I had planned to have a post ready for today, but I've been a bit overwhelmed lately and didn't get it done. Yes, it's related to Islam, but it's not directly related to 9/11. God willing I'll wrap that up in the next couple of days.
In the meantime here are a few links I'll share. As one might expect, there happened to be several of interest that popped up today. As always I'll add that I don't agree 100% with everything written, but for that matter I don't think I've ever read anything that I can say I endorse absolutely and completely other than God's Word.
The first one is by Eric Margolis. He strays a little into the conspiracy zone, but just to make a point. In the end he seems to admit, we just don't know what really happened. The answers provided are just not acceptable. An interesting discussion...
9/11 Cover-Up Remains While Questions Mount
This one by Anthony Gregory talks about breathtaking changes and insanity of the last nine years, something I was also reflecting on yesterday. It's been quite a decade.
When Will the Bad Dream End?
This is a shorter piece, where the author talks about the causes of terrorism and how our political leaders and especially our media refuse to even wrestle with the real question...why? Sacralist Christians I think, have been unable to even ask the question, let alone wrestle with it. Their 'worldview' won't even allow them to think in those categories and they continue on waving the flag in blissful ignorance of the history of the United States and its true spiritual nature.
Now We Know the Cause of Islamic Terrorism
This piece was somewhat interesting. I think many of the readers here have already left such churches that have mixed nationalism (idolatry) with Christianity. But for those still struggling or involved in Churches that are otherwise...good, he makes a few good points. I would also point out that he identifies himself as a Libertarian, while I strongly sympathize with Libertarianism in some respects, I don't think I would go out of my way to label myself thus.... As with any political movement, I find some things I can agree with, but many I do not. Several of today's links are from LewRockwell, a libertarian site which I do read all the time. True to form I find about a 1/3 of the articles excellent, 1/3 of them somewhat interesting, and the remaining third to be mostly a waste of time or flat wrong.
How To Promote Peace in Your Church
In addition, I noticed that Peter Marshall died, the son of the more famous father of the same name (the one they made the movie about). This Peter, aged 70 was best known for his 'history' books like The Light and the Glory which were devotional interpretations of American history. Extremely popular, they are responsible for promoting the Christo-American or Sacralist view of America and attempt to explain all of its history and development in those terms.
While I do not celebrate anyones death, when men such as Marshall die...I tremble. Whether he was indeed a believer or not, it must be staggering to find out that you devoted your life and efforts to promoting ideas and doctrines that helped destroy (in one sense) the Church of Jesus Christ and lead it into idolatry.
Here's the link to the notice....
Sorry the link is to CBN, the Christian Broadcasting Network. Despite its name, there's nothing remotely Christian about Pat Robertson or his organizations. I just don't want anyone to think I spend my time lurking about such an unsavoury place.
And in the spirit of all the current discussion, here's a link to yet another atrocious article at American Vision. Those unfamiliar or uninterested in the Reformed world won't find it very informative. From my standpoint it's interesting to see how there's an active movement in certain Reformed circles to specifically include Dominionism/Transformationalism in the very definition of Reformed. If you don't go along with them, you're not Reformed, you're a gnostic, a dualist. I've heard that one more than once as did many who faced the Inquisition. Nothing, no theological position upsets a Sacralist more than rejecting their view of the Kingdom. It was true in the middle ages and it's true today. Dominionists will happily endure Charismatics, and as we've seen lately...even Mormons!...but they will not endure anti-Constantinianism.
One of the commentors pastes a comment from DM Lloyd-Jones, a name some of you might know. It's a from a lecture he gave and is published in a book called The Puritans, published by Banner of Truth. I know it well and have often thought of that very paragraph. In the end, the authors of the comment and the article have to conclude the Lloyd-Jones wasn't really Reformed. As if that matters in the end, but it's interesting.
Years ago when I was still wrestling with the issue of Sacralism, that Lloyd-Jones volume used to haunt me. I've read it multiple times. I would grow quite angry and frustrated with him. Now I appreciate it considerably.
On the one hand, American Vision is merely the champion of the dark side of the Reformation, and on the other hand I feel like they and their ilk have hijacked it.
American Vision as well as others in the Theonomic camp wish to cast the Reformed world in monolithic terms, a gross revision of history, but they are masters of revisionism. It's interesting how many of them also champion the Boer states in South Africa. The author specifically mentioned Transvaal which was one of the states formed when the Voortrekkers abandoned the Cape Colony after it was taken over by the British. South Africa is an interesting study where you find two Sacralist visions in conflict. But most in the Reformed world have chosen to ignore what happened there. The Boers were Dutch Calvinists who cast their Voortrekkers (overland pioneers) in terms akin to the Exodus from Israel. It's very reminiscent of Peter Marhsall's work concerning American History. The famous Battle at Blood River is a crossing of the Red Sea type event. This type of thinking and theology directly led them to justify their conquest and subjugation of black Africans and their subsequent race policies, even their bizarre genetic and race theories. A young Winston Churchill reported during the Second Boer War (1899-1902) they sang Psalms as they rode into battle. Funny how they considered themselves to be God's Chosen Nation...but it wasn't in America?
Because of Apartheid and many of the shameful events surrounding it, most Calvinists have tried to ignore their somewhat embarrassing distant cousins in South Africa, but as Sacralism is developing into more overt racism here and in Europe...suddenly many seem to find they don't look that bad. Will it get to a point like it did in South Africa that to be Christian....is to be White?
Incidentally for years I also argued that adhering to TULIP didn't mean Reformed, it simply meant Calvinist. Luther certainly believed in Predestination and yet no one would have called him Reformed. Reformed also included the more comprehensive idea of working to fully-Reform the Church, it's structure and worship. It also indicated ideas concerning the structure of the Bible. Today, it seems to mean Calvinistic Soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and political activism. And I have tried to argue elsewhere, the Calvinism of today is largely a form hyper-Calvinism, something that would have been unknown to the early Reformers. They taught election but did not place it at the very center of all theology and read the entirety of the Scriptures through a rationalist-driven decretalism. But that's another topic....
Just look at the leadership of the so-called Reformed world. It's mostly made up of Dominionists. And almost no one believes in one doctrine the Reformers and Puritans definitely had right.....the meeting and worship of the Chuch is regulated by God's Word. The Reformers would not even recognize someone like Tim Keller. His church incorporating reggae and jazz into worship would be far out of bounds, a completely different spirit. Even far better men from the contemporary Reformed world seem to have abandoned this principle. Everyone is zealous to apply the Bible to politics and economics to which it does not speak in a systemic or cultural fashion, but almost everyone refuses to apply it to the areas in which it does speak sufficiently....the Church and the Christian life.