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!!!