"Christianity enters with its leaven-like virtue the whole civil and social life of a people, and leads it on the path of progress in all genuine civilization. It nowhere prescribes, indeed, a particular form of government, and carefully abstains from all improper interference with political and secular affairs. It accommodates itself to monarchical and republican institutions, and can flourish even under oppression and persecution from the State, as the history of the first three centuries sufficiently shows. But it teaches the true nature and aim of all government, and the duties of rulers and subjects; it promotes the abolition of bad laws and institutions, and the establishment of good; it is in principle opposed alike to despotism and anarchy; it tends, under every form of government, towards order, propriety, justice, humanity, and peace; it fills the ruler with a sense of responsibility to the supreme king and judge, and the ruled with the spirit of loyalty, virtue, and piety." ~ Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. I
Southern Baptists Still Mulling Over Public Schools
The Raleigh News & Observer featured an article in its Lifestyles section entitled "Baptists turn from public schools." I really wish people would get the story straight. The Southern Baptist Convention is slow in turning on the public school issue. In fact, they're still quicker to vote on whether an elder can drink alcohol. In June of last year, USA Today reported...
Southern Baptists won't back public school pullout Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention refused Wednesday to support a resolution urging the denomination to form a strategy for removing children from public schools in favor of home schooling or education at private schools.... Also Wednesday, the SBC unofficially barred members who drink alcohol from serving as trustees or members of any SBC entity. The ban, part of a larger anti-alcohol resolution that was easily approved by delegates, was proposed by Jim Richards, executive director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. While stopping short of officially preventing drinkers from serving, it "urges" that no one be elected or appointed to SBC offices if they are "a user of alcohol."
There you have it. They'll make a decision on whether a church leader can drink a beer, but they won't even allow a vote on whether Southern Baptist children should attend a godless public school. This is what our Lord refers to as "gagging on a knat, and then swallowing a camel." It's the height of phariseeism.
However, according the News & Observer, some Southern Baptist leaders are more vocal of late because of what they see as the hostility of public education to organized religion:
"In the public schools, you don't just have neutrality, you have hostility toward organized religion," said Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest. "A lot of parents are fed up."
This still amounts to "talk" right now. The pressure against the SBC speaking out against public education is daunting. This is due largely to the fact that so many Southern Baptist members work in the public education system:
Southern Baptist leaders are careful to reiterate that they have no desire to harm the public schools or offend its workers, many of whom are proud Southern Baptists.
It's politics, folks--plain and simple. This is why I always sneer when I hear critics refer to Southern Baptists as "fundamentalists," i.e., stalwarts of Biblical teaching. If the Bible clearly condones the moderate use of alcohol[1], and yet you condemn it; and the Bible clearly instructs parents to provide their children with a Scriptural education[2], and you do nothing; then you are guilty of the most heinous of sins. You are "adding to" and "taking away" from the eternal Word of God that you claim to believe!
1. See Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol (Lincoln, CA: Oakdown, 2001). 2. See Rousas John Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia: Culture, Crisis and Education (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1961).
“Every country in history that has had a centralized police force has wound up with tyranny…. Well we’ve gone a long way since the Constitution was written and now, of course, it means nothing. So, we are moving into a Federal police force which will destroy all our freedoms.” – Rushdoony in Easy Chair #252, October. 1, 1991, "A Federal Police Force".
Podcast on the Homosexual Brainwashing of Public School Children
Organizations like GLSEN (Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are completely linked with powerful teacher's unions and heavily involved in indoctrinating public school children into embracing the gay lifestyle. Under the auspices of "making schools safe" a more insidious agenda is undermining our national morality. In this Faith for All of Life podcast I interview investigative journalist Lee Duigon about the organized efforts of the American Federation of Teachers and GSLEN.
There, I hope that gets you to watch. Bear in mind that these videos were done nearly 10 years ago. You can only imagine what they're doing now. While secularists drone on about the Ten Commandments or religious displays in public schools, the homosexual agenda is fully financed BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS!
You may not be able to get your money back, or stop them from using your taxes to fund this, but you can get your children out. You have every right to do so.
There is already speculation that the vacancy left by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be filled by Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. Granted, Chertoff has the credentials. He's a Harvard law graduate, served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, was an assistant U.S. attorney in New York serving alongside Rudy Giuliani, and sat on the 3rd U.S. District Court of Appeals.
But, Michael Chertoff is also hold dual-citizenship in both the U.S. and Israel. His father, Gershon Baruch Chertoff, is a Rabbi, and his grandfather, also a Rabbi, was a Talmudic scholar. Call me "anti-semitic," but I don't want somebody that Kosher to be the most powerful attorney in America.
Chertoff is also the co-author of the USA Patriot Act, the most oppressive piece of legislation in the new millennium. This guy, along with Michael Brown, completely fouled up the Hurricane Katrina devastation. He's also the one claiming to have a "gut feeling" that another major attack on U.S. soil is presently underway.
In short, this guy gets around. What's next? Is he going to replace Cheney when he steps down?
The Department for Children, Schools and Families admits to the fact that the children of politicians and celebrities will receive extra security measures or be left out of the database entirely. This is a brilliant sleight of hand by the state propagandists.
By allowing a debate to ensue over the "level" of security guaranteed, the questioning of the program itself is stifled. The U.K. has been on the fast track to totalitarianism--much faster than the U.S.--and it appears the citizenry is going along with these draconian measures.
Bush Called for Greater Military Involvement in the U.S.
From the deserted streets of New Orleans in 2005, President Bush made clear that in a post/911 world "detailed national planning" is "to be a national security planning. Here's what he said:
"In a time of terror threats and weapons of mass destruction, the danger to our citizens reaches much wider than a fault line or a flood plain. I consider detailed emergency planning to be a national security priority.... It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."
This was the moral of the story of Hurricane Katrina: we must have "GREATER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND A BROADER ROLE OF THE ARMED FORCES." Okay, what do you call a State that has great federal authority and uses the military domestically?
A. Sesame Street? B. Constitutional Republic? C. Totalitarian Police State?
As I posted previously, KSLA in Shreveport, LA reported on the government's use of clergy response teams to serve in various capacities should "martial law" or some other state of emergency be declared. In the original story, KSLA reporter Jeff Ferrell covered the state of emergency declared in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the government engaged in gun confiscation.
This story received a great deal of coverage due to the fact that a good portion of Americans have long been concerned about increasing police state measures in America since 9/11--word spread quickly. As I mentioned, I first heard about the clergy response teams over a year ago by an anonymous pastor on a nationally syndicated radio program. Jeff Ferrell's story was the first time this story was given more direct attention by a news affiliate.
However, soon a host of detractors were crying "hoax!" Hoax? What hoax? There was gun confiscation during New Orleans:
I contacted KSLA's Jeff Ferrell regarding the accusation of hoax, and he wrote me back the following:
"Sadly, this is a case where local officials were caught completely off-guard by all the attention from around the country and apparently were not supposed to really talk about this at all. The local Homeland Security official is even complaining to the station."
The other issue related to this is the alleged use of "Romans 13" by clergy to help quell civil fears or unrest. As the original news story showed, Dr. Durell Tuberville admitted "the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the Scripture." Tuberville's consent to government control is demonstrated in his statement: "the primary thing that we say to anybody is, 'let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'"
A colleague contacted me and requested that I pull the brief mention I made of the KSLA story stating that this was a hoax. He said that he had spoken to Sandy Davis, director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, who was mentioned in the original story, and that Davis claims his comments were misconstrued. I don't see how. Here's all that was said by Davis:
"In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation."
As Ferrell stated, the local homeland security official--probably Davis--has complained to KSLA because this matter was not to be widely publicized. Too late, Mr. Davis.
During martial law the government and police will confiscate guns. To Americans used to the idea of the "right to bear arms," this will certainly spark public unrest. Obviously, clergy and other community leaders will be called upon to help ease public concerns about the government crackdown. The issue now is that clergymen are actually being prepared for such crises. However, the response by clergy will involve a great deal of activities, not simply calling on parishioners to turn in their guns. In fact, Ferrell never made that specific accusation.
So, I stand behind the original story, and I continue to remain deeply concerned about the increasing tyranny creeping all around us. This is what must be understood: the surveillance, Real ID measures, and increased use of the military on U.S. citizens will not subside. A still greater concern is to see Christian leaders show a lack of discernment in these matters. And, as Ferrell stated, "Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other." A tight-rope indeed.
Jeff Ferrell has continued his coverage of the growing police state in two new stories on "Martial Law: President to Seize State Militias (national guard)"; and "Local support to Use Spy Satellites on Americans." Here are the videos:
Religious Protestants have come to view the issues that Giuliani has emphasized, "national security" and "fighting terror," as more crucial than those family issues they stressed in the past. (The American Conservative, June 4, 2007)
I remain astounded at the power of 9/11 as a tool of mass mind control--likely the greatest instrument of propaganda used since Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Everything must be sold or compromised for the sake of "national security." Our deepest morality is put aside so that we can allow political criminals and sexual deviants to protect us. What does this tell you? Christians don't believe their greatest "security" is found in faithfulness to God, or abiding under the shadow of the Almighty (Ps. 91). They will trust in Pharaoh in his chariots for protection (Is. 31:1). God will allow Pharaoh to rule over them!
However, this is all probably necessary. The Scripture is clear that "when Thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness" (Is. 26:9). Despite this warning, God's people harden their hearts to the prophets and look to a man for security:
Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. (1 Sam. 8:19-20)
God said to the frustrated prophet: "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them" (v.7). But, for the record, Samuel the prophet still had to present the official statement of the Kingdom to this miserable people:
There will eventually be military conscription "This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you. He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots." (v.11)
All GDP will go to support the military state (Closing in on a Trillion) "And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots." (v.12)
He'll create a civilian workforce (See Executive Order 11000) "And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers." (v.13)..."and he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work." (v.16)
He will engage in Eminent Domain (Already happening) "And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants." (v.14)
He will control farming and force farmers to serve the state (See Executive Order 10998) "He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants." (v.17)
In short, if you reject God as your king, and therefore as your protection, you shall be given civil rulers that shall create a totalitarian state and govern you by emergency; for it is only in a constant state of national emergency that despotic rulers can justify such draconian measures as military conscription, civilian workforces, eminent domain, and control of all national production.
In this sense, I hardly see how radical Islam is the sole beneficiary of 9/11. For big oil, defense manufacturers, security companies, and the state, 9/11 is booming business. And while they are raking it in, Americans are suffering the rapid decline of the dollar, inflation, foreclosures, and the loss of their family members to foreign wars. All the while, those God-blessed Conservative Christians wave the flags of America and Israel while singing their liberties goodbye in the now ironic refrain of the National Anthem. If we were the "land of the free," we wouldn't tolerate such despotism. If this was the "home of the brave," we wouldn't put our trust in ungodly politicians to protect us.
The Christian, however, must be contrary to all world systems. He or she is the citizen of another country (Phil. 3:20). To make this point, I'll conclude with salient thoughts of Jaques Ellul:
"He [the Christian] is the citizen of another Kingdom, and it is thence that he derives his way of thinking, judging, and feeling. His heart and his thought are elsewhere. He is the subject of another State; he is the ambassador of this State upon earth (2 Cor. 5:20) -- that is to say, he ought to present the demands of his Master, he establishes a relation between the two, but he cannot take the side of this world. He stands up for the interests of his Master, as an ambassador champions the interests of his country." (Jaques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, 34)
Faith for All of Life Podcast Examines Government Control of Church Leaders
Whether it be Right or Left Wing, government organizations like FEMA and the DHS, and think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), are seeking to influence the power of Christian leaders over their respective followers. For example, during the last seven years we've witnessed the Religious Right become a de facto department of the GOP.
Now, with the passing on of Jerry Falwell, and the aging irrelevance of men like Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye, privately-funded elitist groups like the CFR are courting Christian leaders like Rick Warren and Richard Land into the doctrines of globalism.
During this episode of the Faith for All of Life podcast Chris Ortiz interviews Dr. Charles Roberts regarding his recent article on JBS.org entitled "Evangelical Christian Leaders Being Recruited for Globalist Agendas."
If the Republicans fail to retain the executive branch in 2008, warmongers can still have their fill. Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton only criticizes Bush for not fighting the war in Iraq properly. She says "we must prepare to fight a new war." God help us.
Let this be a lesson to Americans that there is no "choice" in U.S. politics. Unless you're voting for candidates like Ron Paul, you'll continue to see more of the same. Barack Obama would be happy to invade Pakistan, and Hillary just wants us to better prepare for the new war.
In light of the disturbing revelation that the U.S. government has been training clergy to help quell civil unrest in lieu of martial law, the issue surrounding Romans 13 has become central. This video clip shows how the ignorant clergy will feed their flocks with doses of Romans 13 in order to get the "sheeple" to submit. But, is that what Romans 13 teaches? I've taken the time to extract and publish here Rushdoony's commentary on this important portion of Scripture.
1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)
We come now to one of the more controversial portions of Paul's letter, verses that have often been used to require an abject subservience to the state. This should not surprise us. People have used the Bible to vindicate homosexuality despite its plain statements. Why not statism as well?
Two general comments are in order. First, spies were commonplace then as now. The national leaders used spies to build a case against Jesus (Luke 20:25), and they were no less hostile to Paul. Thus, both Roman and Judean spies and informers would be ready to use any material possible against Paul and to denounce him to the authorities. Second, despite this fact, Paul speaks out plainly and bluntly, and, by placing every civil government under the triune God, he radically altered the nature of politics.
In v. 19, Paul says, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord." As we have seen, to "give place unto wrath" means to allow the wrath and vengeance of God to operate rather than to play god ourselves. We are now told to be subject, "not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake" (v. 5). The Greek word translated as wrath is orgen, a form of orge. It has reference, not merely to a feeling of anger, but to anger in action to bring about retribution. The use of this word thus requires us to believe in God's justice and to expect it and work for it. It refers to God's justice at work in history.
Terror is phobas, or fear. The required fear is a religious one, God-centered, because it is God's order and God's restraint on sin that is at stake. This terror is thus with respect to God and His law order, not man's. Hence, this terror must be aroused in evil-doers, not the godly.
The word sword, macharian, is a short sword or dagger. Of this weapon, Vincent tells us, that it was
Borne as the symbol of the magistrate's right to inflict capital punishment. Thus Ulplan: "They who rule whole provinces have the right. of the sword (jus gladii)." The Emperor Trajan presented to a provincial governor, on startine for his province, a dagger, with the words, "For me. If I deserve it, in me."[1]
Trajan (c. A.D. 53-117), of course, comes after Paul, but his words represent the best in the Roman legal tradition. The symbol of the sword thus represents both capital punishment and justice.
Conscience is suneidesin, knowing oneself (before God). Paul says "ye must needs (Or, there is a necessity to) be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." The necessity is thus twofold: first, we are required to be confident in God's vengeance, not our own. Second, our conscience before God tells us that God's judgment produces sure justice, and ours injustice when we act in independence from God.
It should be apparent by now that Paul not only places civil government under God, but he implicitly and surely requires that civil government comply with God's law. This is clear from Paul's references to civil government: it is "ordained of God," as are all things, and, like everything else in the universe, must serve God. This same verse 1 also requires everyone to be "subject unto the higher powers." Both words, ordained and subject, have reference to a God-established order, and both every man and every ruler are placed under that order with a duty to comply to it. The declaration by "Peter and the other apostles" that "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) applies equally to the subject and the ruler, to the state and to the citizen. There are no exemptions from God's law.
Moreover, Paul, as we have seen, is intensely faithful to the Old Testament: The sacrificial system made clear that the greater the responsibility, the greater the culpability, so that the sin of the priest, for example, was the most grievous (Lev. 4, etc.). Our Lord sums up the matter thus: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Luke 12:48). The duty of obedience to God and His law is equally mandatory for both a civil government and the peoples thereof, but the penalty for disobedience is greater for the rulers.
"There is no power but of God." Since He made all things, all things and the conditions of their lives are God-imposed and inescapable. According to Robertson, Paul tells us, "God is the author of order, not anarchy .... Paul is not arguing for the divine right of kings or for any special form of government, but for government and order. Nor does he oppose here revolution for a change of government, but he does oppose all lawlessness and disorder."[2] Robertson to the contrary, when Paul tells us twice in this verse that God has ordained all governments in every sphere, he does not mean thereby that every sphere can be a law unto itself. Clearly, the implication is that every sphere of life and authority is under God and His law.
In v. 2, Paul deals with resistance to authority. If we set ourselves in array against authority, we incur judgment, given in English as damnation. The word "resisteth" implies an across-the-boards radical defiance of authority, not a moral stand on a particular point. Bartlett said, "But man's law must be rooted in God's laws. A government that defies the laws of God is heading for disaster."[3] Paul is not requiring an unquestioning submission to all authority. Rather, he is saying that we cannot without sin challenge the fact of authority in any sphere, family, church, state, or elsewhere. He is generalizing, although civil government is clearly in mind.
The Christian's relationship to civil government was a problem for the early church, as it should be today also. The fundamental confession of the early church was "Jesus Christ is Lord" or Sovereign (Phil. 2:9-11). This, however, ran counter to the claim of Rome that Caesar was lord or sovereign. Paul answers the question, can we obey Caesar, who claims to be our lord? Paul's answer is that Caesar is "the minister of God," i.e., diakonos, servant. We obey Caesar as God's servant, not as a sovereign.
What Paul says here is in line with Old Testament prophetic teaching. It was echoed in the Wisdom of Solomon, an apocryphal work c. 50 B.C. and A.D. 40, which admonished all the rulers of the earth to remember that their dominion came from God; they were obligated to keep His law or be judged. Gerald R. Cragg saw clearly the agreement of Paul with this.[4]
Lenski saw this section as dealing with "The Christian in the Secular World."[5] There is a degree of truth to this, but, more important, Paul tells us that every kind of authority and every civil government lives in God's world under God's government. Our perspective is badly warped if we forget this. This universe will cast into outer darkness, into hell, all who by-pass God's law for their own. In Revelation 13:9-10, we are told
9. If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
The word "sword" is again "machaira," the Roman symbol of state power. We are thus told that when the state abuses God's law and enslaves people unjustly, or kills them without cause, God will enslave and kill that state. This confidence in the wrath of God "is the patience and the faith of the saints."
Paul thus gives us no doctrine of passive obedience. The comments of Hodge are very telling here:
All authority is of God. No man has any rightful power over other men, which is not derived from God. All human power is delegated and ministerial. This is true of parents, of magistrates, and of church officers....
It was his (Paul's) object to lay down the simple principle, that magistrates are to be obeyed. The extent of this obedience is to be determined from the nature of the case. They are to be obeyed as magistrates, in the exercise of their lawful authority. When Paul commands wives to obey their husbands, they are required to obey them as husbands, not as masters, nor as kings; children are to obey their parents as parents, not as sovereigns; and so in every other case. This passage, therefore, affords a very slight foundation for the doctrine of passive obedience.[6]
Luthi saw "three principles" in these verses. First, all authority comes from God. Second, authority is God's servant to promote good and suppress evil. Third, every person must be subject to the governing authority. Luthi held that we must be in subjection even when we cannot be in submission, and we go to prison for it.[7] Such a perspective sees nothing of Paul's view of the state under God. It is not merely persons who under God are under the state's authority but also the state and every other agency. The doctrine of the divine right of kings has its echo in too many commentaries which call for passive obedience.
Luther held to a monastic view: "the world is conquered and subjected in no other way than through contempt."[8]
In vv. 3-4, Paul defines the state. First, the state is not a god but God's servant. Second, as God's servant, it must be a terror to evil, "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Since in v. 19 Paul tells us that vengeance belongs to god, it can only be exercised by the state under God, by delegation, according to God's law. Since God's vengeance has reference to God's law, no state has the freedom to create its own law and use coercion to enforce it. Third, if we do good, we should have "praise" from the civil government, and "good" in the form of godly order. Lange said, "Commendations by the magistrates, in opposition to punishments, were common even in ancient times."[9]
Let us remind ourselves that Paul was a very learned and faithful Israelite. Basic to the historic and Biblical political faith of Israel was the sentence in the law, "thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother" Deut. 17:15). A non-covenant man cannot be made a ruler. The penalty for breaking the covenant is to be ruled by evil men (Deut. 28:14-68). Isaiah tells us that the prelude to outside oppression and rule is being ruled by children and women, i.e., an abdication of godly authority by men.
When this happens, civil government ceases to be God's minister and becomes God's wrath to others and to itself. It becomes a terror to the godly, and the protection of evil men, as our courts are becoming now.
Because obedience is grounded (v. 5) in conscience and in the confidence in God's wrath of which Paul speaks, it is not servile obedience but a regenerative obedience. It obeys within the limits of God's law and it works to reconstruct the entire social order by obedience to God. Necessity is attached to this, because society cannot be make good by negation. Peter tells us, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13).
A society and its various areas of government reflect the nature and character of men. A society made up of evil and reprobate men will reflect their character. The homosexual and degenerate nature of Roman leadership and authorities began to appear even in Paul's day. The old proverb says simply, "You can't make a good omelette with bad eggs." The essence of non-Biblical politics is to try to do precisely that, to so arrange the bad eggs to produce a gourmet dish, i.e., to take sinful, fallen men and to create a just social order. This is the purpose of revolutions in the modern era. We can, in more than a few cases, say that the old regimes overthrown by revolutions were bad, but we must add that the new ones have been far, far worse. If we apply systematically the premise that man without Christ can create a just social order we thereby enthrone evil as the means to good.
Revolutions assume evil to be a class trait rather than a human trait, and they are therefore unable to cope with it. Instead, they become incarnations of evil.
Paul places all men and institutions under God, including the state. St. Augustine understood this well. He declared that all states without justice, i.e., not under God, are like bands of robbers, like a Mafia:
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Afexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet are styled emperor."[10]
We do not eliminate criminals by becoming criminals. The problem is in the fallen nature of man, and the remedy must begin there. This means that the just must live by faith.
1. M.R. Vincent: Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. II, p. 746. MacDonald Publishing Co., MacDill AFB, Florida, reprint. 2. Archibald Thomas Robertson: Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. IV, p. 407. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House (193 1) reprint. 3. C. Norman Bartlett: Right in Romans, p. 115. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1953. 4. Gerald R. Cragg, "Romans," in The Interpreter's Bible, vol. IX, p. 602. New York, New York: Abingdon Press, 1954. 5. R.C.H. Lenski: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, p. 783ff. Columbus, Ohio, 1945. 6. Charles Hodge: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 639, 641. New York, New York: A.C. Armstrong (1882),1893. 7. Walter Luthi: The Letter to the Romans, pp. 187, 192f. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1961. 8. Martin Luther: Lectures on Romans, in Luthers Works, vol. 25, p. 468. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia, 1972. 9. John Peter Lange: Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Romans, p. 399. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, reprint. 10. St. Augustine: The City of God, Bk IV, ch. 4; p. 112f. Marcus Dods translation. New York, New York, The Modern Library, 1950 reprint.
Led by the lobbying of Councilor Marilyn Devaney unanimous vote rescinded the relationship between Watertown, MA and the ADL. The issue? The ADL's refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide (1915-1917) where 1.5 million Armenian Christians were slaughtered--Armenia was the first nation to adopt Christianity as its state religion.
"Controversy began last month when the TAB & Press published a letter that highlighted statements from ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, that Congress should play no role in recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Some have classified his words as 'genocide denial' regarding what most historians agree was a campaign waged against ethnic Armenians by the Ottoman government during and after World War I."
It's beyond hypocrisy for the Jew Foxman, and the ADL, to deny recognition of the holocaust of another people. The entire basis of the ADL is the Jewish Holocaust. Nearly 100 Armenian-Americans attended the council meeting and publicly denounced the ADL. Devaney is now determined to lobby all the remaining "No Place for Hate" communities in Massachusetts.
It's because of the Armenian holocaust that R. J. Rushdoony was born in America. His parents fled the Turkish genocide and Rush was born in New York City shortly after arriving in the U.S. Many of their loved ones were slaughtered by the Ottomans. This fact is disregarded by critics of Rushdoony. To add insult to injury, a man who wrote numerous articles for Chalcedon recently requested that all of his articles be removed from our site citing one of his reasons as "Rushdoony denied the holocaust, and that's just evil."
According to the Turkish Daily News, four U.S. Jewish groups are lending their support to the Turkish government's opposition to calling for an official recognition of the genocide by Congress. The four groups are B'nai B'rith, the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
Following the lead of the Zionists, President Bush did not use the word "genocide" in his statement of remembrance of the Armenian slaughter. The Bush administration is joining the Jews in opposing the passage of any resolution giving official recognition of the Armenian holocaust.
This unified support of the most powerful Jewish organizations in America against the simple recognition of the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians lends support to the suggestion by some researchers that Jews were behind the slaughter of the Armenians.
Genocide, Ending Democracy, & Bush as "President-for-Life"
A Neo-conservative group (Family Security Matters) got in some hot water for publishing an article on their web site calling for the ending of democracy, the nuclear genocide of Arab nations, and the establishment of President Bush as a permant dictator like the Caesars. The article was written by a Contributing Editor, Philip Atkinson, a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. His personal web site is OurCivilisation.com. The Family Security Matters group removed the article from their web site, but google cache has retained it. Here are some snippets:
"Yet in 2007 he (President Bush) is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy."
"When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life."
"The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans."
"If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."
For over a year now, the U.S. goverment has been secretly training ministers to be part of a "Clergy Response Team" to "help quell public unrest if martial law is ever declared." Shreveport's KSLA News 12 broke this story on Wednesday, and a once secret program is now openly publicized. The clergy are being advised to use Romans 13 to encourage parishioners to submit to the sudden and massive expansion of government control that takes place during martial law. The following news story is from KSLA News 12:
The Real ID Act was signed in 2005 and is intended to replace your driver's license by creating a new national ID. That's right. The Department of Homeland Security is calling for all "states to begin issuing new FEDERAL licenses" by May 11, 2008. You will no longer have a driver's license that reflects your own home state. You belong to the Fed now. It's the only way they can protect you. They claim "Real ID is an essential weapon in the war on terror."
All 245 million license and state ID holders will have to apply for a Real DI no later than 2013. All your personal information is required, and it will be stored in a state-run database.
Initial complaints involve the projected costs for this legislation. The DHS estimates that the program could cost upwards of $23.1 billion within 10 years. Of course, all of these additional government expansions will be billed to yo: the unwilling customer.
When pundits say "9/11 changed everything," man, they ain't kidding. And it will continue to change everything. So much so, that there will nothing remotely resembling our once free republic—in fact, that was gone a long time ago. Anyone living in the twentieth century really has no idea what it's like to live in the country the founding fathers designed.
In the West, no country is more advanced in their surveillance society than the UK with "4.2 million CCTV cameras -- one for every 14 people in the country -- and 20 percent of all CCTV cameras globally." It is reported that "each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily." Ironically, within 200 yards of George Orwell's (author of 1984) actual apartment are 32 CCTV cameras.
It seems the United States is not too far behind. Although we have much greater land mass--and a much larger population--Big Brother is big business in the "land of the free(?) and home of the brave (or frightened)." Presently, video surveillance is the "fastest growing industry within the major categories of electronic security." The business profitability is expected to hit $21 billion by 2010. This doesn't include all the ancillary technologies to monitor internet usage, transportation, and the ever-controversial wire-tapping.
The incalculable profitability of a surveillance state for security corporations is a guarantee that constitutional consideration of civil liberties will be largely ignored. Much the same as the implications of war are vaguely considered by the powerful relationship between our standing defense department and it's business partners in the defense industry. This alliance is what President Eisenhower referred to as the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell speech in 1961:
But, Eisenhower warned of more than the military-industrial alliance. Much is made of that portion of his speech because of its prophetic fulfillment in the present War on Terror. However, Eisenhower did proffer a secondary warning linked to the threat of "misplaced power" in the military-industrial complex. He labeled it the "scientific-technological elite":
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
"Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." How sad that this is quickly becoming our reality. The amounts of government money being spent on defense and security technologies is absorbing more than the lion's share of research funding. For George Orwell, such a scenario was intentional, since it enabled the rulers to consume the productivity of the middle class in creating materials that could not educate, feed, clothe, house, or heal, i.e., things that don't improve the quality of life. For lawmakers, such a suggestion is ludicrous--the surveillance society is good for deterring crime and thwarting terrorism.
Here's what we can say. It is guaranteed that there will be no reversal in this slide to greater surveillance. In fact, it will grow exponentially. More legislation prohibiting civil liberties in the name of "national security" will be suggested by lawmakers whose constituencies are finding great job expansion due to the increased employment made available by security-oriented corporations. Again, Big Brother is big business, and the lure of filthy lucre is sure to limit any real concern for civil liberties. It's a win-win situation for everyone except those who pray for a constitutionally-controlled America.
Those days are gone. Americans voted their own liberties away in the hope of gaining security from the threat of terror. Benjamin Franklin argued that any people that were willing to trade their liberty for security deserve neither. What do you say to a nation of people that reward their government with more authority, money, and power after that government failed to stop a 9/11, completely missed it on WMDs in Iraq, fumbled miserably during Katrina, and is now "sure" that war with Iran is absolutely necessary? What else can you say but, "You made your own bed; now sleep in it!"
The Fear of Freedom
Finally, I must continue to offer my heartfelt rebuke to the leadership of the Religious Right and the millions of conservative Christians that have not offered any protest whatsoever to our slide into tyranny. If this isn't tyranny, then what is it? If China monitors it's citizens, it's because they are a dictatorial society. If America monitors it's citizens, it's because we're protecting our freedom. As I said before, we wouldn't know "freedom" if it bit us on our blessed assurance.
Terrorists allegedly attacked us, yet 300,000,000 Americans are now the suspects. They supposedly attacked us because of our "freedom"--do people still buy that?--yet we respond by the greatest clamp down on civil liberties in U.S. history. Honestly, do you feel more free? Will your freedom increase from this point on, or decrease with the increasing surveillance? For some reason, because this move towards a police state is wrapped in "Red, White, and Blue," it's right up there with "baseball, Cracker Jacks, and apple pie!" Remember to keep a smile on your face. You don't want to be one of those poor saps who gets pulled aside by Homeland Security because you have the wrong facial expression.
We are a nation of slaves because our basic slavery is a slavery to sin; and freedom requires faith and responsibility. But the state doesn't want you to have that concept. If you did, you would need Big Brother less. I'll conclude with Rushdoony's salient observation on the matter:
Certainly, in our day most men pay lip service to freedom but in reality vote against it with their lives and their ballots. Our legislators assume that farmers and farm workers cannot be trusted with freedom, and capital and labor both assume that the less freedom for others, the better all will be.
Men do not like freedom because they themselves are not free by nature. The basic slavery, slavery to sin, is the nature of their being, and they show their slavery in every area of life.
Jesus declared, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant [or slave] of sin … If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:34, 36). The root of slavery is in the nature of man.
We are today surrounded by a slave people because they are by nature unregenerate. They are most at home in slavery, and most comfortable with it. They will vote for slavery because they are slaves. They dislike and fear freedom because they are at enmity with God. Give them freedom and they will vote it out of existence and work in every way to destroy it.
Men fear freedom, because it means life and responsibility under God. The appeal of slavery is that it offers a life free of responsibilities, and this is always the appeal of slavery. Some nations have in the past had as many as four-fifths living in actual slavery and content with it, because it took responsibility off their shoulders.
The flight from freedom is always first of all the flight from God, who created man to be responsible and to exercise dominion over the earth under Him. The choice is always God or slavery.
Check out the latest Faith for All of Life podcast featuring an in-depth interview with Chalcedon President, Mark Rushdoony on the state of contemporary evangelicalism and the compromised aspects of Reformed ministries.
When it comes to Gen Y's intangible characteristics, the lexicon is less than flattering. Try "needy," "entitled." Despite a consensus that they're not slackers, there is a suspicion that they've avoided that moniker only by creating enough commotion to distract from the fact that they're really not that into "work."
Never mind that they often need an entire team - and a couple of cheerleaders - to do anything. For some of them the concept "work ethic" needs rethinking. "I had a conversation with the CFO of a big company in New York," says Tamara Erickson, co-author of the 2006 book "Workforce Crisis," "and he said, 'I can't find anyone to hire who's willing to work 60 hours a week. Can you talk to them?' And I said, 'Why don't I start by talking to you? What they're really telling you is that they're sorry it takes you so long to get your work done.'"
With the focus in education on the needs of the child, we have raised a generation of selfish brats. From the time they were born until the day they graduate from high school, they have been told that they are special and they deserve to get whatever they want – and they believe it. When they played on the local sports team, everyone one, on every team, got a trophy. It did not matter if you were the worst player on the worst team in the league. No one is to be denied their fair share of self-esteem building limelight.
Today in college, if the student does not like the grade his professor gave him on, well, anything, out comes the cell phone and an angry, “My Mom wants to talk to you!” This really happens. Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler, in her article, Mommy, tell my professor he's not nice!, writes,
Parents of University of Florida students log on to their children's personal Gator-Link accounts to check grades, then call deans when they don't like what they see.
University of Central Florida parents call administrators to complain when their kids can't get into classes they want.
At Florida State University, parents of graduating seniors haggle with job recruiters. They want to make sure Junior gets a good salary and work schedule.
…
"Our students are graduating," says Jeanna Mastrodicasa, associate dean of the UF honors college. "But they are not ready to go into the real world."
We now have an entire generation of children entering the work force and real life in general that can not understand why everyone does not constantly gush all over them. I recent heard a radio interview were the interviewee gave examples of companies who have to act like the soccer coach of their employees' younger days; they have to shower their employees with confetti and hand out trophies. For if they do not, the twenty-something employee will find a company who will.
Once again, Rushdoony’s books of 40 years ago read like the morning paper. Why? Because Rushdoony read, understood, and expounded upon the Word of God. In 1961, R.J. Rushdoony wrote in Intellectual Schizophrenia,
[C]hildren brought up on a concept of life, not as battle but play, and with an emphasis on their needs, can neither labor nor wait.
For the emphasis now is on the needs of the child, not on the demands and expectations of the culture. Once the literature of youth abounded in an emphasis on what the young man needed to know, what his spiritual armor was, what made him a complete man, a complete farmer, cobbler or apprentice, all on the premise of his responsibility to the culture and his personal incapacity if he failed to meet the requirements of manhood and faith. But the approach now is radically different…. To have a child now is no longer an act of nature but a matter of painful research. “Essential” education is in terms of the needs of the child, not in terms of the requirements of God and society. The consequences, of course, are children who are group-directed and consumption-centered, whose attitude towards life is one of appetite rather than responsibility. (pg. 75, emphasis added)
Building the life of the child on the needs of the child is destructive to the child and to society as a whole, not just because it does not work, but because it is unbiblical and anti-Christian. Instead of being concerned about the child’s self-esteem, the Christian parent needs to teach their child to recognize who he is before God:
(1) a creature fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God, and with awesome responsibilities, and yet (2) conceived in sin, that is born with a predisposition to sin, in original sin, which radically tainted every aspect of his being. “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all,” New England school children were once taught. In this concept, in terms of this twofold aspect of the child, education involved two fundamental facts, one created in God’s image, and, second, discipline in the realization that this responsibility could not be met unless the old Adam was mortified.
What are the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants? They’re the same as they were at the Reformation. There are three significant ones. First is the question of final authority. Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]. For Catholics, the final authority is Scripture as interpreted by the church, that is, the magisterium (the pope and bishops). That’s where Catholicism gets its teachings that can’t be found in Scripture, like veneration of Mary, indulgences and purgatory. Second, Catholics view the church as an extension of Christ’s incarnation. For them, the church is divine as Christ was divine. One result of this is the Catholic proclamation: “Come to the church for salvation, for faith in the church and faith in Christ are one act of faith.” That leads to the third difference: salvation. The Catholic catechism makes it very clear that you are born again and justified through baptism. That means faith plus a certain rite — which is administered by the church — is necessary for salvation. So, the church essentially grants salvation. Although this salvation is “by faith,” additional grace enables us “to work” to attain eternal life. And that’s the problem with saying we speak the same gospel. One of them is clear: Christ did it; we can’t add anything to that. The other one is: Christ did it, but to actually avail yourself of what Christ did you have to do this and this.
Ed Young, Jr. is the trendy senior pastor of Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas (suburb of DFW), a church so large it features five locations. His father, Ed Young, Sr., also pastors a massive mega-church--Second Baptist Church--in the Houston area with five campus locations. Both have successful television ministries.
Trendy Eddy Young, Jr. began a video blog in March of this year, and the following video clip shows just how far the warped mentality of mega-church pastors has gone. The keyword here is "burnout," and Young offers the only solution for pastor burnout: give them more money to vacation! You may find it hard to stomach the whining of this "great man of God."
Torture, spying, and preemptive military action, and the "servants of Christ" offer not a peep of protest. In fact, they do just the opposite: they wave their flags of freedom while the state is tapping their phones.
They wouldn't know "freedom" if it bit them on their blessed assurance!
The recent online poll at ABC News reveals startling numbers that show Congressman Ron Paul giving an overwhelmingly superior performance in the last Republican debate. Out of nearly 20,000 people that voted, Paul received over 10,900 votes. Click on the image to the left to see the actual numbers.
However, the key word here is "online." You can be assured that Ron Paul supporters will seize every opportunity to boost his numbers, and most of Ron Paul's support is coming from the online community. However, were they to poll the "man on the street," we would likely see much different numbers. Like Howard Dean in 2003, Ron Paul is resonating with an internet-based constituency comprised of a great deal of younger voters--this is in addition to the vast amount of support coming from paleo-conservative/libertarian constituency.
Howard Dean made the mistake of being "bad on camera" one too many times. That will not likely happen to Congressman Paul. No other candidate--Republican or Democrat--has the character or consistency of Ron Paul. Even the Democrat darling, Barack Obama, is forced into pumping up his war rhetoric by threatening to invade Pakistan. He's obviously being advised to say such idiotic things. In the meantime, Congressman Paul remains true to his convictions and voting record, i.e. Paul is the only non-politician in the whole lot!
Even if Ron Paul managed to fight his way to the U.S. presidency, the resistance of bureaucracy would hinder his mission at every point. The military-industrial complex will not stand aside and allow our foreign policy to be taken over by a strict Constitutionalist. The welfare state will not seek employment elsewhere while President Paul deconstructs nearly 70 years of government expansion. In short, the totalitarians will not permit a single man to wreak such an overhaul.
That's why the real lovers of freedom cannot pin their hopes on "one man" winning a presidential election. In fact, this is not the real value of Ron Paul. Rather, the Texas congressman is the single greatest chance we have of awakening more Americans from the slumber of gradual statism and the rapid loss of civil liberties. The Ron Paul campaign is about "education," not election. He's forcing these false conservatives to show their true colors. He's showing that almost every war fought has been an unjust war; and he's pointing at what no other candidate since JFK has dared to aim: the Federal Reserve.
Politically, my confidence lies in education, and reaching 300,000,000 Americans is too difficult for any measly institution like Chalcedon. But, a Ron Paul can serve as a catalyst for a great political awakening. One in which the outcome is both exciting and terrifying. My prediction is thus: the state will grow more tyrannical with more domestic spying and an eventual evolution into an American version of the military state. In addition, the value of the U.S. dollar will continue to fall while the cost of living, and the cost of energy, continues to rise. Yet, at the same time, millions of Americans will continue to awaken to the threat the state represents, and this bifurcation will lead to a collision with the federal government and its citizens.
I cannot think of an example of a great nation returning to its foundations. They all seem to end with the bang of invasion, revolution, or economic collapse. This is why only an educated citizenry is capable of dealing with such national crises. Hopefully, a peaceful but determined army of citizens will one day make their will known and drive out the moneychangers from America's federal temple.
Too many churchmen have laid the foundation, over the centuries, for a doctrine of satanic determinism. We can call it also the conspiracy theory.
Now very clearly Scripture affirms the fact of conspiracies; Psalm 2 is a classic statement of their reality. This same psalm, however, strongly underscores their futility; God laughs at the conspiracies of the ungodly nations and summons His people to share in His laughter.
Conspiracies prosper only when moral order declines. In every society, there are criminals, thieves, and murderers. Only as a society goes into a moral decline and collapse do these elements gain any ascendancy. The declining Roman Empire saw a proliferation of cults espousing revolution, communism, free love, homosexuality, and much more. When Christendom went into moral decline after the 13th century, again these criminal secret societies began to abound. Some affirmed communism, others staged nude protests and marches, and still others plotted revolution. As Schmidt observed of the Reformation era, "The whole of Europe around Calvin was polluted by fraternities, some spreading 'enlightenment' and some scepticism."[1] The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation led to the temporary decline of these groups, which rose again as Christian faith, law, and order declined.
But those who bear false witness, who ascribe to Satan powers which belong only to God, are not content to recognize that conspiracies exist. They go much further. First, they ascribe to conspiracies a moral order and a discipline which is an impossibility. Satan cannot construct or create; he is merely a destroyer, a murderer, and he has power only to the extent that we forsake the true power of God. The Soviet Union, to cite an international conspiratorial government, is a corrupt, bumbling, and radically incompetent agency. It has required the repeated aid of other countries plus imperialistic looting in order to survive. The Hoover relief of the 1920's, the Roosevelt recognition of the 1930's, and continuing proppings have kept it alive. The communist problem is not their evil power and ability but rather the steady moral collapse of Christian churches and nations, and their radical apostasy.
Second, the power of evil is weak and limited; it is under God's control and is His scourge of the nations. The wea
