Crypto-Romanists in the Garden

We recently came across an article that created some interest and concern that we felt compelled to comment on. The article in view here is a review of the movie Bella contributed by one Eric Rauch contained in the December 2007 edition of American Vision’s monthly publication Biblical Worldview. In the review, Rauch gives his positive critique of the movie, the content of which is adamantly pro-life, and quite effective in its presentation. Bella, he notes, was produced by a Roman Catholic film production company. However, interlaced with his critique of the movie itself is a not so subtle criticism of the abilities of Protestants to create good cinema.

Rauch complains that Protestants are hamstrung by their emphasis on and commitment to word based faith. This, he says, results in “dry, preachy, and surface-level films”. On the other hand, he admires the Romanist ability to communicate in symbols, ritual, and imagery. He provides some additional support in the form of quotes from a Dr. Thom Parhan, apparently an associate professor of film at Asuza Pacific University, who is likewise enthralled by these abilities which he argues are the result of three tenets of Romanists: an intuitive understanding of iconography, a grasp of the incarnational function of art, and their understanding of the sacramental nature of life. All in all, both men seem to argue for the perceived virtues and world view of Romanism over the dry, dusty, and narrow view of word-based Protestantism.

All of this is quite interesting, especially in view of the similar ideas expressed by Jeffrey J. Meyers in his book The Lord’s Service, in which he lays out his argumentation for what has become known as covenant renewal worship. In his book Meyers argues that rather than worship, and liturgical practices in particular, being informed by the revelation of the Word, our understanding of the Word needs to be defined by, and learned from, our liturgical practices. And where are these practices to be themselves acquired? Why, from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and maybe some Lutherans. There does seem to be something odd going on here.

Historic Protestantism has always been focused on the Word. This is simply because the Bible itself is presented to us in such a fashion, and assumes both the Word Incarnate and the Word inspired as being the harmonious declaration of what God has given us to know about Him and His ways in this life. On the other hand, iconography and other image representations of Him are strictly forbidden. Why do we need some sort of “work around” for this sort of thing? If these men want to argue for the superiority of Rome and others in relation to imagery, ritual, and symbolism, they are going to have to prove far more than they have so far with their critiques of what they consider to be lackluster abilities of Protestants in art and idolatry.

God Owns the Blues

I simply need to deviate from the normal vein of commentary here to make mention of a fine packet of music that was given to me as a gift during the just passed Christmas celebration. What I am referring to is a two CD package titled Trimmed and Burnin & Slow Burn by Glenn Kaiser and Darrell Mansfield. If you are anything like me, the last time you heard or saw anything of Glenn Kaiser was when the Resurrection Band was still touring. Well, Mr. Kaiser has been busy in the interim, and this effort with Mansfield is a winner. The copyright on the back of the CD case says 2002, so I may be doing a bunch of catch up here, but I had no idea that anything like this was being done by Christian musicians.

Trimmed and Burnin & Slow Burn is an acoustic album with the artists performing a collection of Delta style blues. The catch is that the numbers are all what we would normally consider to be “gospel”. And that they are, but done in a wonderful and intense blues format. Kaiser and Mansfield are able to infuse this collection with an intensity and emotion that makes you believe the confessions of faith that underlie all of it. The vocals, guitars, and harp are all well done and demonstrate the skill of these two musicians.

But here is something important. The album makes absolutely no apologies for its church based, gospel roots. After all, historically speaking, the black churches in the South were the incubators for both the blues and jazz. This collaboration demonstrates this without the boring sentimentality of so much “gospel” music, and does so in an intense, masculine, and full-of-faith manner that draws the listener right in. This is quite refreshing, as most of our fellow Reformed brethren are seemingly captivated only by music written in the 16th and 17th century, denying practically that the musical expressions of the Gospel have made any progress or produced any variations worthy of our attentions since that era. So, I heartily recommend that my fellow saints in Reformedom give this one a listen. If this doesn’t affect you to the point that you can at least tap your feet a bit, and enjoy the soulful declarations of faith, then perhaps you should be a little concerned about being one of the frozen chosen.

Drinks on the House!

We want everyone to know that the coupon program for the purchase of digital television converter boxes is now under way. This program will provide the applicant with up to two $40 coupons (per family) to purchase converters for the new digital television transmissions that the Federal government has required to supercede the current analog transmissions in early 2009. We suggest that you hurry up and apply for yours right away. You can locate the program by connecting with www.hdtv.gov. This has got to be too good to be true! Imagine government subsidies of entertainment! Imagine not being able to receive any television images without a new converter!! Hmmmmm….

Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation

What follows here is primarily intended as being addressed to those who are my peers, that is, those who are in excess of forty years old and up, even those rapidly approaching the sixty year mark. It has been the product of some thinking and assessing over the last several months concerning what we collectively have accomplished over the last forty years. The passage of time provides us with a vantage point that we simply do not have while involved in the thick of things, and yet is quite necessary to avail ourselves of if we are to move forward positively and productively with the remaining time God has allotted each of us.

Much of what is included in the following is not very flattering. The reader is therefore forewarned that while I have attempted to smooth things out a bit, this is not the sort of treatise that is going to give you many strokes.

First, let me say that one of the few areas in which good progress has been made has been in the area of education. I would identify the proliferation of alternative education as generally a substantial move forward. Many of us have self-consciously chosen to provide our children with a specifically Christ centered education as opposed to sending the heritage of the Lord off to the indoctrination camps of Baal. The intent here has been to provide them with an education that affirms the Lordship of Christ with the Bible as the foundation not only of faith and practice, but indeed also as defining all of reality. This hopefully will prepare them to go out and conduct the war of faith with a consistency that we have not attained to. The proof, as the saying goes, will be in the pudding.

In conjunction with our commitment to a better and more godly education, it must be acknowledged that we have almost entirely failed to develop a consistent and faithfully Christian covenantal culture. Have you ever wondered why so many of the youth in our churches seem to only ape the current fads of unbelievers? Why are clothing fads, music, and other cultural expressions of our young people generally thinly disguised copies of the latest pop culture? It seems to me that this can only be the result of our not appreciating and demonstrating that we understand how Christ has separated us, as His people, from the destructive and ungodly society in which we find ourselves. We almost certainly have made some very poor choices along the way from where we started to where we are now. The solution to this problem is not to simply insist on classical music, classical art, classical literature, and so on in such a way that it demonstrates that the contemporary Church is either stuck in the 16th century or, alternately, to compromise with the spirit of our day and become a bunch or rappers, punkers, or death-rockers. In many ways, we ourselves seem to be stuck in some sort of neither-nor place that has caused us to be incapable of constructing a culture that is both faithful and lively while avoiding that which is layered with dust or refuse.

In assessing the last forty years, it is impossible but to conclude that we have been colossal failures in a few very critical areas. These are big, Ten Commandment issues, and not things like determining what color the church carpet should be. Particularly, we have not fully engaged our declining society with the Gospel in such a way that diminishes and punishes theft, that adequately protects life, which affirms biblical ethics and morality, and asserts the actual Lordship of Jesus Christ over all of the earth, here and now, and not just in the world to come.

Here’s a test. Have we exercised our faith and application of the Gospel in such a way that has eliminated or diminished governmental theft and control of nearly every area of life? Can we conduct our lives in the fear of God and in conformity to His laws without running, at some point, afoul of rules that the followers of Baal have enacted and enforce? Have we stood to defend our neighbors as the wicked in our communities have sought to plunder them in schemes which really just redistribute our neighbor’s resources while asserting control over their property? Does truly private property still exist anywhere in this nation? Has the carnage of abortion stopped? Or have we merely been reduced to arguing over issues like parental consent and certain procedural restrictions that still result in a dead baby? Has this shedding of innocent blood been stopped, and has the assured wrath of God in relationship to this great iniquity been assuaged? Have the sodomites returned to the closet, or do we continue to have to defend a biblical definition of marriage rather than debating what punishment is just for those committing such onerous criminal sins? Can we even talk openly, either in public or privately, of the fact that these perversions are morally indefensible? Can the pulpits of Christian churches be used to identify and criticize public officials who, in rebellion against God, traitorously tyrannize and oppress their fellow citizens while perverting justice beyond any recognizable form? Where is the progress that even begins to suggest that we have exercised godly influence and authority in the last forty years? It seems that the evidence of this time period strongly suggests that we are savorless salt. And we all know what that is good for.

How has this all happened? How have we all become convinced that we have been making progress all this time when the current situation provides evidence of just the opposite? I would suggest that this has occurred through a combination of faithlessness, unfaithfulness, and outright unbelief.

First, we have simply not taken God at His word. Jesus Christ is king. His declarations define what reality actually is. We should stop trying to get around it. We need to fully submit ourselves to Him without the reservations we have withheld all of these years. We should believe the things He says to believe, and do the things He says to do. We have, in an ever so subtle manner, slipped into a materialistic slumber that has prevented us from standing for many things we should because we are afraid of the impact on our personal prosperity and security. We have simply refrained in resisting evil in many instances because it is hard work. So our faithlessness has led directly to our unfaithfulness.

Worse (almost) than this is our sad condition of unbelief. We seem to believe that God can do nothing to correct all of this. “This” has become normative for us, and though we complain long and loudly about it, in some circles, we are not willing to do anything about it. In effect we have become the consummate complainers rather than faithful hearers and doers of the Word and work. And any one who suggests that we actually do something is summarily dismissed as a crank or a wing-nut. At best we have become reactionaries when necessary, and not pro-active in much. We need to repent of our denial that a problem exists.

But the Bible insists that if God is for us, who can be against us? If we are seeking to bring all things into conformity to God’s will, according to His Word, what are we to fear? If we are to become dragon slayers, we need to engage the whole critter, and not be confined to our little personal and ecclesiastical ghettos. We must take the Gospel into the public square and declare that Christ is King over what goes on there also. But this will require a substantial shakeup in perception and in how we do nearly everything. Christ is Lord, and when anyone challenges this fact we must repudiate it in word and deed. Only then will we have something of substance to pass on to the next generation.

So, we had better get to work. Most of us in this peer group have only, say, another twenty years of productivity left. Time is shorter now than it was. This should be motivating. But we first need to confess our sins, repent in godly sorrow, reaffirm our faith, and prepare to meet the coming challenges head on. Even if it cost us, and costs us dearly.

July 4, 2007

"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."

Having made his initial presentation on the certainty and the accompanying assurance of the Christian gospel, offering five points of practical application, the apostle James then launches into a warning against hypocrisy and self delusion. He makes a direct comparison between hearing and obedience on one hand, and hearing and disobedience on the other. In this manner, he is contending that the word is a mirror to the soul. It shows us exactly what and who we are in relation to the declared Word of God. The one who ignores (forgets) what he is shown in the reflection walks away without concern about what has been revealed about him, and the implication is that he does so to his own peril. He has successfully deluded himself. Conversely, the one who hears and diligently considers what has been revealed to him by the reflection, considers it, pursues obedience (is a doer), and is the one who will be rewarded. His obedience displays his acceptance of the engrafted word.

I want to suggest to you that this applies not only to us as individuals, but also to us as a culture and a nation. We have become a forgetful people. We have forgotten our roots and have become indifferent as to why we have arrived at this juncture. Those of us who have taken a look behind us, in history, have been astounded at what was accomplished in the past, particularly in the infancy of our nation. The newer, prevailing culture wants to ignore much of the importance of the influence of the Protestant churches in those very important, formative years. The fact of the matter is that the English were quite justified in insisting that many of the pastors of the time, that “black robed regiment”, were among the foremost “instigators” of what the Britons considered to be a rebellion.

To demonstrate this, I have selected some excerpts from a few of the clergymen of the colonial period. These faithful men were not at all shy about speaking to the issues and conflicts of their day, and to urge those in their audiences to faithful action.

This first section is from Samuel Davies, the pastor under whom Patrick Henry studied as a young man. Davies went on to become the president of Princeton before his untimely death at 37 years of age. These quotes come from a sermon given at the outbreak of the French and Indian War.

God has distinguished us with a religion from heaven; and hitherto we have enjoyed the quiet and unrestrained exercise of it; he has condescended to be a God to our nation, and to honour our cities with his gracious presence, and the institutions of his worship, the means to make us wise, good, and happy….

But now the scene is changed; now we begin to experience in our turn the fate of the nations of the earth. Our territories are invaded by the power and perfidy of France; our frontiers ravaged by merciless savages, and our fellow-subjects there murdered with all the horrid arts of Indian and Popish torture…

These calamities have not come upon us without warning. We were long ago apprised of the ambitious schemes of our enemies, and their motions to carry them into execution; and had we taken timely measures, they might have been crushed before they could have arrived at such a formidable height. But how have we generally behaved in such a critical time? Alas! our country has been sunk in a deep sleep; a stupid security has unmanned the inhabitants: they could not realize a danger at the distance of two or three hundred miles; they would not be persuaded that even French Papists could seriously design us an injury; and hence little or nothing has been done for the defense of our country, in time, except by the compulsion of authority. And now, when the cloud thickens over our heads, and alarms every thoughtful mind with its near approach, multitudes, I am afraid, are still dissolved in careless security, or enervated with an effeminate, cowardly spirit.

We have also suffered our poor fellow-subjects, in the frontier counties, to fall prey to blood-thirsty savages, without affording them proper assistance, which, as members of the same body politic, they had a right to expect…they are left to shift for themselves.
(Notice Davies’ concern that they had failed to love their neighbors by responding to their calamities in a more earnest and timely manner, and his expressed concern about the apathy of the populace. Nothing new here, is there? He then offers his assessment of the problem.)
We and our countrymen are sinners, aggravated sinners: God proclaims that we are such by his judgments now upon us, by withering fields and scanty harvests, by the sound of the trumpet and the alarm of war.

Pass over the land, take a survey of the inhabitants, inspect into their conduct, and what do you see? What do you hear? You see the gigantic forms of vice braving the skies, and bidding defiance to heaven and earth, while religion and virtue are obliged to retire, to avoid public contempt and insult: you see herds of drunkards swilling down their cups, and drowning all the man within them: you hear the swearer venting his fury against God and man, trifling with that name which prostrate angels adore, and imprecating that damnation, under which the hardiest devil in hell trembles and groans: you see Avarice hoarding up her useless treasures, dishonest Craft planning her schemes of unlawful gain, and Oppression unmercifully grinding the face of the poor, you see Prodigality squandering her stores, Luxury spreading her table, and unmanning her guests: Vanity laughing aloud and dissolving in empty, unthinking mirth, regardless of God and our country, or time and eternity; Sensuality wallowing in brutal pleasures, and aspiring, with inverted ambition, to sink as low as her four-footed brethren to the stall: you see cards more in use than the Bible, the backgammon table (and maybe X-box or netflix?) more frequented than the table of the Lord, plays and romances more read than the history of the blessed Jesus…


Similarly, Samuel Langdon was a pastor who eventually rose to the presidency at Harvard. The following citations come from a sermon he preached on May 31, 1775, a very short time after the beginning of the armed conflict which had been initiated on April 19 at Concord and Lexington. He first speaks of the unlawful acts and oppression of the British and the justifiable response of the colonists to aggression.

We have lived to see the time when British liberty is just ready to expire; when that constitution of government which has so long been the glory and strength of the English nation, is deeply undermined and ready to tumble into ruins--when America is threatened with cruel oppression, and the arm of power is stretched out against New England, and especially against this colony, to compel us to submit to the arbitrary acts of legislators who are not our representatives, and who will not themselves bear the least part of the burdens which, without mercy, they are laying upon us.

That we might not have it in our power to refuse the most absolute submission to their unlimited claims of authority, they have not only endeavored to terrify us with fleets and armies sent to our capital, and distressed and put an end to our trade, particularly that important branch of it, the fishery, but at length attempted, by a sudden march of a body of troops in the night, to seize and destroy one of our magazines, formed by the people merely for their own security; if, as after such formidable military preparation on the other side, matters should not be pushed to an extremity. By this, as might well be expected, a skirmish was brought on; and it is most evident, from a variety of concurring circumstances, as well as numerous depositions, both of the prisoners taken by us at that time, and our men then on the spot only as spectators, that the fire began first on the side of the king's troops. At least five or six of our inhabitants were murderously killed by the regulars at Lexington, before any man attempted to return the fire, and when they were actually complying with the command to disperse; and two more of our brethren were likewise killed at Concord Bridge by a fire from the king's soldiers, before the engagement began on our side. But whatever credit falsehoods transmitted to Great Britain from the other side may gain, the matter may be rested entirely on this--that he that arms himself to commit a robbery, and demands the traveler's purse, by the terror of instant death, is the first aggressor, though the other should take the advantage of discharging his pistol first and killing the robber.

The alarm was sudden; but in a very short time spread far and wide; the nearest neighbors in haste ran together to assist their brethren, and save their country. Not more than three or four hundred met in season, and bravely attacked and repulsed the enemies of liberty, who retreated with great precipitation.

That ever-memorable day, the nineteenth of April, is the date of an unhappy war openly begun, by the ministers of the king of Great Britain, against his good subjects in this colony, and implicitly against all the colonies. But for what? Because they have made a noble stand for their natural and constitutional rights, in opposition to the machinations of wicked men, who are betraying their royal master, establishing Popery in the British dominions, and aiming to enslave and ruin the whole nation, that they may enrich themselves and their vile dependents with the public treasures, and the spoils of America.

(Langdon goes on to insist that they had not been rash, indeed they had pursued a peaceable resolve to the problems. The responses had been more vigorous oppressions.)

We have used our utmost endeavors, by repeated humble petitions and remonstrances--by a series of unanswerable reasonings published from the press, in which the dispute has been fairly stated, and the justice of our opposition clearly demonstrated--and by the mediation of some of the noblest and most faithful friends of the British constitution, who have powerfully pleaded our cause in Parliament--to prevent such measures as may soon reduce the body politic to a miserable, dismembered, dying trunk, though lately the terror of all Europe. But our king, as if impelled by some strange fatality, is resolved to reason with us only by the roar of his cannon, and the pointed arguments of muskets and bayonets. Because we refuse submission to the despotic power of a ministerial Parliament, our own sovereign, to whom we have been always ready to swear true allegiance--whose authority we never meant to cast off--who might have continued happy in cheerful obedience, as faithful subjects as any in his dominions--has given us up to the rage of his ministers, to be seized at sea by the rapacious commanders of every little sloop of war and piratical cutter, and to be plundered and massacred by land by mercenary troops, who know no distinction betwixt an enemy and a brother, between right and wrong; but only, like brutal pursuers, to hunt and seize the prey pointed out by their masters.

(Where did Langdon believe the fundamental problem lay? Listen.)

But, alas! Have not the sins of America, and of New England in particular, had a hand in bringing down upon us the righteous judgments of Heaven? Wherefore is all this evil come upon us? Is it not because we have forsaken the Lord? Can we say we are innocent of crimes against God? No, surely; it becomes us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand, that He may exalt us in due time. However unjustly and cruelly we have been treated by man, we certainly deserve, at the hand of God, all the calamities in which we are now involved… Have we not departed from their virtues? Though I hope and am confident that as much true religion, agreeable to the purity and simplicity of the gospel, remains among us as among any people in the world, yet in the midst of the present great apostasy of the nations professing Christianity, have not we likewise been guilty of departing from the living God? Have we not made light of the gospel of salvation, and too much affected the cold, formal, fashionable religion of countries grown old in vice and overspread with infidelity? Do not our follies and iniquities testify against us? Have we not, especially in our seaports, gone much too far into the pride and luxuries of life? Is it not a fact open to common observation that profaneness, intemperance, unchastity, the love of pleasure, fraud, avarice, and other vices, are increasing among us from year to year? And have not even these young governments been in some measure infected with the corruptions of European courts? Has there been no flattery, no bribery, no artifices practiced, to get into places of honor and profit, or carry a vote to serve a particular interest, without regard to right or wrong? Have our statesmen always acted with integrity and every judge with impartiality, in the fear of God?

(Indeed, one may ask, have they or not?)

Also consider this from Moses Mather a pastor who was a graduate from Yale and became, as one editor puts it, “an especially obnoxious personality to Tories in his vicinity; he was even twice imprisoned for his views…” What did his views include? Consider this citation from 1775.

Slavery consists in being wholly under the power and controul of another, as to our actions and properties: And he that hath authority to restrain and controul my conduct in any instance, without my consent, hath in all. And he that hath right to take one penny of my property, without my consent, hath right to take all. For, deprive us of this barrier of our liberties and properties, our own consent: and there remains no security against tyranny and absolute despotism on one hand, and total abject, miserable slavery on the other. For power is entire and indivisible: and property is single and pointed as an atom. All is our’s, and nothing can be taken from us, but by our consent: or nothing is our’s, and all may be taken, without our consent. The right of dominion over the persons and properties of others, is not natural, but derived: and there are but two sources from whence it can be derived: from the almighty, who is the absolute proprietor of all, and from our own free consent. Why then wrangle we so long about a question so short and easy of decision? Why this mighty din of war, and garments roll’d in blood: the seas covered with fleets, the land with armies, and the nation rushing on swift destruction? Let the parliament shew their warrant, the diploma and patent of their power to rule over America, derived from either of the above fountains, and we will not contend: but if they cannot, wherefore do they contend with us? For even a culprit has right to challenge of the executioner, the warrant of his power, or refuse submission.

So, as is evident from this small sampling, the voices of the Protestant churches were hardly silent during this period. Neither could they be characterized as a sort of “follow – on action”. These men were deeply concerned and committed in addressing the issues of the day from the perspective of the Gospel of Christ. They spoke directly to the issues of sin, repentance, morality, law, justice, governance, and more. They directly charged their congregants and neighbors to action in relation to these issues in their particular circumstance, insisting that this was merely an appropriate response to the commands of Christ; to love God and keep His commandments, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We are involved in a war. All wars and conflicts are inherently religious. By this I mean that when nations and peoples have issues which cannot seemingly be resolved by peaceable means, it is because of irreconcilable differences in fundamental world view concepts. Every man has religious commitments to what he believes to be fundamental, absolute truth, and he holds these as such whether or not he ascribes this to Deity or other sources. Faith commitments are inescapable; it is only a matter of where that faith is placed. Davies’ and Langdon’s recognition of this nature of conflict may not correspond identically to our circumstance today, but it is nonetheless true in principal.

We are in what has been defined as a “culture war”. This is only one way of saying that the cannon have not been deployed yet. Many of us are old enough to have been involved with this war for nearly forty years. And the question needs to be asked, brethren, “Are we winning?” Is Christ the King honored more today in our land than forty years ago? Has the holocaust of abortion ceased? Has the pompous, presumptuous idolatry of the secularist state been abated? Are the enemies of Christ on the run, and the gates of the cities ruled by godly, confessing Christians? Are we secure in our persons and property? If so, then this presentation is indeed superfluous. If not, then perhaps it is high time to give heed to the exhortation of the apostle James to become one of those who “looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed”, and to heed Samuel Davies’ advice to “ all join in unanimous repentance and a thorough reformation. Not only your eternal salvation requires it, but also the preservation of your country, that is now bleeding with the wounds you have given it by your sins.”

“Dissolve and melt in penitential sorrow at his feet; and he will tell you, “Arise, be of good cheer, your sins are forgiven you.”

Amen.

Starting Over

Just like Rip Van Winkle awakening from a dream, we woke up one morning to find we could no longer access our blog. We tried for some time to overcome this problem, but as no remedy was in sight, we determined to start anew. We copied all of the older material over to here. We are not confirmed blog heads, but want to give all of this another whirl.

So, here we go again!

America's gods (slight return), January 1, 2007

Having alluded in the past to the fact that America has become an idolatrous nation, we note with interest the election of Minnesotan Keith Ellison to the U. S. congress. Ellison, it seems, is a committed Muslim and as such is the first of that religious persuasion to be elected to such an office. He is insisting that he will carry the Koran to his swearing in as Congressman. This has drawn fire from a number of sectors, both pro and con.

In the light of the debacle of the polytheist ceremonies at the National Cathedral following 9/11, officially sanctioned by the Federal government of the United States, the acceptance of Ellison’s insistence of swearing an oath on the Koran can only be taken as the affirmation of his faith in his god as being legitimate. And, because most American Christians have ascribed to an unbiblical notion of religious tolerance, there is generally little that can be legitimately said or done to oppose this, the field already having already been conceded in principal to the polytheistic state. Of course, the only supreme and undisputed god above all the others of the pantheon is the humanist, secular State, to which no challenge may be issued.

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked; I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

These are the words of Jesus (Revelation 3:15-19)

July 4, 2006

I’d like to ask you to step back in time with me for a moment. Step back to April 19, 1775. The place is the colony of Massachusetts. During the early hours of the morning, the warning has gone out that the British regulars have left Boston and are headed to Concord. Their orders are to confiscate anything that they consider to be of use militarily. The colonists of the surrounding area understand what this means. They understand the consequences of such disarmament. They also understand what it means to oppose it.

This is a time they had hoped would not come, yet they had made preparations for such an eventuality.What sort of people were these colonists? Most were either first or second generation refugees from England, Scotland, Ireland, or the European continent, having come to these shores in order to flee the notorious religious persecutions occurring in those lands. They were predominantly a Christian people. Many, if not most, could trace the heritage of the faith they practiced back to John Knox and John Calvin. The events of the preceding years had put them in a position of having to decide not only if they would respond to the increasing abuses of the English government, but how.

Consider these men for a moment. What were they to think as the British made their approach to Concord? These were men not entirely unlike us in many respects. They were family men, business men, farmers, craftsmen, churchmen, and the like. There was much at stake for them as they pondered if this was the moment they had dreaded, yet planned for. To resist the British would mark them as enemies of the crown. They would not be able, from that point on, to resume life as normal. They, their families, their properties, would all be placed at risk. Everything they had, everything they possessed was at stake. For many, their families would likely be killed, their homes burned, and their properties confiscated. For these men, this was a wager of enormous proportions. There was not even the assurance that all of the others inhabiting the colonies would sympathize with or support them. There was no guarantee of the success of their cause and enterprise. One act of resistance could get them hanged. Can we understand their quandary, or empathize with the consternation of the decisions of the moment? Their lives could, and would, be changed irrevocably in a matter of hours. Some would not be returning home at the end of that day.

We all know the rest of the story, and the outcome. But, we must ask the question as to whether we have become dull in hearing the retelling of it. We have seen innumerable accounts of it produced on film, and heard and read of it all of our lives. Somehow, perhaps, we have gotten the impression that most of these men didn’t have much else to do, except to fight the British. But this is simply not true. Who was going to till, plant and harvest. Who was going to man the mill? Who would take care of the shops and the various fledgling industries? This all assumes that they would actually have the opportunity to carry on these enterprises. No, their circumstance was not so entirely different from ours when we consider the practical obstacles.But perhaps our dullness of hearing has caused us to not fully appreciate the dimension of their sacrifices.

We seem to somehow forget that many of those who made these sacrifices and became “fathers” of this nation were indeed “fathers” in the faith that they had received from those who had preceded them.Why does the thought of defending our faith and liberty seem so foreign to us today? It is a long and somewhat tortured path from the roads to Concord, Lexington, and the other towns to where we are today. It has been noted that the tyranny of King George III was relatively impotent compared to the vastly obese and insatiable tyranny of the current George. If we were called upon to answer our predecessors as to why we tolerate such an affair, what would we say in response? Would we claim that because we have begun a new career, are building a new house or farm, or that we need to work to get money for our daughter’s braces somehow dismisses us from having to deal with it? Perhaps we might come up with a sophisticated theological argument to show our predecessors their ignorance? Perhaps we would simply punch the remote control to find a program more to our liking.

The great Calvinist statesman, Patrick Henry had this to say:“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

What are we to make of this statement considering Henry’s Calvinism? Maybe he spoke it in a moment of lapsing faith? I think not. Perhaps he had become influenced by Enlightenment thinking? I don’t believe so. Maybe he was just a rebel at heart. Please, spare me. These words were spoken at the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution on June 5, 1788. Patrick Henry had more than enough time to ponder what he was saying, and what he meant. Is there really anything fundamentally different between his words and the words of King David who acknowledged that the Lord had taught him how to war and that by the power of the Lord he had run through the midst of his enemies, eventually receiving the victory? Both men had seen the rigors of war. Both had openly acknowledged the hand of God in the events they lived through. Both undoubtedly understood that the liberty to worship the God of the Bible and to enjoy His gracious blessings must at some point be defended.

Unless some make a mistake at this point, let me emphasize that this is not a call to revolution. This is a call for honest assessment. How are we to answer those of the past? If they were to visit us today, what would they think? Do we care what they would think? Would they still believe their sacrifices were worth it? Or would they be profoundly disappointed? No, this is not an urge to revolution. I submit to you that we are called to repent. We are called to return to the God of the Bible, the God of our fathers, the Lord Jesus Christ. We are called to repent of our cozy idolatries with the Baals of our age, and the complacency associated with our peaceful coexistence with them. The true and substantive faith described in Hebrews 11 is a faith that is recognized and authenticated by action. History may look back at this time and this generation and remark at our colossal failures. And they will be justified in doing so. But maybe, just maybe, they will be able to look back and see that we began to repent and turn the corner. And perhaps we should look back on the faithful, courageous men before us who were willing to lay everything on the line for the notion that a people should defend the freedom to worship and serve the God of their fathers in all of the details.

There are no shortages of heroes to be found there.

The Fight Has Only Begun, February 25, 2006

The big news this past week was the passage of legislation in the State of South Dakota forbidding abortion in all cases with the exception of a threat to the mother’s life. This is the kind of thing that Christians have been trying to accomplish for more than thirty years now. We should be celebrating this of course, but this signals the beginning of what is likely to be a more fierce and unusual battle.Even the passage of this legislation was less than certain a few weeks ago. There were the usual outspoken advocates of baby killing making their usual claims about “choice” and women’s “health”. But there was some unusual foot dragging among a number of normally reliable pro-life advocates and organizations. There were expressed concerns about whether such legislation could be sustained through the inevitable legal challenges, no doubt leading to the Supreme Court of the United States. Other concerns were raised as to whether this would serve to reinvigorate the pro-abortion advocates, sympathizers, and the multi-million dollar abortion industry.

It seems predictable that this will in fact make the rumored possibility of a third Supreme Court vacancy, nomination, and confirmation hearings a real three ring circus. You can bet your bottom dollar that those who favor the abomination of abortion, as well as a whole shopping list of other humanist tyrannies, will fight tooth and nail to oppose any nominee who is considered to be “conservative”, whatever that means in our current dialectic.

There are a couple of things that are of concern with all of this. First, we Christians and conservatives have shown an unnerving aptitude to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This legislation should have been passed (a long, long time ago), and Roe v. Wade should have been rightly relegated to the dustbins of history. We seem to loose our nerve at exactly the time that we ought to press forward, worrying about the abruptness of the whole matter and forgetting that death itself is quite abrupt for the victims. This is not a time for timidity.

Second, while begun and maintained with the best of motives and concerns, the pro-life cause has become a way of earning a living for some. This is the sort of thing that occurs in almost all causes. You just need to keep those fund raising letters going out, requesting a hundred, fifty, or maybe a twenty dollar donation to effectively oppose the opponents of the cause. Victory means that you now, maybe after twenty years or so, have to find a new occupation.

In the final analysis we need to remember some basic things. First, there is a God in heaven Who has declared His righteous indignation on any who murder, and particularly upon those who kill their offspring, offering them on the altar of any idol. This nation has suffered the consequences of this rebellion against God for over thirty years, and His wrath has not been abated a bit, likely being stored up for an appropriate visitation. Confession of sin and repentance remain the only remedy, and in this case it requires putting an end to this abomination.In the event this all makes it to consideration by the Supreme Court, we should be praying and fasting that this curse be lifted from us. If Roe v. Wade is, in fact, struck down, we should rejoice in a manner not seen in this land in our lifetimes, if ever. But remember, the nullification of Roe will send the matter back to the respective States. And we can expect the hand of God to rest heavily on those who elect to continue the carnage in their areas.It would be advisable for us to sharpen up our swords a bit.

The battle has just begun.

Young Christian Men and the Military, December 24, 2005

Is military service a wise choice for Christian men in the New World Order?

Having spent 1981 – 1990 in the U. S. Navy, I witnessed many changes. And many more have taken place since then. The military is often viewed as the ideal testing ground for those interested in social engineering experimentation. Before I joined the military, race relations classes were mandated proponing “can’t we all just get along?” While I was in the service, Equal Opportunity classes were initiated teaching the boys not to bother the girls. After my discharge, Sensitivity training was instituted to teach everyone not to bother the sodomites.Aside from the military’s imposition of perverted values on young men (I enlisted at 17), one has to remember the ultimate purpose of military personnel is to kill people. The moral question that has to be answered is, “Am I killing as an act of legitimate self defense of my family and nation in obedience to God, or am I being used as a tool by wicked men to accomplish evil objectives?”

Today’s military ventures are much more about “nation building” and expanding the neo-polytheistic empire than about defense of home and country. As a part of this effort, U. S. military personnel often serve under United Nations commanders in actions that have nothing to do with the security interests of the United States. If a young Christian man objects by maintaining that he swore an oath to support the U. S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that to put on the uniform of the U. N. violates his sworn oath to support the U. S. Constitution and military uniform regulations, he will be discharged with a bad conduct discharge. Witness what occurred a few years back to Michael New, a home schooled Christian, when he refused to be subjugated to U. N. officers and uniform insignia.

As our military is often used to put down one nation and support another, one has to ask exactly what the purpose is of these military invasions of other sovereign nations. Frequently, what we witness is the advancement of the interests of big business and the protection of the profits of global corporations. One would have to be blind to not see the fight over oil markets as the center of many conflicts. Currently, the U. S. government has military personnel in over 126 countries around the world with U. S. taxpayers footing the bill, required to work several months out of each year to pay for these “police actions” or “peace keeping” missions.

If one is going to be involved in killing other human beings, made in the image of God, the question of legitimacy must be answered. To merely say, “I was just following orders” is not good enough. As Christians, we believe we must answer to God’s standards of righteousness, regardless of whether or not we are justified by the faddish, relativistic standards of men. To kill people for political or economic considerations is not something Christians can wash their hands of by saying, “I was doing my duty”, and not asking, “Would God approve of my actions?” If following orders is enough of a justification, then many mercenaries could say, “I was only doing my job” as a legitimate defense of their actions.If Christians are involved in invading sovereign nations, confiscating weapons from combatants and noncombatants, and changing established governments (often for unjustifiable reasons), could not the case be made that these young men have become mercenaries, doing what they are told and collecting paychecks the first and fifteenth of each month?

If Christian men are to be true to their oath to support the Constitution of the United States, then one part of that document needs to be remembered. Wars are to be officially declared by the Congress of the U. S., not by the president. The president does not become the Commander in Chief unless the U. S. Congress gives him that authority. We do not have a king. We have separate branches of government with checks and balances. It should at least be a troubling matter to the conscience of Christian men to serve under a man who has not been given the authority to authorize military action, and then to follow that man’s orders to kill people and break things for the nebulous goals of “preserving peace and stability” or “furthering democracy” around the globe.

My question is not whether it is sinful for Christian men to serve in the military. I am questioning the wisdom of promoting the idea to young Christian men, as though it were as good a vocational choice as any other. In the first place, the military is not a job like any others. For example, a Christian man may be an attorney at a corrupt law firm, stand upon his convictions, and be forced to leave his place of employment. He must then find a new job. However, in the military that same young man is being told to kill people and must make moral judgments about the legitimacy of the order, in what may be a very short period of time, with irreversible consequences.When an order is given via the military chain of command, that order is not open for discussion. A junior officer or NCO must carry out that order or face a court martial. During times of war, insubordination may be punishable by execution.

These kinds of life and death decisions. and ascertaining whether the larger organization is justified in its goals, are very difficult for mature Christian men, and even more difficult for the young man of 17 or 18. At this stage of life, he is still new and relatively inexperienced in relation to the larger world he has been studying while still in school.In the Gospel of Luke 3:14, John was asked by the soldiers who repented how they should live. He told them to be content with their pay. The question was being posed by those who were already in a difficult situation. John was not encouraging all the young Roman converts to aspire to a to a military career in service to the emperor as though it were one form of employment as good as any other.I believe it is a fundamental lack of wisdom to encourage young Christian men to join the military of today and to be used as an instrument to advance the social, political, and economic interests of questionable legitimacy, and likely wicked conceptions, around the globe. Today’s military “is not your father’s Oldsmobile”. Nostalgic notions of the way it was in World War II no longer apply. Young Christian men will be faced with great pressure to compromise their biblical convictions or face court martial proceedings, and an RER1 bad conduct discharge, or worse. Such a permanent strike against a young man can make future career choices difficult or impossible.

My original question remains the same. Is this wise?

Americans Upset With Their gods, December 24, 2005

In our assessment of the idols of America, we would like to add some further items to demonstrate the reality of this dismal situation.

During and after the calamities surrounding the violent hurricanes in the Gulf States there were a lot of comments reported in the various media that merit our consideration.First, there was a lot of vociferous complaining about the fact that the various levels of government were woefully inadequate in their various preparations for responding to storms of this magnitude. Questions like this make us wonder what planet these people are from.

No one seems to ask if such “adequate” preparations are even possible in the real world.

Many complained that the leaders of various bureaucracies did not manage their organizations well in response to these storms.

Ah, now here is something we can understand. They are unhappy with the priests of their Baal, and have demanded, with some success, the change of personnel in the priesthood.

Of course, there is the inevitable political finger pointing. There were Democrats insisting that the destruction was the result of Republican callousness, and Republican insistence that many of the local Democratic functionaries botched their management of the crisis, and had exacerbated the problems by creating a dependant welfare class in many of the areas hardest hit.

This is just competition between the competing factions of wannabe priests.

Probably the best example of this was an interview we heard on the radio, where the interviewed party was infuriated that the U. S. government had been unable to stop the hurricane and the attendant destruction.

Really, we’re not making this up. It was on NPR. Can you imagine? The Great American Baal unable the thwart the will and actions of the Almighty God of the Bible, King of Heaven and Earth? Gasp!!!

John Knox Citings, November 14, 2005

John Knox concerning godly resistance to tyrants:For now the common song of all men is: ‘We must obey our kings be they good or be they bad, for God hath so commanded.’ But horrible shall the vengeance be that shall be poured forth upon such blasphemers of God, His holy name and ordinance. For it is no less blasphemy to say that God hath commanded kings to be obeyed when thy command impiety than to say that God by His precept is author and maintainer of all iniquity. True it is, God hath commanded kings to be obeyed, but like true it is that in things which they commit against His glory, or when cruelly without cause they rage against their brethren, the members of Christ’s body, He hath commanded no obedience, but rather He hath approved, yea, and greatly rewarded, such as have opponed themselves to their ungodly commandments and blind rage. John Knox regarding the responsibilities of the lesser (local) magistrates to punish tyrants:Only at this time I thought expedient to admonish you that before God it shall not excuse you to allege: ‘We are not kings and therefore neither can we reform religion nor yet defend such as be persecuted.’ Consider my Lords, that ye are powers ordained by God (as before is declared) and therefore doth the reformation of religion and the defence of such as injustly are oppressed appertain to your charge and care, which thing shall the law of God, universally given to be kept of all men, most evidently declare. Which is my last and most assured reason why I say ye ought to remove from honours and to punish with death such as God hath condemned by His own mouth.These are cited from The Appellation of John Knox.

Hail Stones and Coals of Fire, October 12, 2005

This has been a year of remarkably devastating “natural” disasters. Most notable were the earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean, two substantial hurricanes in the southern Gulf States of the U. S., and now a major earthquake in Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or had their lives turned upside down.People tend to ponder or seek for some meaning of such calamities in the aftermath. The question is most frequently, “Why”? As Christians, we should be positioned well to answer these questions because the Bible deals with such issues in a number of places. However, and sadly, even those who profess that they believe the Word of God seem unable to answer clearly.It seems that the tendency of many is to fall back into a default mode of sorts, and maintain that such cataclysms are more or less just the luck of the draw. These are those who relapse into a practical deism. Like old Ben Franklin, they believe that God sort of just wound the whole thing up, and pretty much lets things follow their natural course. Time and chance happens to all men, don’t you know? So if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, it’s just too bad for you. Of course, this whole system is tenable only if God is distant and disinterested.But this is not the God revealed in the pages of Scripture. The God of the Bible is interested in sparrows and the number of hairs on your head. He moves the hearts of even heartless kings, and promises comfort to those in the most abject of difficulties. He holds the rebellious tyrant in derision, and promises to bring even the most rebellious into subjection to His King of kings, Jesus.God’s presence in violent weather and other “natural” disasters is something that is advocated in a number of places in the Bible. And it is not necessarily a friendly presence. Psalm 18 proclaims that “then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken because he was wroth.” Jeremiah maintains that “when he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures” (Jeremiah 10:13). Jeremiah in particular makes a connection between such things as earthquakes and tempestuous storms with a visit from the Lord. This kind of visit is called for because of the idolatries, moral and judicial corruptions, and oppressions practiced by those being visited.So, is it legitimate to maintain that God Himself is bringing these judgments and afflictions on the inhabitants of Indonesia, New Orleans, and Pakistan? Listen to what Jeremiah says. “Who is the wise man, that may understand this? And who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land perisheth and is burned up like a wilderness, that none passeth through? (Jeremiah 9:12). In other words, who can claim to reckon that those seemingly hapless people in these places have been destroyed by the hand of God’s wrath? In the verses following this quote, a divine indictment is brought against those who violate His law. To miss this connection is to turn a morally blind eye to what is being said. God promises to judge and destroy societies that refuse to submit to Him. Are the Muslims of Indonesia and Pakistan in submission to the law of the Lord Jesus Christ? Are the inhabitants of New Orleans, well known for their licentiousness and other corruptions, in compliance with the Word of God? In places such a these, where the open rebelliousness of idolatry, covetousness, political corruptions, and sexual perversions of all sorts are well know, is it unthinkable to contend that God has smitten them in His holy wrath?When questioned about some Galileans who had been slain by Pilate, and commenting on those who had been killed by a collapsing tower in Siloam, Jesus asked whether the deceased were worse sinners than others. His answer should be carefully pondered. “I tell you, nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5).

America's gods , August 17, 2005

America is an idolatrous nation. We are a people who have bowed down to a variety of false gods. Witness the debacle of the National Cathedral service that occurred after 9/11. There appeared a priest for every god, not wanting to offend any.Chief among the gods that we worship among the pantheon are two. The first is Mammon. We are preoccupied with getting as much as we can. We want comfort, stuff, and infinite entertainment. We never have enough. According to Mammon, godliness with contentment is not sufficient. This assessment of our materialism is not a post-hippie flashback. Take a look around you. We have more than our parents dreamed of, and more than our grandparents could have possibly imagined. But it is never quite enough, is it?Close behind Mammon is the Baal of statist power. After all, we have to have someone who will guarantee the personal peace and prosperity we cherish so. We want a god who will defend our standard of living no matter what he has to do, or where he has to go to do it. Of course, the sacrifices he requires are considerable. But what is that when compared to the good life he insures?Of course, we couldn’t be alleging that Christians have fallen for these imposters…could we?

Substantive Faith, July 1, 2005

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)This is one of the most oft quoted passages in the Bible, and rightly so. As we seek to know and understand the nature of the faith that God has bestowed on us it is good and necessary that we be able to identify the genuine article.The passage quite plainly identifies faith as being substance and evidence. These words have the connotation of being things that we can touch, handle, and examine. Yet these are offered by the author as being directly connected to hope, and things that are invisible. But is there something more here than an assertion that faith (something that is intangible) is substance and evidence (things that are tangible)? Can faith be examined and validated in the same way as, say, a weapon at the scene of a crime?The author of Hebrews answers this question, but not in the way we might expect. Faith, he contends, is substance and evidence indeed, and it can be examined. That examination can be made on the basis of what faith does.Here is a sort of short list. Faith understands the seeming impossible, it believes the unbelievable, it makes unbelievable sacrifices without question, it transforms from the temporal to the eternal, it pleases God, it is the catalyst for appropriate preparation for cataclysm, it is the basis for pursuing the promises of God, and for the hope of godly progeny. Further, it is the basis for the rejection of, and of the refusal to comply with, illicit commands of kings. Faith is that by which the favor of the world is rejected and the riches of obedience to God becomes more than an intellectual abstraction. Faith is the only basis for the true worship of God. By faith we confront the seemingly impossible and conquer over the adversities and adversaries of God and His people. Doing righteousness (as opposed to thinking righteous thoughts), receiving promises, subduing kingdoms, being supernaturally strengthened, made valiant, and repulsing wicked marauders are all evidences of faith. Oh yes, and faith does not necessarily take the easy way out, even if there is the probability of personal harm involved in the transaction.This is the substantive faith of the Bible. It is largely recognized by the action it takes. One can only wonder why there is so pitifully little of it today. And without this substantive, active faith, it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11:6)

This is the Covenant, May 24, 2005

There has been quite a lot of discussion during the last couple of decades concerning the place of the Law of God as it relates to New Testament Christianity. People generally fall into one of two camps. Either they believe that the law, as given in the Older Testament, is no longer authoritative for the present time, or they contend that the authority of the law is still applicable (albeit with some modification). The debates over this matter have often been heated. To suggest, for instance, that there is an abiding duty for Christians to observe a weekly Sabbath will get you into hot water fast. Or to advocate the execution of convicted sodomites will certainly raise the volume of discussion just as rapidly. Sadly, this seems to display a remarkable ignorance concerning the New Covenant that God has promised His people.In the midst of a discussion on the ending of the Older Testament, the author of Hebrews makes a surprising assertion. He shows that the New Covenant supersedes the Old. He establishes the necessity for this to occur, and quotes from the Old Testament to show that this transition was foreordained by God. But he then makes an assertion that many would have trouble agreeing with in these times. Quoting from Jeremiah, he presents the following:Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people…(Hebrews 8:8-10)Whatever else we may think this passage says, it clearly and obviously asserts that the laws of God will be engrafted and internalized as a central aspect of the New Covenant. This being the case, there can be no room for contradiction between New Covenant faith and the acknowledgement of, submission to, and a holy affection for the Laws of the Covenant Maker. His Laws transcend the differences and distinctions between the Older and New Covenant.So where is the controversy?Many evangelicals simply dismiss all of this with the standard (but unbiblical) assertion that the Old Testament laws are completely negated, along with the greater proportion of inspired and prophetic writings contained in the Bible. Reformed types kibitz around the edges, agonizing that these laws are not directly transferable to the New era. All of this can only be figured out by a few learned scholars, don’t you know? And even they are not sure.I am inclined to believe that the resistance to submitting to the Law of God is, at its root, a bit simpler than most of the argumentation of the last twenty years. It goes like this:Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8)So there you have it, brothers and sisters, right from the pen of the apostle Paul (a New Testament writer). The reason we resist the Law of God is that we are carnally minded. And this is death (see vs. 6). It would appear that some serious soul searching is needed by all of us, and especially by those who seem to have an aversion to the lawful applications of the Law of God.

Racism in Northern Idaho? May 12, 2005

We have what we believe to be pretty reliable sources of information from various places. Get this one.We hear that in Moscow, Idaho some folks have opened up a new coffee shop type of place. The proprietors have mentioned that they did this to provide “an alternative” to a couple of other businesses on Main Street. It seems that they want the people of the town to patronize their new shop called The One World Café, because they object to Zume, a bakery/café, and Bucer’s Coffeehouse Pub. While we haven’t been able to certify the objection the One World owners have to these particular competitors, we have been informed that the owners of the other two shops are multi-racial families. Could it be that their objections come from a deep seated racism? Hmmmm? And all of this is occurring in the little town that went berserk over the Wilkins/Wilson booklet on Southern slavery. Perhaps those that objected to the booklet are laying in wait to launch a similar salvo at the One World? We are waiting to see how all this plays out.

Some Thoughts on Feminine Modesty, May 9, 2005

And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the Lord thy God, which I command thee this day to observe and to do them…(Deuteronomy 28:13)We Christians are missing something of great importance. As this passage demonstrates, God promises to make His people leaders. This implies that in all enterprises and in all areas of social interaction He will make Christians to have the ascendancy, but only if we hear and obey those things He commands. He specifically promises this to those who are objectively obedient, and not to wishful thinkers.As we survey the landscape today, we are drawn to the rather painful conclusion that, for the most part, contemporary Christians are not the head. Indeed, it appears that the tail is wagging the dog. We seem to think that whatever the current pop culture dishes out is what we should eat. One of the places this is most unfortunately obvious is in the area of style. This is quite apparent as it relates to womens' fashions. Whatever is currently popular invariably ends up in the church, frequently with little or no concern as to whether feminine modesty is preserved or not.This is not a new point of discussion. Happily, there are some pastors who dare to tread on this ground and boldly rebuke this sort of thing from the pulpit. More often it is ignored, perhaps with the hope that father, husband, mother, or wife will figure it out and deal with the problem. When the issue is raised, either publicly or privately, one of the typical responses is to throw up the hands and complain that this is all the stores carry any more.We can’t help but wonder how we became so helpless that we can’t seem to set our minds to solving this on our own. Have we really become so slavishly consumerist that we believe there is no alternative to buying and wearing this junk? Is our respect for God’s requirements so low that it is simply not worth our time to maybe do a little work on our own? This implies an even more serious problem than the corruption of godly standards of modesty.Let’s be clear here. We are not merely objecting to park or seashore attire. The problem consistently manifests itself in the worship services of our churches every Sunday. Many younger and, more sadly, some older women wear styles that either draw attention to their bodies, or reveal far too much, leaving little to the imagination. It is beyond us to know for certain why this is done, but it is obvious that little or no thought is given as to how this affects the brothers of the congregation.Let us venture here to speak plainly on behalf of the godly men of the church. The current shrink wrapped, short shirt, low ride fashions are anything but modest. This stuff covers little more than spray paint would. And to speak even more plainly, because we want to be obedient to our Lord, we are not interested in knowing the brand or size of your underwear, nor the intimate details of your anatomy. It is none of our business! Equally appalling is the all too frequent display of the female equivalent of plumber’s crack when you stand up, sit down, or bend over. So quit parading it in front of us as if you want to make it our business. There really is no acceptable excuse for this.Let us further venture to speak plainly to some of the older ladies who seem inclined to try to keep up with the younger girls. Being chaste, and being able to teach younger women to be adorned by this kind of virtue is more than a physiological condition. How you dress communicates a great deal about you, your relationship with God, and about your husbands. When we see you dressed in an immodest way, we assume that your husbands are either idiots or wimps. Is this how you want him to be viewed? Maybe you could take a bit of godly initiative to see to it that you are not the equivalent to a billboard declaring this assessment to be true.Fundamentally, there is no substitute for godly male leadership here. And it is clear that it is lacking. Nonetheless, this is no excuse for lackadaisical excuse making that does not love others and that refuses to work at removing a stumbling block from the midst of the church.

Stealing From Grandma, May 7, 2005

One of the great assets of our democratic political tradition has also become one of its chief liabilities. I refer here to the right to vote. It appears that our population has become so morally depraved that it is now considered appropriate to utilize voting as a weapon against one’s neighbor.Consider first that our form of civil government was originally essentially republican (note the small “r”). This is a fundamentally Biblical notion based on a division and decentralization of authority coupled with the idea of representation. These, coupled with a commitment to be constrained by a submission to a system of law (as opposed to mere majoritarianizm) sought to establish a system of governance where political authority and responsibility was thought to be held in an equitable balance. Representation was to be both equal (the Senate) and popular (the House). By virtue of periodic elections, these representatives were thought to be held accountable to their fellow citizens.However, we see the perversion of this balance in our times. The debased citizenry has discovered that through the ability to vote, they can procure personal benefits by utilizing the civil government to coercively redistribute their neighbors’ property and wealth. This is well demonstrated by the flourishing of a variety of taxing districts that receive their funding through property taxes. These burgeoning bureaucracies are formed (by popular vote) to fund a variety of services that the public deems necessary. This includes, among many others, things like education, street repair, libraries, and recreation. I must admit that it is difficult to believe that the vast majority of people are willing to allow the mortgaging of their property in order to increase the availability of such trivial and luxurious items like recreation. We have obviously become a people devoid of any basis of morality or sound judgment. We want what we want, and we will get what we want by using any convenient club to beat it out of our neighbor. We willingly participate in these practices of thievery, thinking we will be better off if we do. We must have what we want. Even if it means stealing from Grandma.

President Bush Admits He is a New Dealer, May 1, 2005

While giving his prime time news conference this past week, President Bush divulged his unwavering commitment to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal political philosophy. In the midst of his praise of FDR's initiation of the Social Security system, purportedly developed as a "safety net" for the poorest of Americans, Bush revealed his commitment to the same agenda. The current president wants to revamp it to provide a "means adjusted" benefit. He wants recipients of SS benefits who are of lesser monetary means to receive a greater benefit compared to that which those of more resources would be eligible for.
This of course begs the question as to why such a system exists at all. Where is there any justification for a system of redistribution of wealth from one class to another? The obvious answer: there is none. Not unless the advocate ascribes to some form of coercion to do so. What religious/political systems advocate such things? Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
Even more disturbing than all of this was the President's later comments on the nature of faith and political policy. Faith, he contended, is a private and personal matter which should not have any connection to political and public policy whatsoever. In other words, it simply does not matter what a person holds to in terms of absolute truth, so long as it does not interfere with the assumptions about the absolutes of contemporary political power and policy.
We would hope that this would give some of our Christian brethren a case of sever heatrburn, as it flies in the face of what the Bible teaches about the salt and light character of the Gospel. But, alas, many of our brethren seem to still believe that George W. is only a hair shy of the Second Coming. We would maintain that this, coupled with his public pandering to polytheism, would come closer to qualifying him as an anti-Christ.