not what they seek. Certainly, they would like to see their values represented politically, but that is allowed in a democratic society. Their mistake is in placing too much confidence in their Christian leaders, and not investigating the issues as they should. They are guilty of ignorance in that they fall prey to the incessant stream of propaganda spewing from the war party. But, we do not need Mr. Hedges and his threats to contend with problems inside conservative Christianity. We can take care of our own.
A full review of Hedges book will come later. It would not be proper to treat too much of Hedges' position until the full text is examined. However, his book represents a shift in the rhetoric as the emboldened secularists prepare to use the apparatus of the state to impose their secular tyranny and silence their religious opposition. All the while they accuse us of that very thing. The hypocrisy is staggering to watch.
I love posting old articles and letters from R. J. Rushdoony. His archives are endless, and often yield precious material that is delightful to those who know his work. This particular letter was the second newsletter he sent to his small group of supporters after he founded the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965. He was 49 years of age at the time (what's your excuse?).
I left in the portion at the end where he describes his activities just for the month of October, and they included: 28 speaking engagements in 4 cities (From CA to MI), two articles for the Freedom Press, two chapters for one of his books, and an article of his appeared of his in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
In the following years he would also publish his personal reading totals in the year-end issue of the Chalcedon Report. There would usually be between 300-350 titles read, marked, and personally indexed. And his critics, both Christian and not, refer to him as a lunatic, wacko, nut job, and extremist. Well, let's take a cursory glance at his life:
He raised 5 godly children
Served as a missionary to the Indians
Pastored several churches
Created an international Christian movement that influenced both leaders and laity
Personally mentored some of the most significant Christian thinkers of his generation
Read a book a day on average from every field of study throughout his adult life
Accumulated a 40,000+ volume library
Wrote 30+ books, and hundreds of articles and essays
Left hundreds of recorded lectures and sermons
Appeared in countless trials as an expert witness, and successfully defended persecuted Christian academies and homeschooling families
Appeared in numerous television and radio broadcasts, and left thousands of people with nothing but admiration and respect
Passes away yet his opponents still wrestle with him
And much, much, more
If he's a lunatic, then what in God's name are you?
Here's the actual letter that is featured below. Click on the image to view a larger version.
October 31, 1965, Newsletter 2: R. J. Rushdoony
During this past month, in the course of my travels, I spent several hours visiting with an outstanding conservative leader, a man who is a major force in one of our most notable anti-communist organizations. In the first few minutes, he raised the question: "Do you see any hope?" Many ask this same question. I am reminded of the question asked of Adoniram Judson (1788-1850), pioneer American Baptist missionary in Burma. Hostile forces soon succeeded in destroying Judson's mission, his converts, printing press, and his possessions. Judson himself was thrown into a filthy Burmese prison, and, with arrogant humor, asked by a captor, "how are your prospects now?" "As bright as the promises of God," responded Judson, who lived to see those promises fulfilled in the success of his mission. Our prospects are also as bright, if our confidence is in the same omnipotent God.
The revolution of our day rests on certain anti-Christian premises: First, it is held that anything goes, because there is no God. No God means no law, and no law means that nothing is a crime, and hence all acts are equally valid. Second, by "outlawing" God and declaring Him to be non-existent, the revolutionaries outlaw the idea of good and evil. They are supposedly beyond good and evil. If good is mythical, then evil is also, and man cannot be evil! Therefore, whatever the world-planners do cannot be evil, because evil does not exist: it is simply either a successful scientific experiment, or it is a failure. Third, because God is abolished as a myth, the approach to man's problems must be scientific, that is, experimental, and man is thus the prime laboratory test animal. In school, your children are to be objects of experimentation, even as you are also by means of every communication media. There is no evil in such experimentation, since there is no God, but only success or failure. Fourth, every experiment to be valid, requires total control of all factors. Hence, the scientific society must be totalitarian to the full measure, or it will not work.
The various phases of this vast attempt to turn the world from God's creation to the scientific planners' re-creation can be documented in detail. It has been done by the volume. The answer, however, is not in facts and knowledge but in a restoration of Christian faith.
Because God is God, and because He will not allow Himself to be dethroned, the scientific planners are doomed. This judgement is a certainty because God cannot allow sin to go unpunished. All sin is either atoned for, or punished. The question is whether we will be among those judged, or among those, the saved remnant, who shall undertake even now the task of reconstruction.
And now a summary of October's activities: I spoke a total of 28 times to groups ranging in number from about 20 to well over 950. In some instances., many listeners were not of our persuasion. Speaking engagements outside the southern Califomia area included Chicago, Grand Rapids, and Detroit, and Menlo Park, California. Two columns were written for THE FREEDOM PRESS ("Ideas Examined") and two chapters written for current studies in progress. The CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.2, no. 2, appeared, with my article, "The Premises of Evolutionary Thought."
A pastor friend has suggested that I write something about heaven. The first thing to be said is that the Bible assumes the reality of heaven but tells us very little about it. God's Word speaks, not to satisfy our curiosity, but to command us as to our service to Him. This world is very important to the Lord, and it must be important to us. It is the place of our testing and refining for His eternal kingdom and service. Revelation 22:3 says of the new creation, "his servants shall serve him."
Second, the criterion for our entrance into heaven is entirely God's grace through Christ's atonement. None of us earn or deserve heaven. God in His grace makes us members of His eternal Kingdom. That membership begins here and now. All of us have times and problems that lead us to wish that God would spare us these evils and heart-aches. But these things are a part of God's grace to us, a means of preparing us for His eternal service. This is why Paul says, "Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice" (Phil. 4:4). We are to cease from our anxiety and see God's glorious purpose in all things.
Third, in Hebrews 4, we are told that heaven, the eternal Kingdom, is God's great sabbath rest for us, even though it is also a time of service (Rev. 22:3). Because then "there shall be no more curse," the impediment of sin and evil is gone, and work and rest are a joyful unity in Christ. The removal of the curse means that "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4). Fourth, I am sorry to say this, but it is wrong to make heaven (or the rapture) too important in our thinking. It is the Lord alone who must be central. To focus on heaven is to focus on ourselves and our future. It leads to a self-centered, not a God-centered, faith. We must with simple trust do our duty and believe that our God is faithful to His Word. "Trust and obey."
Fifth, heaven is one part of God's glorious creation, a place for His people. Even as He made the earth, so He made heaven. In Jesus Christ, God the Son "tabernacled" with us, even as at the end the Triune God shall "tabernacle" or live with men (Rev. 21:3).
Sixth, in Revelation 22:2, we are told that the tree of life will bud and bear fruit simultaneously and continuously. This means, as Dr. K. Schilder wrote, "Promise and fulfillment will have become one." Our potentialities will all become actualities because the tree of life, Jesus Christ, heals all "nations" or families of the earth.
Seventh, the reality of heaven, the resurrection of the dead, and the new creation, is beyond our ability to grasp. Our bodies are compared by Paul to seed that is sown (I Cor. 15:36-38). If we have never seen an oak, it is not possible for us to imagine the mighty tree that grows out of an acorn. So too we cannot imagine the glory of the resurrection body, nor, for that matter, of a glorious realm we have never seen.
I began by saying that the Bible bars the door to our curious questions about the world to come. We are not to think about "what's in it for us?" but about our duty here and now. Some may say that they are too old and infirm to serve God now, but this is not true. I have known and know many aged and slowly dying people who are constantly in prayer for many persons and causes. As long as our minds are clear, there are things we can do, and prayer is at the top of any list.
God's sovereign grace determines all our days and our place in His Kingdom. In John's vision (Rev. 5:13), all creatures or created things in heaven and on earth praise God. Let us be in earnest in joyfully praising Him now.
By Otto Scott Taken from the Chalcedon Report, January 1992
My copy of Webster's Second Unabridged (1950) is not only difficult to replace, it has become an almost historical source, which contains observations now fading not only from the language, but from the everyday thought of this nation.
Take, for instance, the word taboo, on page 2564. Webster's says it means:
A sacred interdiction laid upon the use of certain things, or words, or the performance of certain actions, the action of imposing a state of being subject to such interdiction. Taboos may be designed to prevent pollution, as in the prohibition to use certain foods, touch a corpse, etc., or to secure certain privileges or properties as when afield is tabooed against trespass.... The use of taboos is found among most races of primitive culture. 2. to debarfrom use, practise or intercourse by authority of social or class convention, as, their names are strictly tabooed.
It was at one time generally accepted that the difference between a civilized society and a primitive one is that civilizations allow freedoms unknown to primitives. These include freedom of discussion, freedom of movement - and freedom from arbitrary or artificial constraints. I recall reading, when I was a boy, of the fearful restrictions imposed upon their people by the Polynesian leaders and seeing illustrations of African tribal areas where forbidden sections of land were fenced by poles with skulls atop. I shuddered at these and felt grateful to be living in the U.S.A.
Today, however, the knowledge of primitive taboos and restrictions, of the arbitrary and mindless murders by tribal chiefs and the savage penalties they imposed seems to have faded from the world's memory. The people of the South Seas, who lived in fear, are now portrayed as having dwelled in unspoiled paradises, with unrestrained sex amid joyous celebrations, as happy as gamboling lambs until the arrival of the white man - and Christianity. The age-old myths of a past Golden Age have, in this modern recasting of fact into fiction, been transferred from Homeric Greece to any primitive society. This turn led to the rise of such fantasists as Margaret Mead and, even more recently, the author of Black Athena, who argues that all the learning and science of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece was "stolen" from the tribes of black Africa. (The explanation does not include how these advances were wiped from the memory of their supposed originators in the black tribes, but that's a cavil.)
What is closer to the subject is that there was an exhibit of African art in the early years of this century attended by Picasso and a number of other rising Parisian artists. To say that they were impressed is to understate. The strange distortions, the elongations, the dark, blood-scented images of ancient primitive idols carried with them an unmistakable sense of dread, mystery and power.
These men, with Picasso in their lead, left the exhibition inspired. Bored in their youth with the culture that had spoiled them in childhood, they began to abandon the rules and forms of the art they had learned and turned toward the distortions they later made famous. Toward, in other words, primitivism - which was hailed as novelty, as newness personified; as an eruption of genius - and the next, logical stage in modern art.
That Parisian movement paralleled one already in progress in Vienna and Berlin, where the art world had already followed the lead of German scholars whose archeology had led them into a fascination with the savage peoples they studied, and where scandalizing the bourgeoisie had become an artistic privilege - and pleasure.
The shift of this fashion from the visual arts to music spread to serious musical composers who discarded the traditional rules of harmony, abandoned melody and deliberately adopted dissonance, retaining mainly drums. Literature took a bit longer to succumb: James Joyce's Ullyses - with its very title a jeer at tradition - took longer to succeed, but it set the goal.
The toppling of traditional standards led, of course, to the rise first of semi-pornography and then the emergence of the hardcore. That this should be defended by the same sort of people who argue that the descriptions of such pornography constituted the sexual harassment of Anita Hill remains a rare irony. At a time when children in the lower elementary grades are taught about sexual practices more explicitly than any newspaper dare report is merely one result of the primitive fashion that has moved from art to culture to Academe, and that threatens to topple over everyone as soon as the older generation passes from the scene.
The general argument defending these trends is that they are signs of freedom: that pornography is a harmless release for some who might otherwise be plagued by discipline - and the rise in rapes is held to be coincidental and "not scientifically proven."
What is most remarkable, however, is that the toppling of traditional restraints has not resulted in more freedom, but in less in the areas once held to be essential to civilization. We have, for instance, lost our freedom of speech regarding the behavior and attitudes of minorities. This is a tremendous loss from which all other losses flow, because it permeates all areas of discussion and permissible observation. We are forbidden to notice that rudeness is now allowed some groups but denied to the majority. We are forbidden to respond when Christians are insulted, while being lectured on how to respect the tender sensibilities of non-Christians - in the name of tolerance(!).
We have, in other words, taboos. (The Polynesians were also forbidden to utter certain names, on pain of death.) The taboos that now overshadow our lives have, in similar fashion, spread to cover certain territories as well as subjects. There are regulations barring wilderness areas from human entry, to protect the animals, trees and insects.
One area in San Bernardino County, for instance, is the habitat of the kangaroo rat. Causing the death of a single one of these rats calls for fine up to $50,000. One firm has had to construct, at enormous expense, an undergroundas well as above ground wall to keep such rats from penetrating its plant or grounds, to protect the rats from even accidental harm - and the humans safe from our government. (Even this is not, of course, perfect protection.)
Eco-freaks, in other words, have created environmental taboos in the name of Science, whose operations are identical with those of primitive tribes. From time to time our masters inform us that chemicals once ruled taboo are actually harmless (such as dioxin), but such announcements are usually coupled with others that are named - and ruled - taboo.
We have, in other words, taboos that govern our social interactions, our right to observe (such as inequalities in individuals), our right to comment (such as 'politically correct' speech), our right to react (such as 'inappropriate laughter') and even our right to admire such (such as 'lookism'). Our right to move about freely in our native land is circumscribed; our right to physical safety is violated at an increasing tempo in every large city and we are denied the right to freely discuss the reasons - and the perpetuators. In every direction we see the benefits of civilization diminished and the number of taboos rising. How can societal problems be confronted if they cannot be freely discussed?
We have taboos against free discussion. We all know them. Nobody dare violate them lest their reputations be destroyed, their careers blighted - their persons attacked. This taboo and others have risen among us not only in this century, but in recent decades. The controlled conditions of college students, who are subject to all of these taboos under threat of being sent to re-education classes, or of being demoted, denounced, suspended or expelled, threatens to become the fate of our entire society as the rationales of Academe spread, through its graduates, to the professions and, finally, all our institutions.
That is why a fearful silence in all areas beyond technology prevails.
When I say "government," what image comes to mind? Is it the White House? The Capitol building? Or is it some other institution in the District of Columbia?
Most people, both Christian and secular, envision something related to the Federal Government when I use the term "government." That's how most people are trained. However, that is NOT what we mean when we say "government."
I recently wrote the following: "simply because true theocrats are not seeking control of the present apparatus of the federal government in no way means we seek no governmental control. Far from it. We aggressively seek Christian government, i.e. millions of self-governing Christians living in terms of God's law."
Well, you'd think a book-smart secularist would read carefully, but they don't. Some of their "brightest" seized on that portion as an "ah-ha" moment - an admission on my part that despite my contrary statements WE WERE seeking Christian government, i.e. a takeover of the state. They missed the point.
The reason they missed the point lies in their concept of government. They cannot hear that word without immediately thinking of Washington, D.C. However, prior to the Civil War your average citizen didn't conjure up images of the Capitol when they heard the term government. They would ask, "What type of government are you referring to?"
The Definition of Christian Government
To the secularist, government typically equates to the state. To the true theocrat, government should mean the self-governing Christian man. Therefore, when I write that we are aggressively seeking Christian government, I mean millions of Christians exercising self-government and personal responsibility. They care for their own. They are working to reduce their reliance upon the state. And, they are not seeking to convert the world via legislation or political enforcement.
I'm declaring 2007 as the year for "the return of Christian government;" and lobbying, candidates, funding, and politics has nothing to do with it. It means Christians returning to self-government. It begins with understanding that God is your source, and proceeds in faithfulness to law and covenant. Most Christians are not taught these fundamentals--at least not in systematic fashion. This is evident by the time and money spent in pushing stop-gap measures to obstruct the American shift to humanism and pluralism.
Rushdoony, building from Henry Van Til, taught that a shared faith will manifest itself in culture. Stop-gap political measures cannot prevent a nation's shift to humanism if humanism is the "faith" of the people. You cannot legislate the Kingdom of God into existence. Only Gospel conversion will transform nations. Our calling is to preach that Gospel and teach all nations (of converts) to obey His commandments.
Judging the Outsider
The pursuit of Christian government is our immediate obligation. It serves as both our commitment to God as well as our example to the world. God's people are a separate community of faith who's conduct amongst themselves is supposed to be a testimony to those who are without (Deut. 4:5-8). We are to obey God's law towards one another despite our doctrinal differences. Our failure in this has left us with a poor testimony. We must, therefore, repent; and repentance means a "return" -- a return to God's way -- and God's way is Christian government.
When the immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5 was addressed by St. Paul the apostle demanded the sinner be removed from the community of faith. There was to be no "stoning," but there was to be a death penalty, viz. excommunication. When Paul rhetorically asked what the Christian is to do about the unbelieving "fornicator, idolater, railer, drunkard, or covetous man" living around them, he said, "[W]hat have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth" (1 Cor. 5:12-13).
It is the Lord that judges the outsider. Not the Christian. Only the community of faith falls within the jurisdiction of the church. The outsider is dealt with by God Himself. However, Paul does not clarify how God's judgment on the outsider is carried out. Some things are punished via the justice of the magistrate (the state), while other transgressions are confronted before the Judgment Seat of Christ. What's important to note is the apostle's assumption of self-government in terms of God's law. The immoral "brother" must be put out. Immorality implies a standard, and that standard is the law of God. Despite the prevailing moral trends in the surrounding culture the church is to promote justice within its constituency. As for the unbeliever, he is in the hands of God.
God's Law and the State
The real problem arises when the issue of the moral standard of the state is discussed. The secularist is concerned that the Religious Right will secure legislation that will empower the state to execute homosexuals and imprison anyone espousing another religion besides Christianity; or any laws similar to these. In this respect, it does come down to the democratic process. If Christian political groups can convince the public to pressure particular states to prohibit gay marriage or alter abortion laws, then there is no stopping it. If secular groups can do the same, then there is no stopping them either. The democratic process works both ways.
The reign of the GOP has encouraged a great many secularists to better familiarize themselves with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This used to be the domain of the John Birch conservative. Now it's the secularists turn to gripe. They cry "foul" at the political success of conservative Christians. Well, that's democracy for ya. You better quit whining and get yourself organized. That's the arena you've chosen. Don't cry "corruption" either. That also goes both ways.
Time and Theocracy
St. Peter declared that judgment begins with the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). I believe this is where our judgment must also begin. That should occupy the Church for quite a while. Self-government in terms of God's law is a multi-generational project. It is the foundation to Christian dominion.
One of the most common references from a reconstructionist, cited by secular critics, is this one by David Chilton:
Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a 'world takeover' if you will.
Do a Google search for this phrase and observe how many times it's cited. Also, notice that this snippet is never placed in its context -- a dead give away that the critic is not a serious investigator. Read by itself, and placed alongside the efforts of Christian political groups, secular conspiracy theorists set up a boogeyman, i.e. power-thirsty Christians that are just a handful of politicians away from ushering in the era of the American Taliban. Yet, the full citation by Chilton yields a different picture (and remember, "pictures" are everything!):
Paul does not begin his work of reconstruction by fomenting a social revolution. Nor does he begin by seeking political office. He begins with the Church, and will move out to bring the rest of the world under Christ's dominion "once the Church's obedience is complete." The center of Christian reconstruction is the Church. The River of Life does not flow out from the doors of the chambers of Congresses and Parliaments... Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a "world takeover" if you will; but our strategy begins with the reformation and reconstruction of the Church. (Paradise Restored, p. 214)
There you have it. The dominion project. One that will obviously require multiple generations to fulfill when you consider the state of the church and the world. But, as Chilton argues, time is our friend:
But the Christian does not have to be afraid of the passage of time, because time is on our side. History is working toward our objectives. Every day brings us closer to the realization of the knowledge of God covering the entire world. The nations will worship and obey the one true God, and will cease to make war; the earth will be changed, restored to Edenic conditions; and people will be blessed with long and happy lives--so long, in fact, that it will be unusual for someone to die at the young age of 100 (Isa. 65:20)!
Consider this promise in the law: "Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments" (Deut. 7:9). The God of the Covenant told His people that He would bless them to the thousandth generation of their descendants. That promise was made (in round figures) about 3,400 years ago. If we figure that Biblical generation at about 40 years, a thousand generations is forty thousand years. We've got 36,600 years to go before this promise is fulfilled!... This world has tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of increasing godliness ahead of it... (Ibid., p. 221f)
So, thousands of years to achieve what exactly? Well, to achieve the infamous theocracy. The decentralized world of theocratic republics as Chilton refers to them:
Our goal is a Christian world, made up of explicitly Christian nations. How could a Christian desire anything else? Our Lord Himself taught us to pray: "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). We pray that God's order will be obeyed on earth, just as they are immediately obeyed by the angels and saints in heaven. The Lord's Prayer is a prayer of worldwide dominion of God's Kingdom--not a centralized world government, but a world of decentralized theocratic republics. (Ibid., p. 219)
This is again where the contemporary secularist cries "foul." The only problem is that he or she is getting upset about something potentially forty thousand years down the road. That's wasted breath on their part. If they want to preserve a secular world one thousand years from now, they better get busy having lots of kids, raising them in their secular faith, and teaching others to do likewise. This would make them dominionists as well.
The True Nature of Theocracy
The secularist is looking for a world ruled by man. The theocrat is hoping for a world one day ruled by God. A theocracy, therefore, is the rule of God over every sphere. It means all men must be converted before a theocracy will ever be witnessed. A theocracy has nothing to do with a present rule by the religious elite. I've often said that was Rushdoony's position, but he was not alone. Chilton stated the same:
Now by theocracy I do not mean a government ruled by priests and pastors. That is not what the word means at all. A theocracy is a government ruled by God, a government whose law code is solidly founded on the laws of the Bible. (Ibid., p. 219)
A "civil" government would never embrace the full-orbed standard of God's law unless the world was teeming with Christians. Why? Because the same Bible that condemns adultery and sodomy also places enormous restraint upon greed, wealth, pride, and centralized power. No modern state would ever embrace a standard that limits its own powers. Only when the nation AND its leaders are devoutly Christian would the state enforce the full text of the law of God.
So, our project is long-term, is it not? Reconstruction begins with the church, and we have plenty of work to do there. Therefore, let there be a return to Christian government. A return of personal responsibility. That much we can reconstruct.
The Misconstruing Continues
Sorry, but there's no "ah-ha" in my calling for a pursuit of Christian government. In fact, what I'm suggesting is unglamorous, tedious, multi-generational, and far away from the Capitol and the courthouse. It's not a political platform. It will not put a man or woman in political office. Most Christians will actually shun the idea. They are addicted to the body politic. In that sense, they are exactly like their secular counterparts.
I don't anticipate that secularists will ever grasp this concept. They are too slow of hearing and the theocratic boogeyman is too valuable for the success of their organizations. They need the evil theocrats to scare their constituency into resisting Christian lobbyists, and Rushdoony is their Bin Laden. They won't drop him and acknowledge the truth any more than the neocons will drop their Islamic enemy. It is the worst kind of fear-mongering.
We'll see how things develop. This new year should be interesting. While both Christian and seculartist banter with each other about legislation or the election of a federal judge let us be faithful in our own spheres. Let us care for one another. Let us care for the education and support of our families and fellow Christians. Let the dead bury the dead.
"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear" ... "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."
Robertson is declaring that God has revealed to him that another devastating terror attack will affect millions of Americans some time after September of 2007. And for what reason?
...the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward "national suicide."
So, unless the U.S. supports the state of Israel, we're doomed. And I mean, doomed! Words cannot express my disappointment with such a horrible statement. Does God not care for the persecuted people of Palestine? Do they not matter at all? Is there not justification for the long-standing Arab accusation that the United States is serving as a proxy for the state of Israel?
The leadership of the Religious Right is veering off the path. I can only hope and pray that the people of God are smart enough to know when to abandon ship.
