In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel. Ex. 27:21
The phrase "tabernacle of the congregation" is used numerous times throughout the Pentateuch to describe the design, order, and servicing of the tent of meeting wherein resided the brazen altar, the laver, the candlesticks, table of shewbread, altar of incense and the ark of the covenant. It is not described as merely "the tabernacle," but the "tabernacle of the congregation."
The Hebrewmowadah (congregation) carries the meaning of an assembly being convened for a specific purpose, i.e. a place of meeting. This term is often interchanged or coupled with edah, or assembly. The New Testament utilizes ekklesia (church) instead of congregation, and assembly is only used twice: once to describe the heavenly gathering of saints (Heb. 12:23 - paneguris, mass meeting), and once to delineate the gathered earthly community for worship (James 2:2 - sunagoge, assemblage, synagogue). As in the dual use of church and churches, the synagogue bore the meaning of both the location and the local religious community (c.f. Matt. 6:2; Mark 1:21; Acts 9:2; Rev. 2:9, 3:9).
However, the dual use of church and churches is not so clearly identified with an edifice so much as a location. (I've had to learn to not refer to a building as the "church" -- especially when speaking with my children. We don't go to church; we are the church.) The Old Testament "tabernacle of the congregation" was needed due to the sacrificial economy around which the Israelite community was based. The New Testament has an eternal sacrifice in Christ, and therefore, it's gathering fulfills a modified and/or different role.
The New Testament community meets for worship, teaching, and sacrament, but the edifice is not a part of the liturgy. The Old Testament tabernacle had redemptive meaning in its symbolic elements and furniture. No such items are necessary in the New Testament gatherings. In fact, the emphasis in the New Testament is upon the "people" as a redeemed community of priests. The place of meeting becomes meaningless. We should therefore strive to always revisit and rethink the Biblical idea of the church. It's our only tool to war against the ever expanding institutionalism growing up around us.
Church and Churches
Churches would often refer to regions as in the "churches of the Gentiles" (Rom. 16:4), the "churches of Christ" (v. 16), the "churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14:33), the "churches of Asia" (1 Cor. 16:19), the "churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1), the "churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:22), the "churches of Judea" (v.22), etc.
Yet, we often see the singular descriptive "church" used for smaller, localized areas as in the "church in Jerusalem" (Acts 11:22), the "church at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1), the "church in Priscilla and Aquila's house" (v. 5), the "church at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), the "church in Nympha's house" (Col. 4:15), the "church of the Laodiceans" (v. 16), the "church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 2:1), the "church in Philemon's house" (Phil. 2), and the seven churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and the aforementioned Laodicea (Rev. 2:1-3:14).
You'll notice that Asia, Macedonia, Judea, and Galatia are regions while Corinth, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, and Ephesus are actual cities. You might think of it in terms of a North American state as compared to its capitol. I can speak of the "churches of California," or I can address the "church at Sacramento."
The Edifice
None of these descriptions, however, speak of a tabernacle, sanctuary, or edifice. As mentioned above, many churches were meeting in homes. For example, Romans 16:1 mentions the "church at Cenchrea." Cenchrea was a community within the larger municipality of Corinth. Paul made his way there during his second missionary journey after spending 18 months at Corinth. Cenchrea was on of two ports at Corinth and was located on the eastern harbor. Therefore, Paul could speak of the "church at Cenchrea" as well as the "church at Corinth." Both of these communities were part of the larger region of Achaia. Together they would constitute the "churches of Achaia."
Also in Romans 16 is Paul's mention of his good friends and co-workers, Priscilla and Aquila, that were residents of Corinth along with the "church that is in their house" (v. 5). Paul wrote Romans roughly 5-6 years after founding the church at Corinth. If he was still referring to the church meeting in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, there is every reason to suppose that the larger community addressed in his letters to the Corinthians were likely meeting in homes throughout the municipality of Corinth.
This may be the allusion Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 14:23, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place...", and in 11:20, "When ye come together therefore into one place..." It's difficult to imagine there were too many buildings like that of Solomon's Portico (c.f. Acts 3:11, 5:12) that could facilitate large groups of people. We often have the impression, based upon modern churches, that the church at Corinth was fairly large and met in one central location. This is probably not the case. It is also unlikely that the church community was large in contemporary terms.
For example, the limitation of prophecy and tongue speaking to two or three participants (1 Cor. 14:27, 29) would hardly be an adequate percentage to a gathering of 500-1,000. However, three prophets speaking amongst a community of less than 100 makes more sense. Either way, the gathered assembly would be both large enough and public enough for unbelievers to wander in (v. 23).
Church Growth
It was considered miraculous when God added three thousand souls to the church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). There is no evidence that any similar examples of mass conversions took place. Instances of conversions that provided apostolic access to a city were more likely to be like that of Cornelius' house (Acts 10) where the clear indication is that Peter considered that outpouring in Caesarea to be congruent to the outpouring on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 11:15). The only difference being that instead of a city-wide outpouring of the Holy Spirit, this outpouring was concentrated on the house of Cornelius.
There is no real evidence to suggest that church growth in those times was any faster or slower than our own times. Therefore, if Paul wrote to the Corinthian church only 5-6 years after starting the church in a single home -- and that home church still existed -- it's hard to imagine the Corinthian church would number in the thousands by the time Paul wrote his letter.
Organic and Apostolic
This type of ecclesiology lends support to the necessity for the traveling apostolic ministers so frequent in the first century. The organic and dispersed nature of the church required a flexible and moving network of leaders and ministers to care and equip the growing body of believers. This is a stark contrast to the heavy institutionalism of the modern church where denominational boards, sessions, and diocese are static entities with little organic or spiritual attachment to the constituency of believers they serve. This has also served to prolong and aggravate the process of preparing ministers and elders for the planting of churches or the outreach of missions.
Institutionalism is often the obstruction of spiritual growth. The modern church in America especially lacks the mobility and effectiveness of the early puritan and awakening movements. Today, there are great theological minds wrapped up in the ivory towers of academia. There are great leaders tied up in the administration of buildings, facilities, and personnel that make up the cares of the modern denomination. And the families that comprise the church are investing a good portion of their time and money perpetuating the institutional church. To make matters worse, the contemporary Christianity has all but lost its identity as a community of faith and become an electoral bloc.
I would enjoy seeing some of these scholars take to the mission trail for the spread of the gospel. One such example is the good Dr. David Black, a well-known Greek professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He's the epitome of a Biblical theologian. He focuses on his family, he lives as an agrarian, he supports decentralized home churches, defends the Constitution, and often travels to Ethiopia to minister to the Christians in that country. Oh yea, and he teaches a bunch of young American seminary students how to read Greek!
Although Rushdooony stands squarely within the theological posterity of Calvin, their political ideologies differed significantly. Calvin did teach the comprehensive nature of the Christian faith over every sphere, but he was writing much too close to Romanism to avoid an unbalanced admixture of church and state. Rushdoony's emphasis upon law and family served to restore the Biblical concept of decentralization and Christian responsibility. This did not, however, help Rushdoony avoid the slander often leveled at the historic Calvin.
The historic Christian concept of government is the self-government of the Christian man under God and in terms of His law. This is set over against the top-heavy centralization of post-Enlightenment statism. The only cure for totalitarianism is the restoration of Christian government.
How I miss the salient contributions of Steve Schlissel. He has a masterful gift to expound the complex and miscontrued truths of the Scriptures. A special thanks to Jay Rogers of Forerunner for making this video clip available.
An earlier Wolf Blitzer clearly showing his Zionist streak. An earlier Norman Finkelstein demonstrates his consistency throughout the years. The question of Palestine is the central one, and it is one in which we require the most reliable evidence. It's obvious, with men like Blitzer giving us the news, that the coverage will certainly be slanted. Christians, of all people, must be fully aware of the true nature of Middle East conflict.
How would the average American respond to a Soviet officer in 1979 explaining his support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by saying, "I am fighting to give the people of Afghanistan some communism and some hope?" I believe we know the answer to that question. Americans invested hundreds of millions of dollars arming the Mujahadeen -- including a young Bin Laden -- in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Why? Because U.S. war propaganda injected fear into the populace via a disease known as the "Red Scare" -- the idea that Soviet Communists were determined to spread their evil political ideology throughout the world by military force.
Jump to today. One thousand active-duty military and reservists are against the war in Iraq, and made their dissent known to Congress via petition. This Sunday, February 25, they'll make their views public in a 60 MINUTES broadcast on CBS. Of course, any opposition to the war is still viewed as unpatriotic, weak, and lending support to terrorists. Call them "terrorist-sympathizers." Yet, these particular military personnel claim they fully support the defense of their country. They simply don't believe the war in Iraq constitutes such defense:
I'm not anti-war. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not opposed to protecting our country and defending our principles, but at the same time, as citizens, it's our obligation to have a questioning attitude... about policy."
So says Navy Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, a co-initiator of the petition to make their opposition to the war in Iraq known to congressional leaders. Lending assistance to Hutto is Marine Sgt. Liam Madden who stated, "Just because we volunteered for the military doesn't mean we volunteered to put our lives in unnecessary harm and to carry out missions that are illogical and immoral."
But 1,000 dissenters represents only a small portion of the present military personnel serving overseas. At this point, we are not witnessing the type of dissent represented by soldiers returning from Vietnam. More casualties would certainly enhance the numbers, but the technological superiority of the U.S. military makes the suggestion of "quagmire" roll off the back. Without significant U.S. casualties, war opposition will remain marginalized.
Adding to the war effort is the effectiveness of the Bush war propaganda. Otherwise intelligent American soldiers and citizens have cast logic aside by swallowing the narrative put forth after 9/11. If you recall (does anyone remember?), a clear connection was made between Al Qaeda, 9/11, and Saddam Hussein. If you recall, this connection demonstrated Saddam's clear intent to attack the U.S. again, and he would do that by distributing his massive stockpile of WMDs to any terrorist group willing to use them. We had "no choice" but to invade Iraq before they indirectly attacked us.
Well, you know the rest of the story. Saddam had no connection to Bin Laden, and his collection of WMDs amounted to some empty pipes buried in the backyard of a former Iraqi scientist. "Whoops! Our bad!"
But, we had to "stay the course." We couldn't "cut and run." And, besides, Bush and Cheney claimed they never suggested there was any connection between Saddam and 9/11. As for the absence of WMDs, well, we once again were the unfortunate recipients of "bad intel." This intelligence failure coming from the same folks that didn't see the attacks of 9/11 coming. You have to wonder, doesn't this mean we have the absolute worst intelligence agency in the world? Two of the worst intelligence blunders in U.S. history... back to back! And now we're going to listen to them as they give us the "facts" on Iran's nuclear ambitions? If we do, we get the government we deserve. We are a foolish people.
This is the effectiveness of the U.S. war propaganda on a non-thinking population -- at least on those who support such a travesty. I thank God more and more conservatives are awakening to the madness known as the Bush administration, but there are still too many that allow the persistent stream of imperialistic disinformation to shape their outlook on the reasons for war. This is best represented by the comments of a U.S. Army Captain, Lawrence Nunn, who said in response to the petition,
"I know what I'm here fighting for, to give the Iraqi people some democracy and hope, so I am 100 percent behind this mission. You don't sign up to pick which war you go to."
Therein lies the devil's den. We are spreading democracy and hope by the devastation of bombs and guns. After hundreds of thousands of more innocent Iraqis are slaughtered by the persistent volley between coalition forces and the Iraqi resistence, I wonder if we'll still claim we are bringing hope. This Army Captain says he knows what he's fighting for, and he's 100 percent behind the effort. He's not fighting in response to 9/11, or to find WMDs. He's fighting to spread democracy and hope. And don't you dare call that imperialism!
To the rest of the world, doesn't there appear to be the genuine threat of a "Red, White, and Blue Scare?"
She doesn't have any children, but she wants to make spanking a crime. The California Assemblywoman, Sally Leiber, introduced the Child Abuse and Infant/Toddler Protection Bill, and has decided to abandon the proposal citing mass ridicule of the legislation. Although the bill makes criminal obvious acts of child abuse, it would also make spanking a child under 4 years old a misdemeanor. It would ban spanking children 3 years old and younger. That would make the terrible twos even more terrible.
Critics say the bill would be difficult to enforce. Gov. Schwarzenegger, when first hearing of the bill, asked the obvious question, "How do you enforce that?" Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, a Republican from Irvine, said, "To me, this is symptomatic of this nonstop trend toward a nanny state." This has consistently been the criticism of such legislation.
At present, numerous child abuse laws are on the books in California, but Leiber has found support from Lois Weithorn, who teaches family law at University of California's Hastings College of the Law. She claims there is room for "subjectivity" on the definition of abuse, "Most jurisdictions do not sanction parents for coporal punishment that doesn't result in physical injury."
We're grateful that was meager support for the legislation, but you can bet Leiber and others will return to promote modified versions of the bill. I'm sure she hopes to get it done before she gets recalled.
That's what Terry Nichols says in a new affidavit filed in Utah that accuses a high-level FBI official of directing Timothy McVeigh in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Nichols was the only other conspirator convicted in the bombing. McVeigh suffered death by injection for his involvement while Nichols is serving a life sentence.
According to a story by The Salt Lake Tribune, there are documents that support Nichol's allegations, but they are sealed to protect personal information. Nichols had earlier reached out in 2004 to then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, that he had information to help identify other parties involved in the bombing. Ashcroft never replied to Nichols.
Nichols believes that McVeigh had help building the bomb that killed 168 men, women, and children on April, 19 1995. Nichols said the bomb "displayed a level of expertise and sophistication" that exceeded either of their abilities.
A month after the bombing President Clinton put forward the Counterterrorism Initiative which bears a striking resemblence to the Patriot Act of 2001.
Ron Paul Tells the Truth About the Federal Reserve
I grow weary of "enlightened" neoconservative Christians who decry true conservative emphasis upon the subversion of elite financiers. I equally grow weary to sophomoric liberals that blame our social ills on the free market. "It's The FED Stupid!"
Contemporary critics of Christian Reconstruction abound. There's simply no reason to make the effort in responding to them all. And with the advent of the internet, the proliferation of wrong information is multiplied incalculably as armchair theocracy experts repeat the misconstrued concept of Biblical dominion.
However, I would like to make mention of the most recent example brought to my attention, because this particular post addresses the Chalcedon blog, and demonstrates the odd reluctance of some bloggers to research.
In response to my recent post regarding Dr. George Grant's unwise analogy (IMHO) of the Crusades in framing the Christian confrontation with Islam, Mr. Bruce Wilson at Talk2Action engages in an odd exercise of guesswork as to why I offered criticism to a respected reformed leader like George Grant:
The Chalcedon Foundation's apparent opposition to a US and / or Israeli attack on Iran is consistent with Chalcedon's theological positions. Christian Reconstructionist theology is post-Millennial meaning ; Reconstructionists feel that --instead of triggering events leading to the Tribulation, the Apocalypse, and Armageddon that must precede the Second Coming-- they instead must impose Christian theonomic rule - government under Biblical Law ( as parsed by RJ Rushdoony ) - and only after 1,000 years of theonomic rule will Jesus finally return. That theological view should lead Reconstructionists to take a very long view of history because, in Reconstructionist theology, the world is to be preserved, not blown up. So based on that ( I would assume ) Chris Ortiz, takes George Grant and reformed theonomists to task for jumping on the "demonize Islam" bandwagon
Essentially, I'm dissenting from George Grant because I want to insure the world is preserved from nuclear devastation in order that the theocratic dream of postmillennialism is fulfilled. In all honesty, I'm dumbfounded. This is the height of conspiratorial speculation. Mr. Wilson is grossly misinformed as to both my intent as well as the theocracy we advocate. How could he possibly know my reasons? And why bother speculating if you want to maintain respectability for your web site? Why take the risk?
Hopefully, this post will aid Mr. Wilson and others to better understand both my intents and the genuine theocracy advocated by Chalcedon.
First, my published opposition to war with Iran has nothing to do with any concern for "scorched earth." War with Iran would be immoral, just as war with Iraq is immoral. In fact, the entire neoconservative push for hegemonic control of the Middle East is wrong. I hold to the foreign policy of George Washington, not George W. Bush.
Second, opposition to war is in harmony with Chalcedon's ethical position, not it's eschatological position. Our critics should be aware of the importance we place on Biblical law, and that morality precedes prognostications about the future of our world.
In light of this I am deeply concerned about the source of much of the Middle East conflagration: the Palestinians. The utter nightmare that is daily life for most Palestinians is one of the greatest sins of our time, and I'm afraid much of the Palestinian blood being spilled is found on the hands of Christian Zionists. This is where eschatology is playing a factor. Pop-Dispensationalism is a faithful advocate of the Israeli suppression of the Palestinians, as well as loyal flag-wavers for the war party.
Third, is this inexcusable portrayal of Christian Reconstruction as the imposition of "Christian theonomic rule -- government under Biblical law (as parsed by RJ Rushdoony) -- and only after 1,000 years of theonomic rule will Jesus finally return." Wilson should have read by now our often-published statement:
"No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God's sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced."
Fourth, most postmillennialists do not believe the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 are literal. Nor do they believe that they will somehow usher in the return of Christ. Postmillennial eschatology is so well documented that it is inexcusable that Talk2Action writers would make such repeated errors about basic beliefs. If your web site is dedicated to resisting Christian theocracy, shouldn't you read up on the subject?
Lastly, Christian theocracy is not the imposition of Biblical law on the unwilling. It is not the rule of a religious elite. Christian theocracy is self-government in terms of God's law. We choose the term theocracy very carefully, i.e. "the rule of God." We did not choose the term ecclesiocracy -- the rule of the church.
We do not support a religious takeover of the state. The idea is ridiculous. Financial and corporate interests would never allow such a coup. The Christian Right is being manipulated and used because of their sizable electoral power. However, they see politics in the prepared categories of Left and Right. This is why they do not recognize statism when Conservatives are in power.
Wilson is correct about one item: we do have a "long view of history." We believe it will take a great many years before the majority of the world would be both Christian and faithful. It would also take that long before you witnessed the application of Biblical law in any comprehensive fashion. For this reason, Chalcedon emphasizes ideas, because it is only ideas that can be preserved over succeeding generations.
I don't expect Mr. Wilson to change his perspective. I don't expect anyone that far to the Left to move towards objectivity. Especially when sensationalism sells. This should speak volumes on behalf of Chalcedon since we try to avoid demonization or sensationalism. When most of the Christian Right is pushing for war, we stand critical. When conservative Christians are enamored with political influence, we push for self-government and the family. When the Religious Right is marching lock-step with the GOP, we are highlighting the fascistic element. When our constituency is seeking to "Reclaim America," we are admonishing our readers to greater faithfulness.
This is why we're probably the least funded of any theocratic organization -- because we're soon becoming the only truly theocratic organization. We don't prop up false enemies in order to create outrage. Only those with a long-term view of Christian civilization will understand and support our mission. This bespeaks of the fact that we are very much in the same position as Rushdoony outlined in his very first newsletter (1965) to his small host of supporters:
This movement (humanism) has been a long time in developing: it cannot be defeated overnight. It cannot be defeated by short-sighted people who want victory today or tomorrow, and are unwilling to support long-term battle. The future must be won, and shall be won, by a renewal and development of our historic Christian liberty, by an emphasis on the fact: the basic government is the self-government of the Christian man, and by a recognition that an informed faith is the mainspring of victory.
This is Christian Reconstruction. It's not "Reclaiming America" or debating the religious intent of our founding fathers. It's about the Kingdom of God and it's expansion through daily faithfulness to God's law by dedicated individuals serving their King. In this respect, we are as concerned about washing dishes as we are economics.
Christian Reconstruction is not about debating the sovereignty of God, or the doctrines of grace. Rushdoony held that sovereignty was a source of comfort for the Christian, not something to debate. Christian Reconstruction is applied Calvinism. The glory of God is to fill the earth; and that glory is to be presented by the good works of God's obedient people as they deal lawfully with their neighbor.
Comprehending the true doctrines advocated by R. J. Rushdoony requires a good deal of reading. For some reason, bloggers like Mr. Wilson eschew the diligence necessary to report our ideas accurately. But, in a sense, these guys are about as marginal as we are. Maybe we just need each other to pick on. It gives us something to write about.
I'm a little taken aback at times by the underlying tone in many reformed-theonomic leaders as it relates to Islam and the War on Terror. Post 9/11 it's as if everyone's eyes are finally opened to the true threat to Christianity -- Islam. These are the same leaders who regularly decried the threat of Communism and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and offered not much by way of Islam. It begs the question, "is this not similar to the changing anti-christs of dispensational leaders?" Are not dispensationalist doomsayers the ones who usually change out the identity of the Beast with each new decade? Why then are responsible postmillennialists towing the line of the warfare state and Zionism by demonizing Islam?
This clip from Vision Forum's History of the World Conference features a portion of George Grant's* lecture on The Crusades in which he contemporizes and sanitizes the efforts of the Pope's legions in the Middle Ages to obstruct the expansion of Muslim dynasties. The obvious hermeneutic is to draw implications for our present conflict with Islam. Before the end of the clip Grant is clear to mention the necessity for preaching the Gospel to the new legions of Muslims -- he did not mention a struggle of swords. Yet, this only makes this a neo-Crusade, and offers no restraint on the preemptive invasion of Arabic nations.
I was particularly puzzled by the following quote taken from the clip of Grant's speech:
"You see, Mohammed, believed that ultimately the works-righteousness -- the ideological system of Islam -- depended upon global conquest. Faithfulness was measured, not simply by the adherence to the Five Pillars, it was measured by the pursuit of this radical agenda."
How similar is this radical ideology of Mohammed to a younger George Grant:
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are afier. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less. George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 50-51
I honestly do not see the ideological difference between what Grant is suggesting in this citation, and what he expresses concern over in regards to Islam's ambitions. To isolate it to the use of violence is insufficient. The paradigms of both sides can justify violence. The paranoid secularist reads this portion of Grant and links it with the political activism and lobbying of the Religious Right in order to assemble a frightening monster of religious fascism. But, Grant would likely be the first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy. That what appears to be a clear link between him and Jerry Falwell is no connection at all. In other words, don't confuse the rhetoric or ideology of certain radical thinkers with the mass of conservative Christianity.
So I ask, "is Islam a genuine threat?" Are Christian leaders confusing the radicalized rhetoric of the Mullahs with the millions of Arabs occupied with living their lives in peace? Are we neglecting even the reason for much of the radical Islamic rhetoric? Will any conservative Christian dare proclaim that the Palestinian people are living in the largest concentration camp in history? Isn't the continual blind support of Zionism on the part of the U.S. equivalent to dousing a campfire with a gas hose?
I support Dr. Grant's desire to reach Muslims with the Gospel. However, to couch that evangelism in the context of the Crusades is unwise. This type of speech only echoes the war propaganda and reinforces the ambivalence of an already obtuse church unable to recognize the threat of American tyranny, the error of American exceptionalism, and the rise of neo-imperialism.
*Note: I've long admired and enjoyed George Grant's writing and ministry. I still do. He's been a significant player in strengthening the Christian community for genuine Christian service. I disagree with him in all respect.
I always chuckle when someone suggests the Bible is difficult to understand and left to private interpretation. No doubt, unraveling the meaning of certain Old Testament prophets, or deciphering the precise identity of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2:3f is difficult for the most astute among us. There is no universal agreement on many such interpretations.
Having said that, there are foundational themes in the Scriptures that are uncomplicated and accessible. These fundamental streams run throughout Old and New Testaments, and form the basis for which the more complicated matters arise.
For example, decrypting the Biblical code in order to identify Paul's Man of Sin is premised upon the necessity for the rise of such an evil one. The Son of Perdition plays a role in an apocalyptic scenario that transpires because of Israel's disobedience to the laws of God. We miss this point, and the evidence is apparent in the abundance of Christian books on end-time prophecy as compared to the handful of studies on Biblical law.
However, the difficulty Christian scholars have in identifying the Man of Sin, or the Whore of Babylon, does not mean the entirety of the Biblical text is equally ambiguous. The Book of Daniel, the Old Testament version of the Book of Revelation, is replete with symbolism and dark speech regarding "times and seasons" of the End, e.g. Seventy Weeks (9:24). Yet, before Daniel's interaction with the angel, he made clear the unambiguous frame of reference that marks the comprehensive meaning of Scripture -- ethics:
As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice. Daniel 9:13-14
This passage is clear as it gets. Writing some 1500 years after Moses, the prophet Daniel places the contemporary crisis of God's people squarely on the violation of what is "written in the law of Moses." It's Israel's disobedience that explains "all this evil" that is "come upon us." We can debate the meaning of the Seventy Weeks, but we cannot debate the reason for the time of judgment.
This ambiguity surrounding much of apocalyptic literature leads to a gross neglect of the fundamental basis of God's law and His historical response to our adherence. This is for two reasons: 1) it's a convenient excuse for those running from accountability, and 2) scholars make the more difficult portions of Scripture the primary subjects of study. Just think: where would be today if Rushdoony had not written The Institutes of Biblical Law? God forbid if he had wasted his time with such pulp fiction as The Late Great Planet Earth.
The Bible is concerned with ethics, but man runs after politics. The Scriptures make incessant appeals for obedience, but man responds more to economic concerns. There are a myriad of items that man uses to overlay the Biblical admonishment to obedience; and when he does finally examine the text, he devotes himself to matching the Number of the Beast with the numerical equivalent of a politician's name. His concern is not responsibility. He wants sensationalism. Like the Greeks of Acts 17, today's Christian concerns himself with new, tantalizing information to satisfy his curiosity and excuse him from faithfulness.
The Indianapolis Colts win the Super Bowl and this is how they begin the celebration. Notice the Lombardi trophy. I hope no one was offended by this brazen act of radical religious extremism.
President Bush stated yesterday his certainty that "the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.'s that have harmed our troops." Now, Mr. President, is this an "Iraq had WMDs" kind of assurance? Or, is it a "Mission Accomplished" kind of assurance? I apologize for asking, but your guesswork is as accurate as an insurgent's mortar round.
For a few weeks now the White House propaganda machine has been experimenting with this new polemic of Iran being responsible for supplying arms to the Iraqi resistance. The more recent twist is this notion of certainty that a "faction" within the Iranian government is interfering in Iraq, but Bush said, "I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what's worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?"
In this instance, "it takes one to know one." It should be clear to the American people by now that a "faction" within the U.S. government is steering our foreign policy. The only difference is that in the U.S. it matters little if the orders are coming from the White House. Since John F. Kennedy, no sitting U.S. president has actually wielded any real power. Mr. Bush is not much more than a salesman. His job is to represent the interests of the Military-Industrial Complex by selling war to Congress and the American people. As President Eisenhower made clear, our greatest threat is not a foreign invader, but an enemy from within:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
As you can see, the monologue streaming from Washington sounds like a push for war with Iran. It's the same rhetoric we heard prior to the invasion of Iraq. And, remember, this was once about finding Bin Laden. It then became about Iraq's involvement in 9/11. It then moved to Saddam harboring WMDs, followed by "regime change" and the spreading of democracy. It's now about Iran's nukes and their interference in Iraq. The similarity to the methods of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" in the dystopic 1984 are almost mirrored as the reasons for war change by the day. After a while, the population gives up. Big Brother will have his war.
That's what male prostitute, Mike Jones, said in response to Ted Haggard's recent claim that after a few weeks of intense counseling he is heterosexual. Haggard engaged in a three-year sexual relationship with Mike Jones, paying him for homosexual encounters while also taking Crystal Meth to both enhance and prolong the experiences. Mike Jones exposed Haggard on a local radio show after realizing who Haggard was and that he was leading the charge against gay marriage in Colorado. Haggard had been using the alias "Art" when interacting with Jones.
Mike Jones told the Colorado Springs Gazette, "He's been performing oral sex on me for three years. You don't change that in three weeks." Jones is presently writing a book on the three-year affair, and though originally scheduled for a June release, Jones said the deadline "may be stretched out the more Ted Haggard talks. Every time he opens his mouth, I have to add another chapter."
Haggard has signed a non-disclosure agreement with New Life Church that essentially prohibits him from discussing the scandal publicly. How convenient. Part of the agreement included a "cash settlement" along with a stipulation that Haggard is also prohibited from revealing the amount. In politics this is called "hush money."
The creates a media blackout. Neither the leadership of New Life Church, nor the Haggards, are permitted to speak any further about the affair. This will not silence Mike Jones. He will carry the story from here on out.
But, I do not write this to "follow the story." This is not a news story. It is emblematic of the sickness of mainstream Christianity. Haggard is the tip of the iceberg. He's a product of what much of Christianity has become. There are little to no serious voices in Christian leadership condemning the criminality of Haggard, nor the lame unbiblical response by the New Life leadership. How else can an illustrious Christian leader engage in drugs, adultery, prostitution, sodomy, and oral sex and come out of it free and clear in a few weeks unless the church was enabling him? Our silence is the greater sin.
The Haggards are relocating to another state where Ted and his wife, Gayle, will pursue degrees in psychology. Anyone who seeks their professional help in the future should have their head examined.
Chalcedon Position Paper No. 79 By R. J. Rushdoony
Recently, I was in an eastern state as an expert witness in a freedom of speech and freedom of religion trial. Two street preachers were on trial and had been arrested and imprisoned earlier. The judge in this case, unlike so many, was courteous and conducted the trial with dignity; however, he readily admitted hearsay evidence against the two preachers. The city brought to the trial a zeal which would have been more appropriate for a case involving rape or murder. I left at the end of the first day, having given my testimony, but the memory of the case remains, together with a sharp awareness of this country's degeneracy. Pastors and Christian School leaders, and children, are regularly on trial. Widows and orphans, whom the Lord regards as the test of a people's faith, are systematically robbed by inheritance taxes, and most people, in and out of the church, do not care and are indifferent to the evils of our times.
The other morning I was awakened by a very vivid and horrifying dream. In my dream, I was back at the courtroom (where in fact no local pastor came to give open support, being fearful of the hostility or disfavor of the city fathers). In my dream, three mildly friendly men unrelated to the trial offered to drive me to the airport. There was an oppressive darkness in the air and in the minds of men. All had left faith and morality behind, and the world was Christless. We stopped at an intersection; a nearly naked black girl of about 12 years ran crying to the automobile, asking help. I demanded that she be taken in. Just then, a van, going in the opposite direction, pulled alongside of us; the two men in the cab, one black, one white, demanded the girl's return. They mistook my refusal's reason, and offered to sell her, adding that they could supply any age or color, any sex, for any purpose. I demanded that the driver gun the motor and leave, and we escaped the slave-wagon. I asked the frightened girl her name, and she had none, only girl." The three men told me the girl was my "problem;" they wanted no part of "stolen property." I realized I was in a slave world without Christ and Scripture, the law-word of God. Then I woke up with the recognition that the world I live in and the world of my dream are not very far apart.
The next day, The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, August 7, 1986, p. 24) gave confirmation to my dream in an article by Bruce S. Ledwitz, "The Questions Rehnquist Hasn't Had to Answer." The author called attention to the ironic fact that prominent conservatives and clergymen had strongly supported Justice William Rehnquist for chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Rehnquist follows strictly in the legal footsteps of Holmes. He denies the relevancy to law of personal moral judgments, because they are "subjective" and supposedly cannot be proved.
Legal positivism governs our courts increasingly and is separating religion and morality from law. The same legal cynicism that led to Marxism and to National Socialism is now increasingly commonplace in American law. My dream was very logical. A world not under God's law is soon a world in which only tyranny prevails. Moral order is replaced by statist order, and man ceases to be a person before the law. We should remember that John Dewey, the father of modern statist education, was skeptical about personal consciousness and conscience. For him the reality was the statist community. Bruce S. Ledwitz called attention to the churchmen and conservatives who supported Rehnquist's nomination as chief justice by President Ronald Reagan. These men won the battle, but they continue to lose the war, because the basic issue is obscured. What we face is more than a political battle, and more than an intellectual struggle. It is a conflict of faiths, and, by supporting men like Rehnquist, we are aiding and abetting our own destruction. The conservatives have won many victories in recent years which have only advanced the cause of their opponents.
A key problem of our time is the failure of men to see what is at stake. A spiritual blindness marks our age. In 1924, Eileen Power wrote an interesting study entitled Medieval People. In 1938, she wrote an essay, later included in the 1963 (tenth edition) printing, entitled "The Precursors," which begins with a survey of "Rome in Decline." Towards the end of her essay, she commented, "The fact is that the Romans were blinded to what was happening to them by the very perfection of the material culture which they had created. All around them was solidity and comfort, a material existence which was the very antithesis of barbarism." They might have problems, but for the Romans it was unthinkable that barbarism could replace civilization. As Eileen Power grimly noted, "Their roads grew better as their statesmanship grew worse and central heating triumphed as civilization fell."
Central to Roman irresponsibility and blindness according to Professor Power, was their educational system. It was irrelevant to their problems, she noted, "and it would be difficult to imagine an education more entirely out of touch with contemporary life." The Romans were guilty of "the fatal illusion that tomorrow would be as yesterday."
Rome was full of cultured Rehnquists who were busily making Rome and its ways irrelevant to reality. Its liberals were building up statist power and destroying society. Its conservatives had impotent criticism, of which Petronius Arbiter gives us an example, in the complaint, "And it is my conviction that the schools are responsible for the gross foolishness of our young men, because, in them, they see or hear nothing at all of the affairs of everyday life." True enough, but neither Petronius Arbiter nor any of his fellow satirists could offer Rome the faith and morality needed to revitalize their world. Ile Romans were practical men of the variety Disraeli described in the 19th century, when he observed, "Practical men are men who practice the blunders of their predecessors."
Professor Ledwitz said of Rehnquist, "In a 1976 article, Justice Rehnquist formally set forth the ideas he has implicitly championed throughout his judicial career. In the article, he formally endorsed Justice Holme's call for 'skepticism' about moral values." From coast to coast, our press snarls with rage at those who try to apply religious and moral standards to man and society. The "good" is increasingly defined by what the state does because no God and law above the state is recognized, and the state is viewed as a god walking on earth.
Phil Donahue used a Soviet propagandist on his television show, and the man, Vladimir Posner, saw the U.S. as "bad" because it has unemployment, poverty, and homeless peoples, whereas the U.S.S.R. he said had none. Bayard Rustin, in criticizing Donahue and Posner, called attention to the fact that his black grandparents were slaves and had full employment, food, and housing, and it was not a good order for them. Remove God and His law from society and you have the moral confusion demonstrated by Posner and his friends.
Roman civilization, said Eileen Power, lost the power to reproduce itself. She gave no clear answer to this problem, but, as Christians, we can supply one. If you believe nothing, what can you transmit to your children? If you have no faith, can you give your heirs anything but cynicism as a way of life? If good and evil are myths, then how can we call life itself good? The increasing incidence of suicide among state school children is the logical conclusion of an educational system stripped of Christianity.
Modern man has no solid grounds for condemning slavery, tyranny, child abuse, sexual abuse, or anything else. Fifteen years ago, some of the avant garde leaders of the new amorality were insisting that all things between consenting adults should be legal. Now the limitation of consent is disappearing as some groups agitate for the freedom to molest children. As Dostoyevsky observed more than a century ago, if there is no God, then all things are possible.
But there is a God, the Lord God of Scripture, and He lives, and He is a consuming fire to His enemies (Heb. 12:29). All things are not possible, because God reigns. There is therefore causality and judgment in history, and God's law governs all things.
Can men make this the kind of world I dreamed about? Yes, and they are doing so. But, as the Sabbath song, Psalm 92, declares in w. 7-8, "When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed forever: But thou, LORD, art most high for evermore." Men's Towers of Babel are always confounded and destroyed. The judges and rulers of this world will in time take notice, because none can escape the righteous judge of all creation. (October, 1986)
Republican presidential hopeful (and cross dresser), former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani, told a California audience last Saturday, "I used gun control as mayor." Giuliani is lauded for his cleaning up of New York City as well as the reduction in violent crime. He went on to state to the Californians, "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms." He went on to suggest that his policies would have no bearing on hunters.
This is double-speak. It's like saying, "I understand that it's illegal to kill another human being, but I plan to murder my competitor." The Second Amendment is one of the most simply stated elements of the Constitution:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringement upon the bearing of arms is related to the rise of an organized militia. In principle, this also applies to the rise of standing armies. America has all but lost the militia, with all investment being deposited in the U.S. military. The "War on Terror" will soon eliminate the National Guard, as it will also be absorbed into the modern military state.
The ONLY line of defense is the right to bear arms. How else shall Americans defend themselves against tyranny? How else can Americans truly defend themselves against criminals? Giuliani is deceptive in stating that his method of gun control will not impede hunting. The Second Amendment, Mr. Mayor, is not about hunting -- it's about self-protection from crime and the state.
Giuliani represents the new Republicanism, which can best be described as neo-fascism. These are authoritarian figurines that appeal to populism, fear, and national exceptionalism. Don't believe me? Listen to MSNBC's Chris Matthews of Hardball tell Don Imus how much he loves Giuliani, and suggests that the American people like a little fascism in their politicians.
Reuters claims "Evangelist's therapy fuels 'gay debate.'" They are referring to the recent emergence of Ted Haggard from a few weeks of counseling to declare himself a heterosexual. Apparently his three-year engagement in anal sex with a male prostitute was merely an "acting out," and was by no means "a constant thing," said one of his assigned counselors. I wonder what then defines "constant?"
I don't know that there is any genuine "debate" - at least no debate of any significance. Especially when compared with the scandals of yesteryear involving Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Larry Lea. For some odd reason the scandal surrounding Ted Haggard is relatively quiet. You have to wonder why.
Maybe the level of tolerance for sin is so high in both the church and society that most people are simply unmoved. Or, maybe the fact that Haggard's transgression is homosexuality there is trepidation due to the present political debate over such issues as "gay rights." For example, were Haggard to be involved in a three-year affair with a woman, would it make a difference?
We know the liberal lines of mainstream evangelicalism are quite comfortable with sodomites for leaders. In fact, they may even be rejoicing at Haggard's revelation. You can bet that new alliances will be formed between Haggard and the Christian-sodomites, and that a profound "compassion" will soon overwhelm Mr. and Mrs. Haggard as they embark on their new careers as Christian psychologists. It's a ruse, however. This is only a means of shielding themselves from criticism.
Part of this debate is the critique by former homosexual Christians that insist the transition to purity is a long process. Frank Worthen of New Hope Ministries estimates the transition period to be between five to eight years, but Haggard came to the realization of a secure heterosexuality in a few weeks.
The crux of the debate is, according to Reuters, whether people are created homosexual. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said, "The entire underpinning of America's anti-gay industry is that homosexuality is a choice and they can never move off of that position because if they do, everything crumbles around them."
This is laughable. First, I wasn't aware there was an "anti-gay industry." If there is, I haven't seen a dime of that money. Second, and more seriously, not everyone that believes homosexuality is sinful necessarily holds to the idea of "choice." For instance, if children can be born with multiple appendages, debilitating diseases, and gross deformities, I'm not surprised that some prefer sodomy or desire to dress like women. This also presupposes naturalism on both sides of the issue. Rarely is the spiritual discussed. We cannot forget the demonic legions of hell that routinely inspire some of man's must illustrious sins. Perversions can also be the result of a lifetime of demonic control.
However, this in no way changes the foundation of the Christian position: sodomy is sin. Homosexuality is a clear violation of the Scriptures. To assume, as Mr. Foreman does, that the entire Christian position is established upon choice, presupposes that man is not born sinful - that God "creates" men as adulterers, pedophiles, bestialists, and homosexuals. If it's not a choice, it's somehow endorsed by God and permissive? This is nonsense.
Psalm 19:12 declares, "Who can understand his errors?" The prophet Jeremiah states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9) The Biblical position is that man's sinfulness cannot be known. It's only known by God, as Jeremiah declares in verse 10: "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to HIS ways, and according the fruit of HIS doings."
Sin is man's doing because it is man's way, and the Bible is clear that man cannot understand his own way. In other words, man sins because he's sinful, but he cannot decipher the reason nor the origin for his particular brand of sin. Only the Lord knows the wicked heart of man, and He will recompense man for his evil ways.
Since man cannot understand his ways, it is useless to debate the origins of sins such as homosexuality. You cannot understand your own errors (Ps. 19:2). Psychology is premised upon the investigation into origins as means to freedom. Freudians examine youth while Darwinians examine matter. Neither position addresses the doctrine of total depravity nor the noetic effects of sin.
What is the end to all this? The Scriptures:
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)
The issue is not whether one is born homosexual, or chooses that orientation. The issue is whether homosexuality is sinful and forbidden by the Scriptures. Since it is clearly condemned in the Scriptures, homosexuals must cease their perversions in the same manner as one given to promiscuity with women must cease his immorality. Otherwise, what do you tell the pedophile and bestialist? Are they not also told to restrain themselves with threat of punishment?
Conservative Christians have given over ground if their entire position is established upon homosexuality as a choice. I believe Mr. Foreman is incorrect in this assessment, however. Most conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. These same Christians, against their better judgment, are foolish to allow the debate to be framed around origins. The Christian position is one of faithful gospel-preaching centered around the cross of Christ and His sure resurrection. It is also sealed with a clear command to repentance (Acts 17:30). The Christian position must never allow itself to deteriorate to a psychological debate over the natural order. Yet, it seems the Biblical position is steadily losing ground in the theological playground of modern evangelicalism.
The pre-inspection of potential presidential candidates is well underway, and the 2008 candidates are being sized up differently this time around. Whereas one might expect war and the economy to be paramount, it turns out race, gender, and religion are occupying the prime spot in the media melee.
Barack Obama is addressing the obvious: is he black, or is he white? Barack says, "if you look African-American in this society, you're treated as African-American." It appears Barack identifies more so with his black heritage despite the loving attention of his white mother -- he just looks more like his African father. He's correct, though. If you appear as any race, you're treated as such.
Hillary Clinton is a woman; I think. But, is America ready for a female president? After 7 years of a fake cowboy (Bush is a blueblood), the good ol' US of A may be ready for a sex change!
Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, may have an evangelical problem on his hand. Romney is a Mormon, and most evangelical-fundamentalists believe Mormon church to be a cult -- at the very least, a heresy. Since November of 2006, Romney has been romancing the Relgious Right in order to feel out his presidential bid. No conservative will make it without the full support of the conservative Christian community.
I'm not sure why the Democrats aren't pushing Al Gore. It seems he'd be a shoe-in after the 2000 election debacle. He has 8 years of White House experience, and appears to be making headway with the global warming paranoia.
The Republicans.... well, I guess I don't know what to say about them. Are there any real contenders at this point? It seems that anyone too attached to the current president has a lot of PR work to do between now and 2008.
Either way, get ready to receive an ear-full of debate over race, gender and religion. An already divided nation is about to take it up a notch.
My son, the youngest of my four children, age 24, died sometime in the last two weeks. His body was found on Sunday, February 4 in his apartment, which is 250 miles from my home. He died of natural causes - very strange natural causes. If anyone you know suffers from the following symptoms, that person should take this very seriously.
He suffered from an affliction that was not able to be diagnosed during his lifetime. (I await the coroner's report.) We took him to neurologists, chiropractors, standard physicians, and alternative health care physicians. There were blood tests. Nothing. No one had seen anything like his affliction.
About four years ago, he complained of a tingling sensation in the back of his heels. Month by month, the tingling spread up the back of his legs. Within a year, he began suffering terrible upper body spasms. He could control them to some degree by sticking his fist in the small of his back and pressing against a chair. He also fought the spasms constantly by contracting his back muscles before the spasms occurred. By the end of his life, he was sleeping only 3 to 4 hours a night.
When a physician or chiropractor would put him on a diagnostic table, the upper half of his body would sometimes snap upright. In every case, the health care practitioner said, "I have never seen anything like this."
The spasms continued upward to his neck-head area last year.
In November, he was at the library. He collapsed. He had spasms on the floor, unconscious. They called the paramedics, who took him to the hospital. It is a large, regional facility. They ran a CT-scan and other diagnostics. They found nothing. They sent him home.
He could not eat much. At six feet three, he weighed about 140 pounds - sometimes less. He had wasted away.
He did not complain at any time during these years. He tried to stay in college, despite the fact that he could not sleep well and would miss his scheduled assignments. He was very smart. He finally gave up last semester, acknowledging that he could no longer function physically in that schedule-intensive environment. He conducted himself well, although at the end, he did not want to see any more physicians.
A month ago, he was on a bus where the driver had a seizure and collapsed. My son got to the steering wheel, guided the bus to the curb, and called 9-11 on his cell phone to summon the paramedics. A local TV station wanted to interview him. He declined. I thought that was the right decision at the time. Now, I wish he had. I would like a copy of the tape.
I named him Caleb because in the book of Joshua, Caleb lived to a ripe old age and remained on the job. Such was not to be in his life.
On my 25th birthday, my grandmother told me, "You'll be 30 before you know it." I knew this was true even then. I will turn 65 on Sunday. On his 25th birthday, I had planned to tell Caleb what my grandmother told me. Such was not to be in his life.
LESSONS
If anyone ever asks you "What's so good about capitalism?" tell him this: Capitalism has made it possible for most of our children to survive the killer diseases and accidents that two centuries ago killed 30% or more of all children before they reached adulthood.
Our children bury us. Most of us do not bury our children. I know of no greater blessing in the modern world. It is a blessing not known throughout most of man's history. Be grateful for it. We take it for granted.
My former pastor, novelist Henry Coray, who died in his nineties a few years ago, over 40 years ago said this in a sermon. "Until the day that God has pre-ordained before history began that we are to die, we are immortal. On that special day, we are inescapably dead." He said this to increase our courage under fire.
It also helps cut off that inevitable but unanswerable question: "Why?" The correct answer is: "That's My exclusive business."
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29).
This leads me to my final four points, which I offer for your careful consideration.
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapter 5, verse 8).
For the wages of sin [are] death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (1 Corinthians 15:54-55)
(Instead of sending an email of condolence to me, call your kids and tell them you think they are terrific. Be specific as to why. It will help them work on their good points. The older they are, the less you can do about their bad points. Put your effort where it counts.)
Oh, dear me, if I had a dollar for every time a secular critic misspelled a reconstructionist's name, I'd be a wealthy man. Here's the latest from a silly woman who thinks she can discuss the issue of slavery with the likes of Rushdoony and North:
Lately I've been reading about a still darker side to the Reconstructionist/Patriarchy movement.
Quite simply, it is this:
There are those among the movement who claim that since SLAVERY is not condemned in the Bible, it is a perfectly legitimate thing, and advocate a return to the same.
J.R. Rushdooney, the father of Reconstructionism, advocated a return to debtor slavery. So does his son-in-law, Gary North.
LOL! Oh, man. That's too funny. I love it. I absolutely love it. How can she possibly understand the doctrine of a man who's name she does not know? She's never read a single page of "J.R. Rushdooney."
Ted Haggard, the former pastor of New Life Church in Colorado, and former head of the NEA, has emerged from three weeks of "intensive" counseling convinced that he is "completely heterosexual." That's right, folks. After three years of monthly visitations to Denver to engage in anal sex with a male prostitute -- while taking crystal meth -- Ted Haggard is NOT gay!
One of the four morons, I mean ministers, that oversaw his restoration stated, "He is completely heterosexual. That is something he (Haggard) discovered. It was acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."
Ahhh, I see. He was just acting these things out, and it wasn't constant. True, but neither is anything else. It was consistent though, viz. monthly for 3 years. Acting things out? What in the world does that mean?
So, the Haggards are all done with counseling and will soon relocate to either Missouri or Iowa. Ted and his accomplice wife, Gayle (equally to blame), will pursue their master's degrees in psychology, and start a brand "new life" -- the irony is dripping.
There are no words to describe the implications of this development. I'm only glad I said what I did when this story first broke. This man and his lying wife should be excommunicated. These overseeing ministers should be defrocked. And, the modern church should be seething in outrage at this vulgar display of audacity in the sight of God.
Recently, I was speaking with a dear friend about the Haggard situation and he said, "I feel so bad for him and his family, and the church." I said, "Does anybody feel bad for another stain smeared upon the glory of God? Does anyone feel revulsion at the fact that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ has once again been dragged through the mud by a false minister?"
Who weeps for this gross violation of the holiness of God? Who will rebuke Haggard or his ministerial hirlings. If anyone will be rebuked, it will be people like me. People who would dare to question the modern Laodicean church and her filthy garments.
Does your local public high school have a "Diversity Day"?
Freshmen at Cony High School in Augusta, Maine, recently had a day-long "diversity celebration" which included a workshop entitled "Transgenderism."
"Transgendering" is what educators and media types call it when a severely disturbed individual undergoes surgical mutilation to "become" a member of the opposite sex. The distinctive male or female sex organs are cut off, hormodes are administered, and supposedly a man becomes a woman, or vice-versa. That the alteration is purely superficial, that there is in fact no "change" at all, is seldom mentioned.
Students who opted out of "Diversity Day" reportedly were offered a workshop on "hate crimes." If the event had been held in Canada, just trying to opt out might have been punished as a hate crime in and of itself. But here in America the Sexual/Secular Left can only intimidate, not punish.
Leading the "Transgendering" workshop was a 19-year-old supposedly in the progress of "changing" from one sex to another, helped along by hormone "therapy." (Please pardon the quotation marks. It's hard to write about these things without abusing the English language.) We assume this lost soul was offered as a role model.
None of this would have made the news, but the for the efforts of the Christian Civil League, who discovered that their state has earmarked almost $250,000 of taxpayers' money for the promotion of aberrant sexuality in Maine's public schools. The program is administered through the state attorney general's office, which sets up clubs in which high school students can "explore" and "discuss" various topics relating to "sexual diversity"--or, as the CCL puts it, "to create safe zones in the schools where students can affirm sex outside of marriage." To deceive parents and other taxpayers, these groups have been dubbed "civil rights teams." League spokesmen believe this project will soon be extended to the state's middle schools and elementary schools.
Teaching children that you can be whatever sex you "want" to be reaches a new threshold of rebellion against God's natural order. The Bible teaches us, "male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27), but Maine's "educators" teach that we can use scalpels and chemicals to re-create ourselves as we please. Again, these techniques change only the superficial appearance of the "patient." But if you're going to rebel against God, you'll need a sizeable dose of self-delusion.
Christian Reconstructionists must continue to work hard to set up godly alternatives to public education. Homeschooling, Christian schools, on-line resources, parents' support networks--all are very badly needed: not just to educate Christian children today, but against the day when the trickle of children out of the public schools becomes a torrent. We cannot believe there are really very many parents who honestly want their children to "explore transgendering"!
As for those "educators" and state officials who actively use the public schools to promote homosexuality, promiscuity, abortion, and now "transgendering," we doubt not that God has prepared a suitable reward for them.
It is significant that godly man in Genesis 1:26-28 is called to exercise dominion (not domination) over the earth, not other men, to develop all things in terms of God's law-word and to make this earth into God's real and domain. Fallen men does not seek dominion, which begins with his salvation and his ability to rule himself, but, rather, the goal of fallen man is domination, to control other people.
In Ephesians 5:21-33, a husband's godly dominion over his wife is compared to Christ's ministry and the sacrifice of His life to redeem the Church. It is declared to be love: "He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church." This is not domination, yet all too many husbands who call themselves Christian still insist on replacing dominion with domination.
It should not surprise us, therefore, that Christians cannot cope with an evil world given to terror and to domination. Neither should it surprise us that too often the most successful clergyman are those who exercise, not dominion but domination, because this is what the world respects. (Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction, p. 412)
Dominion remains one of the most misconstrued terms in Christendom; and the confusion is found both within and without the ranks of the "dominionists." Both paranoid secularists and power-hungry Protestants mishandle the concept of dominion to their own setback. The oversuspicious secularist is inspiring anxiety amongst his ill-informed constituency by grossly exaggerating the so-called theocratic threat. At the same time, the politically inebriated Protestant is blinded to the threat of statism due to his indoctrination in American exceptionalism and his misinterpretation of godly rule -- a rule that has more to do with service than control.
Rushdoony is correct in citing marriage as the appropriate example for understanding the meaning of dominion. Marriage is not only foundational to all other forms of government, it is the essential relationship where man is required to rely upon revelation in order to preserve order. The relationship can only work when a mutual submission in love is maintained. The passages in Ephesians that Rushdoony refers to are the essential texts that continue to inspire the most heated debate, but many misread these Scriptures (Eph. 5:21-33) because they stumble over the word "submit":
21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
This portion begins with the commandment "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God" (v. 21). This is comprehensive in that it includes everyone and excludes no one. We are all to submit to one another in the fear of God.
However, most of the instruction the apostle Paul describes is directed towards men. He leaves the "wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands" (v. 22) and moves quickly into men loving their wives self-sacrificially (v. 25), washing their wives with Biblical instruction (v. 26), and nourishing and cherishing their wives as if treating their own flesh (v. 28, 29). What's missed is the "washing of their wives in the water by the word" (v. 26).
The idea of washing in the word is a strained analogy, but it works when you understand the nature of people. If one needs to be washed, then one must be dirty. The dirt, in this instance, is anything that resides within us that is contrary to the teaching or training of God's word. Therefore, the effect of instruction in God's word is akin to a cleansing -- resulting in a new way of living.
Herein lies the great mystery: The more a woman is instructed in God's word the more she will faithfully govern herself in terms of that word. At this point, submission is a needless discussion. Her submission is in terms of God and His order, and the misplaced emphasis upon the "husband" has led us down a hazardous road to partriarchal abuse. Remember, authority and submission were instituted as part of the curse:
... in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen. 3:17
A man who truly dotes over his bride with love, sincerity, passion, and service - while also being a strong follower of Christ and His word - will have little conflict with his wife if she is equally committed in her personal service of our Lord. Women tend to be wired to relish in security, celebration, respect, service, and communication. They don't respond well to indifference, stoicism, intellectualism, arrogance, laziness, silence, and domination. Yet, all too many Christian men stumble over these simplicities.
Those who make too much of submission are insecure (there... I said it!). Biblical dominion is something you do more than talk about. It begins with godly service and eventually works itself out of commission. My goal with my children is raise them for independence and self-government. Submission will no longer be discussed as love and respect take over. I want my wife to free to serve God and her family while becoming everything God intends her to be. She has dreams, but she also understands her function in our household. In many ways, she understands how to balance these things much better than I.
I do not dominate my wife. I have a God-given responsibility to serve her, i.e. dominion. I'm responsible for her. If she rebels against the will of God I am quick to show her what the Bible says. At that point, her conflict is with God, not me. HOWEVER, with respect she's cited that same Bible to me more times than I can count. And, what do I do when I hear the word? I submit. The point being that all dominion belongs to God.
The Jewish ex-Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman, is suggesting that Americans pay a "war on terrorism tax" to cover the astronomical expenses from the idiotic wars in the Middle East and the domestic police state. This is sleight of hand -- as is all government spending.
