Proto~Protestantism

Ecclesia Part 7: Pragmatics and Conclusion

2012-03-05T07:04:00.000-05:00

When the'licentiate' is 'ordained' we'll stay away. I don't recognize the authority ofthe presbytery. It, like all denominations are para-church organizations. This'service' is nothing more than homage, a ceremony to clericalism. We'll stayaway, but we'll return the following Sunday and try to keep encouraging othersand hopefully be encouraged.

Assuming the model

For years Ihave listened to and read everything I can get my hands on when it comes toChurch Membership and any kind of defense of Presbyterianism or Denominationalism.Not only have I not been convincedbut I have moved ever further from the position. Time after time I watch menexercise flimsy arguments based off wild exegesis in their attempts to justifytheir practice.

They takeverses that deal with true Church Membership...being a Christian and then makea massive leap assuming the validity of their Form-Bureaucratic system,mindset, and practice.

I watch forthis very carefully. Often I'll hear a programme on Church Membership...45minutes or an hour long and they never really even deal with any of thefoundational issues. It's just a pragmatic attempt to deal with theindividualism of our culture. Again, I'm against church shopping andnon-commitment, but that doesn't justify this alternative model they've triedto impose on the Church.

Individualism?

I've beencharged with exhibiting American Individualism in how I approach this issue. Isincerely ask...is that what I'm doing? Is that the basis of the argument I'mmaking against this system? Are my arguments just an expression ofanti-authoritarian American culture?

They'll goon about our life in Christ, being part of the body, commitment, submission toauthority, accountability, fellowship and all the rest. I agree with it, but itdoesn't mean this Faction-system is justified.

Ironicallyit's all supposedly to promote unity. It's promoting schism. When a Christianfamily with nowhere to go can't be fully part of the Church by communing becausethey won't submit to a man-made system...the elders of that Church are in errorand promoting schism.

I've metwith many elders over the years and when I ask the simple question...where canI find this in Scripture?....the response is always the same...a blank look.Everyone just assumes the validity of the whole framework.

Sufficiency and simplicity

TheScriptures are sufficient for the life of the Church. Biblical Churchgovernment pictures congregations interacting and helping one another. Theunity and bond is Spiritual it doesn't function like a government or corporatebureaucracy. I realize this isn't very helpful if trying to promote a nationalor societal vision, nor if you think the unity rests in some kind of clericalaristocracy or denomination. The Church doesn't need offices with filecabinets, secretaries typing at computers, it doesn't Roberts Rules of Order.It doesn't need to function using parliamentary procedure with committees andbudgetary plans. It doesn't need tax identification numbers and corporatenon-taxable bank accounts. It doesn't need the IRS to tell it how to structureitself and create trustees and by-laws.

TheScriptures present a very simple model, very modest and it's more thansufficient. Local congregations led by local elders who don't live inisolation. Big visions for society, desire for power, attempts to plug the Churchinto a large Sacral vision do not justify innovation and perhaps the better wayto answer some of these questions is to re-assess the way they're being asked.

The 'stewardship' trap

Appealing to'stewardship' or 'order' and using them as a blanket justification for creatingendless new levels of bureaucracy has also been terribly abused. If a church ina neighbouring town is trying to help some orphans or battered women orsomething and you want to help, give them some money. Well without a bureaucracywe can't account for it, they might waste it. That's true. If you don't trustthem then don't give it to them. In the end people seem to forget you're givingthe money to the Lord. If they steal the money and run off to Mexico, itdoesn't lessen what you did. That's focusing on the wrong thing. Sure, if youthink they're misusing the money or wasting it, don't give them any more orperhaps give them less. This micro-managing money efficiency model at work inthe Church and in how the Church relates to helping individuals is rooted morein our culture's attitudes and doctrines about money than it is Scripture.Often it is used as an excuse to disregard what the Bible says about money andgiving.

The Biblicalvision of the Church is much simpler and frankly appealing. The Presbyterianvision which is no different than many other factions is oppressive and in onesense dangerous in that professes to represent Biblical Christianity.

Signs of the times

We'll attendas long as we can...until they essentially drive us out for refusing toconform. I strongly dislike their system but I dislike staying at home evenmore. I pray that others will wrestle with these questions and eventuallyRemnant churches will begin to appear. I know of course of the House Church movementand in some senses I find it encouraging. I don't want to launch it all of thatright now, but from what I've seen many of them are indeed rooted in culturalattitudes about individualism rejecting authority, an anti-intellectualismwhich is hostile to doctrine and an attempt to interact with historicChristianity, or in mistaken Charismatic notions. It is chaotic, but I don'tthink the answer is to create another organization. I would say we work wherewe are at, and work on the congregation we're a part of. Beyond that, I thinkwe're to be patient and trust the Spirit to hold the Church together. I couldsay much more related to those issues, but that's all for another time.

Why this series?

I decided towrite this because I know shortly I will be asked to give an account for why wedidn't attend the ordination service and why we're refusing to 'join' eventhough our presence, our multi-month presence has shown we're already anintegral part of the group. If you asked anyone there who are the families thatare part of your church...ours would be named. When the 'pastor' talks aboutthe families in the Church, he means ours as well.

But suddenlyin a few months when they start incorporating 'membership' then lines will bedrawn, and suddenly we'll be outside the camp. I will share this article withthem or at least part of it.

Actions louder than words

In closingI'm reminded of a Reformed Congregation which decided to join with thePresbyterian system. They already had ordained their pastor and had 'membership'as it is commonly understood. Upon joining the Presbyterian denomination thepastor had to be 're-ordained' and 'installed' and each 'member' had to're-join' or 'join' under the forms used by the Presbyterian denomination.That's not about any kind of Biblical order. That's about faction and power,and nothing more. The people went along with it, but a few were miffed. Eventhat was a bit too much for them and seemed an unwarranted exercise ofauthority.

Everyonesays the Scriptures are sufficient, but then they treat them as not so when itcomes to the Christian life, Church government, and worship.

The Bibletells Christians how to live with the world but it doesn't tell the world, orthe Church in the world how to build society, government, the arts, politics,economics and the rest.

And yetthese are the areas modern Christians insist the Bible is sufficient. Theybuild elaborate systems...only loosely related to the Bible and often takenterribly out of context and insist these man-made constructs are Biblical.

But then theScriptures aren't sufficient when it comes to the Church? They would deny that'swhat they're doing. I hope if anything I've shown (at least in part) that'sexactly what they're doing.

What'sdriving all this? What's driving men to create all these man-made structuresand claim them to be Biblical?

It's alwaysthe same problem...men want power. And power needs an argument of authority inorder to be legitimate. For Christians, appealing to the Bible makes for astrong argument. I'm afraid too many are keen to argue whatever they dorepresents the 'Biblical' way. The claims need to be examined and in many caseschallenged.

Ecclesia Part 6: Submission and Authority

2012-03-02T06:57:00.000-05:00

So why inthe world would we once again attend a PCA? Good question. We're not going to become 'members' thoughwe did once before. I worked out a compromise with the elders. This time I'm not inclined to try and work with their system.

Submission versus Oppression

If they wantto make a list of who's a member (in the Biblical sense) of course that's fine.If that helps them to govern or pray, no problem. If they want to ask for mytestimony every three days and for me to account to them for my actions everyweek, that's fine. I'll submit to that. If they want me to study out issueswith them and if they push for regular attendance, that's fine too. That's notin opposition to Scripture. I will bend over backwards to comply with theirrequirements, with their supervision, even to the point of being ridiculous.

But whenthey want me to stand up and take extra-Scriptural vows and to submit toextra-Scriptural standards I won't do that.

'You're notsubmitting,' they say. I'm submitting as far as the Scriptures permit. I won'tsurrender my conscience to you and I won't submit to your extra-Scriptural claimsof authority. As an individual do I have the right to question ‘the system’?All I’m asking for is a Scriptural argument to justify a system and the manypractices flowing from it. If they can’t give me one, then I’m not bound. Inthis case I’m submitting to Scripture instead of their misguided leadership.

If I'msinning, I'll repent and be corrected, but you don't need to have me take vowsin order to do that. 'You need to vow to submit to the Church,' they reply.I've already done that in Baptism and every week when we have the Lord's Supper...orshould have. It's a shame many Churches celebrate it so infrequently. Actuallyit speaks loudly in terms of their misunderstanding its significance. They arevows, and by creating additional vows, the weight of Baptism and the Supper arereduced.

Presbyterial Authority

TheScriptures give the elders a certain level of authority, even power if you wantto put it that way. But thankfully it has limits. They are to guide, speakwords of wisdom, instruct in the truth of Scripture, rebuke sin, and much more.But it's not a marriage as I've heard some of them suggest. We are to submitand honour them and I'm willing to do so. We should be respectful. If an eldersays, 'I think you should spend more time studying, or more time with yourfamily,' then the request should be honoured. If they want to talk about yourlife, you should be candid with them. Does submission mean we get out ofcheckbooks for inspection? I don't think so. Should we listen to financialwisdom? Yes, but surrendering your tax return goes a bit far. Does it mean theycan tell us what house to buy or what food to eat? No.

They're notlords, they're shepherds. Their authority is not rooted in edicts, but in beingan example to the flock. And many of them would be shocked to learn that ifthey exhibit love and wisdom...their words will carry even more weight than anyedict or any form they’ve imposed.

They canspeak about how we handle our money, or perhaps tell someone to eat lessbecause their fat. But they would be better leaders and more wise if they leadby example and teach people as people, as a flock...but not subjects, or aspeople of a lower caste.

StrangelyI've had problems the other direction. Once I was working at a job thatbothered my conscience. I wanted to quit and apparently made the mistake oftalking about it with an elder at the OPC where I was a ‘member’ at the time.

I had justgot out of the Air Force and I was single and financially I was alright. Iwanted to quit and look into something else. The elder didn't want me toquit...he thought I should stick with it and keep working, and give it moretime. I appreciated his advice and the point he was trying to make, but in thiscase I didn't agree. The fact that he was a retired military officer might havealso contributed to the fact that we didn't see many things eye to eye. Ourview of the world and our relation to it, and our divergent concepts offollowing conscience were quite different.

I quit thejob and pursued other employment. I had only worked at the place for a littleover a week. They actually got upset with me. Apparently it wasn't advice, itwas an order. I wasn't submitting.

The eldersdon't have the right to tell me I shouldn't quit a job that I'm uncomfortable with.That's not about submitting to authority...that's lording over people's lives.Was I sinning in quitting a job? To me I was potentially sinning in keeping it.If they thought I was sinning in quitting the job, then they should haveaddressed that. That wasn’t the issue. The issue was they thought I was sinningbecause I didn’t do what I was told.

Legalism, out of bounds

They do nothave the right to 'hedge' God's commandments. The commandments are not alwaysclear and explicit. Sometimes they require wisdom and discernment in how toapply them.

Many Churchleaders step out of bounds when they draft up lists of do's and don'tsreflecting their personal tastes or cultural posture rather than an actualposition derived from Scripture.

They cantell someone your daughter needs to dress more modestly, but they can't createa list of extra-Scriptural standards and mandate everyone follows it. They maynot like the way you wear your hair or the fact that you have a beard. But isit based on Scripture or their own interpretation of culture?

I haven'thad regular television for years but the Church doesn't have the authority tomandate that people in their congregation can't have it. It may be wise not tohave one, but do the elders have the authority to forbid it? There's a smallReformed denomination that does this, forbid even the owning of the device. Iappreciate the spirit of it, but principally it's quite wrong. They'reexercising authority they do not have. There’s plenty of sinful materialavailable on television. They would be better to teach their people wisdom andhow as Christian adults to handle the responsibility. Forbidding the thingoutright when God has not forbidden it is an abuse of authority and shows areal lack of wisdom and leadership. Again I say that as one who doesn’t haveregular television. We have the device but receive no channels where we live.

Unity not in form, but in the Spirit

So many ofthese things, both practical and systemic, stem from men trying to be the HolySpirit. Give people the Word. Preach it and teach it. It brings about aresponse, it will not return void (Is. 55). People will either change in timeand be sanctified or they will grow hostile and depart. The Elders are there tooversee this, to protect and guide....not Lord over the congregation. Andthey're not clerics...functioning as holy men possessing supernatural powers.

Divine powerand symbolism are covenantally present in the Church and the Church isShepherded or even stewarded by leaders and guides, not by a spiritualaristocracy...that's clericalism. Clericalism makes it all about them and theirauthority. There's a big difference. There's an authority that points people toChrist, but another type of authority that ends up being about power. They maynot mean to do that or set out to grab for power, but it happens easy enough.

I think thisis what Presbyterianism is doing by making the essence of the Church, its realcore rest not in the local congregation but in the regional body...what theymistakenly call the Presbytery. Their motives are noble enough. They're tryingto hold the Church together, but I'd rather risk a bit of chaos then innovateand try to improve on the simple model God has given.

An exercise in futility?

We continueto attend because we're at our wits end. We don't know what else to do. If wehad a couple more families we'd be happy to meet in a house or somewhere else.But we don't and we're unhappy and ill at ease just staying home. It's notabout a superstitious 'we have to be somewhere on Sunday morning' checking abox type thinking. We want to be where the Word is and with other Christians.Secondarily, we want our children to be with other Christians and otherChristian children. I'm not talking about extra-Scriptural innovative and gimmickyprogrammes which is how we got Sunday School and all that to begin with. I'mtalking about fellowship centered on the Word and time with other believers, atime of edification, encouragement and yes, respite from the world. We need tostop and meet with others, be grounded, and get our perspective right.

I'm notlooking for perfection. I will actually put up with far more than many people Iknow will in terms of extra-Scriptural additions. I can put up with their Presbyterianismeven though it's not Biblical in the least.

Excommunication

But theywon't tolerate it when you won't go along. I'm guilty of schism even though I'mjust trying to sit there on a Sunday with my family, and worship God. I'm nottrying to change them or impose anything. I just want to worship with myfamily, but because if you won't go along with their extra-Scriptural systemgoverned by their extra-Scriptural power grabbing...then you're guilty ofschism and you're denied the basic signs of participation in theChurch...Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

When you'reexcommunicating people...effectively saying they are unbelievers because theywon't submit to your innovation and tradition, then you're in big trouble.

Rather thanconfront, I'm more inclined to stay away. If confronted I'll certainly speak.I'm not there to beat people over the head about Christmas or this or thatprogramme. I understand most people are right in their hearts and haven'treally thought about it much. It's interesting though how when you won't goalong with it and appeal to Scripture they just gnash their teeth and rail atyou even though all I'm saying is...show me from the Bible.

My Credentials and Views on Education- 4

2012-03-02T06:38:00.000-05:00

While allthis was happening, the 2000 election happened, 11 September, and the buildupto the Iraq War.

I was stillclassified as inactive Reserve and that was not due to expire until March 2003.Throughout all of 2002 I watched with dread as the country slipped intohysteria and Bush beat the drums of war. That summer I got a letter in the mailtelling me my formal/final discharge was on hold as they were calling up peoplefrom the inactive reserve to come back to active duty.

I was notgoing to back into the Air Force and I certainly was not going to participatein the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. By early 2001 I was solidly where I'm atnow on these issues. By 2002 I was adamant and determined. We talked aboutleaving the country. At the time we had three children but little money. Lookingback I wish we had found a way. One of the best ways to understand this cultureis to live outside it for a season. Upon your return, if you’re a reflectiveperson, you will see everything in a very different light.

March 2003approached and literally a day or two after the invasion I got my finaldischarge letter in the mail. It was over. They couldn't call me up anymore. Wepraised the Lord that day. Finally I was absolutely 100% a civilian.

The yearsplodded on. I had discovered Kline, and his Two-Kingdom version of Reformedtheology around the year 1997. After years of hearing him critiqued I wanted toread him for myself and his both historic and recast theology opened up a wholenew world for me, but also more frustrations as I realized I was moving furtherand further from the Reformed mainstream. While there are plenty in Reformedcircles who appreciate him, increasingly the theology of Two Kingdoms is comingunder condemnation. If Transformationalism is the new orthodoxy as one man putit not long ago, then eventually the Two Kingdom understanding of the Bible willbe out of bounds.

Some of themore able advocates are hindered and crippled by the fact that they're tryingto stay within the claims of Historic Reformed theology or in some caseserroneously arguing this position is historic. It's not. There have been manyvariations in Reformed Protestantism and some camps have tended more that waythan others, but largely most Protestant groups have rejected this view of theKingdom. It has a historical basis, but not in Reformed theology and despitethe name similarity it is not the position of historic Lutheranism either.

Forced towrestle with this myself, I discovered that in fact it's a position quitesimilar to some of the Medieval Dissenters and later the Anabaptists. Since I'mnot committed to being part of a Reformed faction I'm not compelled to try andmake it fit with the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity whichspecifically repudiate it.

My friendsand I had read through and discussed Calvin, Owen, Turretin and others while inItaly and we had been so excited to return to the United States and get intoReformed Churches. We were disappointed. We started to realize very few reallyhad read Calvin and many were holding to later forms of Reformed theologyrepresented more by the Princeton school of the 19^th century. To usmost Calvinists were in fact Hyper-Calvinists. Covenantal Theology was talkedabout, but most people seemed to hold to what we considered to be a moreBaptistic anti-Covenantal understanding.

We justdidn't find the vitality we'd hoped for but that said it can't be denied theReformed are easily the most intellectually vibrant group within theologicallyconservative Protestantism.

My wife andI joined with the PCA but the drive was long. We were traveling about 90minutes each direction. Sunday was a long and tiresome day, especially withsmall children. Though well behaved, the day was taxing to all of us. We werestruggling financially. I found with contracting (construction/remodeling) thatif you're trying to be honest and reasonable you're not likely to do very well.There are a lot of guys around that are driving $40,000 pickup trucks withtheir names painted on the side. They've got pompous dispositions but in manycases (not all) they're ripping people off, they're doing poor work andcharging top rates. It's pretty discouraging to get called in after some ofthese men to finish their work or fix it, and see what they've done and thenrealize how much money they're making. In some cases the work is sub-standardbut people don’t know the difference. And in America people fall for marketinggimmicks. A fancy truck and a jacket with an embroidered name grant legitimacyto many.

As aChristian I’ve struggled with the whole idea of ‘selling’ myself. On one levelit has to be done to procure work, but on the other hand I don’t want to strayinto the realm of being disingenuous, friendly with a false pretense. I don’twant to feel like used car salesman stroking someone’s weakness or an insurancesalesman telling half-truths and trying to sell things to people that they don’tneed.

It’s thesame with many stores and restaurants. Americans like the plastic and neonflavour, the uniformity of the franchise more than the individual enterprise.It’s really a foundation of our culture, easily noticed by the ubiquitous anduniformly static sprawl on the edge of every city. I find it soulless anddepressing, but I’ve talked to many who find comfort in visiting the sameApplebee’s or the same McDonalds in every city and every ten highway exits allacross the country. They’re drawn by these places. I always do my utmost toignore them and look elsewhere. I think there’s a moral element to this wholecultural trend. It’s consumerism enshrined and it has decimated local cultureand variation, leaving America a nation of what I often call the plasticfranchise, the McStore, the McRestaurant, the McCoffee Shop and so forth. It’sa culture that works hard to breed discontent so that you’ll by things. It’s aculture that works hard to get individuals to identify themselves with brands,labels, franchises, and logos.

I live in adepressed area...we didn't even notice the 2008 recession, our housing markethas been depressed for a couple of decades. This area has the dubious doubledistinction of being the Rust Belt and Appalachia. Nevertheless the area is notunpleasant and can actually be quite interesting if your eyes are open. Itcreates a strange cultural dynamic. The monied people like all the marketingaccoutrements which cost a lot of money and raise one’s overhead. The regularfolk are often lacking money and are looking for ways to cut corners which canlead to other practical and ethical frustrations.

Anyway, after several years our van had over200,000 miles (300,000km) on it, and we couldn't make the drive anymore.Gasoline prices hadn't quite exploded yet but that was soon to come. I wasn'tgoing to miss the PCA. We ended our relationship with them and I swore I wouldnever enter another Presbyterian Church. As I often do, I've had to eat mywords...we're attending a PCA startup about 30 miles from us right now. We'llsee what happens. I reject their whole concept of denominational membership andwithout it they cut you off from the Lord's Supper....so I'm not sure how thiswill end up.

We've hadBible Studies in our home. The PCA pastor from years ago used to drive down andlead a gathering at our house. When that stopped I picked it up for awhile.There are many people who are unhappy with the lack of quality teaching attheir own churches. They long for more and come to the studies...but they'renot ready to leave and start meeting with a new group in someone's house or atthe local fire hall. That's too outlandish, too non-institutional. It's amazinghow these silly buildings with steeples grant legitimacy in people's minds. Thepastor can be all but an atheist or agnostic (as some of them in factare)...but he's granted credibility because he has a building and aninstitution behind him.

After allthese years, struggling to find our place and yet never flagging in the leastin terms of study and growth, ever desiring to learn and teach...to share thesethings...I finally decided in 2010 to start writing. Why not?

I knew sinceI lacked credentials no one would really care too much about anything I wassaying. Sadly in the Reformed world unless you've got the right letters afteryour name and unless you're plugged into the right denominational/institutionalstructure...you're wasting your breath.

They'relargely only concerned with their faction's claims to this or that historicalpersonage or confessional document. Each group is trying to argue they are thetrue representatives of the Westminster Confession or some other person orwork. When you come along and say...who cares? And even when you explain whyyou’re saying that, they're not really interested in what you have to sayanymore. Questioning the system isn't worthy of consideration.

Sadly morethan one Reformed pastor has admitted...what you're saying might be true, butit doesn't really matter, because it will never get through presbytery (theregional body).

So what'sthe point in trying to please them or work through their system? If there’s noaudience, then what would I hope to accomplish?

My Credentials and Views on Education- 3

2012-02-29T17:56:00.000-05:00

My friendshad all left for assignments in the United States or gotten out as well. As Ifound myself once more a civilian and back in the United States, I wrestledwith what to do. Based off my own inclinations as well some gentle pushing fromothers I decided to attend seminary.

Sadly atthat point in time I was still very much plugged into the Reformed world. Uponmy return home I was part of the OPC and now looked to attend a PCA affiliatedschool. I entered but just like the start of my military experience...I wasalready in a state of transition. I started my short-lived military career fullof doubts and not sure I should be there. I started seminary with a similar senseof apprehensiveness. I was being placed on a track that would put me into thePCA, OPC or some other Reformed body. I was dubious as to whether or not thatwas the course to take.

I was reallydisappointed with the school and the attitudes I found there. Many of the youngmen were career minded, almost politicians in how they dealt with things. I hadalready abandoned the idea of Presbyterianism as being the Biblical form ofChurch government but I was still naive regarding the rigidity and oppressivebureaucracy of the system. It claims to be Biblical but is absolutely burdenedwith endless man-made constructs. Robert's Rules of Order will probablyaccomplish more in a Presbyterian system than arguing from the Bible. I'm notthe first to say that. Some even gave this as advice.

The schoolwas not interested in pursuing study and real education. They wanted thestudents to regurgitate what was being taught. Academically it wasdisappointing. There were some good folks there and some good teachers. Whatbenefitted me most was not the classroom time but the exposure and interactionswith others. The one class that proved an exception and really benefitted me inthat it piqued my interest and opened up some new realms to me was that of OldTestament Introduction...which for those unfamiliar with it, this has to dowith manuscripts and texts, chronological issues, authorship, the history ofcriticism and things like that. That was an interesting class and I had notspent a whole lot of time with some of those topics previous to my attendancethere.

Greek wasanother area. I'm not proficient but I also learned that 99% of pastors outthere aren't either. Taking a few semesters of Greek gets you to the point thatyou can make use of the available tools and helps. You might know enough towork through someone's argument or know from the onset that what they're sayingisn't valid. A handful of men keep at it and become proficient, where they canjust pick up the Greek New Testament and translate on the go. But most have towade through the text and it's an academic exercise not a language they'rereally comfortable with.

I quicklyrealized I had no future in the PCA or OPC. I wasn't a Presbyterian and therewere too many points of disagreement for me to ever have any hope offunctioning within that system. After two semesters of work, one of them duringa summer session, I left. I was married then and neither of us really liked theSouth very much and so we returned to Pennsylvania where my wife is from.

What to do?I wasn't sure. I hadn't abandoned the hope of entering into Church leadershipand teaching. I didn't then and still don't really accept the 'pastor' model.The New Testament clearly teaches a plurality of Elders. Presbyterians maintainthe plurality but create two tiers of elders...the Teaching Elder or what iscommonly known as Pastor and the Ruling Elder. The PCA tries to get around thisand claim to only have one kind of elder under two different designations, butit's a bit of a joke and they know it too. It usually elicits a smile.

I had a wifeand a baby on the way and I needed work. I had a private pilot's license butwasn't in a position to finish getting my commercial rating. Besides when Ibecame a Christian I had kind of abandoned that idea. I spent a couple of yearsaround aviation circles and learned the pilot's life was not a good one for afamily man. I had wanted very badly to be a helicopter pilot and I evenpotentially had some connections, but I realized it wasn't for me. Besideswhere we now lived it wasn't an option.

I hadexperience working on a flight line. I could get hired on in an instant workingfor FedEx or UPS...but we lived in a rural area and the airports were far away.Prior to this my Sunday Sabbatarianism had been a deterrent. That career fieldgoes seven days a week. I was no longer a Sabbatarian but it didn't seem tomatter. It wasn't an option where we lived. The nearest airports were over anhour away and these are small commuter airfields with little activity. Thebigger airports of Pittsburgh and Buffalo are two hours or more from where welive.

I had neverfinished college. Though seminary was considered Masters level work I was ableto get in by demonstrating my ability and passing the interview process. Someschools won't allow that but this one did which I considered a plus. Upongraduation I would have received a Bachelor of Divinity instead of the normalMaster of Divinity designation. Later if I finished my undergraduate degreethey would have upgraded the BDiv to an MDiv.

Not a daygoes by that I don't regret my leaving college. Why did I? I had no money, nodirection...I was pursuing aviation and there were ways I could do that inconnection with the Air Force...not as a pilot, you have to be an officer forthat, but as a civilian pilot in a programme attached to the base. I was livingin Alaska then and had hoped to go to Elmendorf or one of the big bases wherethey had these things called Aero-clubs...but I got sent to a small base inCentral Europe. The flying and college kind of fell by the wayside.

Lifehappened. Seminary, marriage, a child on the way....and the next thing I knew Iwas going to take whatever job I could get.

I ended upworking for a carpenter. I stayed with him for about four years. I learnedcarpentry, electrical, plumbing, roofing, drywall, and much more. I was upsetby the many government contracts he took on...I hadn't quite shed all theRepublican notions yet...and I didn't like that we were using tax money to helpthe poor get their houses weatherized and things like that. Today my attitudewould be a little different. I’ll say this…The system is messed up but a lot ofit has to do with the culture within the government rather than the principlesbehind what they're attempting to do.

Eventually Ineeded more money and decided to go on my own and that's what I've done eversince. I've been self-employed now for ten years.

Part 4

A Strange Encounter Part 11

2012-02-29T07:33:00.001-05:00

But here in America the lessons are not learned. Theman on the bench still thinks Islamic Terrorism is the primary threat. Hedoesn't understand that his actions and those of his son are only making itworse.

Fear and social polarization have entered andovertaken the acculturated American Church. The Church now seems to function asa socio-political force rather than a manifestation of God's Kingdom. It's alljumbled and confused. As I'm often saying, watch the pronoun usage as you talkto people. The use of 'us' and 'we' is rather telling. One moment they'retalking about America, the next moment the Church and no distinction ismade...it all runs together. For Christo-Americans they represent the 'real'and 'true' America. Everyone else is an imposter or traitor.

This blending is what led medieval heresy to belabeled as political treason. It all goes together. Today if you're a Democrator a liberal that identifies as a Christian, you're a heretic. Democrats andliberals are also viewed as treasonous.

It has never occurred to the 'man on the bench' thatin fact he is the supreme traitor...not to America. He's bad for America but politicallyhe’s not a traitor. The Founding Fathers and the drafters of the Constitution mightview him as one, (and probably me too!) but debating that issue is probably awaste of time.

But he is a traitor to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.We don't imprison or execute. We leave the Judgment to Christ at the End.Instead what we are to do is break fellowship, put out of communion, cut offfrom the signs and seals of covenant participation, and deliver to Satan thosewho will not repent. (1 Corinthians 5, Matthew 18)

And cutting off may also from another perspectivelook like us...'coming out' from among them and not partaking of their sins.

We should alienate ourselves from such people out oflove... with the hope that in knowing that Bible believers are rejecting them,that there are those rejecting them because they stand on the Bible...theymight reconsider, repent and be restored.

But primarily it's for the purity of the Church andout of a zeal and love for God.

I pity the man on the bench, and I need to love him.But loving Christ far more I will not worship with him, identify with him inany kind of Christian sense, and I will not endorse or sanction his views.

He is a threat to the nation because he endorses andsanctions an Imperial System and militarism which have oppressed and murderedpeople all around the world. Just because some good is occasionally done doesnot negate the wickedness. His passive actions, his active acquiescenceendangers American social stability...which from my perspective endangers thepeace of Babylon where I live as an exile. My heart is not attached to Babylonbut if it implodes and there's blood in the streets then it hinders thegospel...maybe just in the sense that it harms Christian families and lovegrows cold. I don't think we should want citizens or neighbours like him.

He's a threat to the Church because he's a willingparticipant in idolatry...bringing idols into the Church, blending Christianitywith pagan imperialism.

He's a threat to the Church because his son's deathis transformed into holy martyrdom. The booklet he gave me contains severalpoems extolling the bravery and heroism of American soldiers and police, mixingthese praises with Psalms and other Bible verses. While I’m sure it brings atear to his eye, I find it to be sacrilege and quite dangerous.

He's a threat to the Church because he's ablasphemer, he's a blind man leading the blind who has sacrificed his son toMolech and thinks he does service for Christ.

These are harsh words, but is there a way to softenthis? When we look at the state of things is this a time for soft or evasiverhetoric? I feel the hour is desperate and if I have to offend people to awakenthem, it’s a risk I’ll take. We need to understand what this threat is to theChurch...represented by a tearful father on mall bench.

Spiritually speaking, I'm afraid he's an enemy andthough I want to protect the Church from people like him...I need to show loveand compassion...humanity. I think we have a duty to try and gently show thesepeople where they err. 2 Timothy says:

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men,apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventurewill give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, whoare taken captive by him at his will.

But Titus 3 also says:

10 A man that is an heretic after the firstand second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted,and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

to be continued...

Ecclesia Part 5: Clericalism on Display

2012-02-28T21:25:00.001-05:00

The 'pastor'who is really a 'licentiate' is to be ordained shortly. They made it clear the'service' is under the auspices of the 'presbytery'....viz., the regional body(of ordained men) is coming in to conduct the worship service. Consequentlythere will be people from the entire regional presbytery present, Teaching andRuling elders as well as many regular folks from the other regionalcongregations. But in this case it's not the local congregation'sservice...it's the presbytery.

The climaxwill be at the end of the meeting when the newly ordained 'Teaching Elder' willraise his hands and give the benediction. And of course at this point he willcease to be a member of the mother-congregation and instead will be joined tothe regional body. Just like that he will be elevated not just to an office,but to the upper tier in the hierarchy.

This is rankclericalism. This is further proved by the fact that in Presbyterianism theordained Pastor has to be 'installed' somewhere. This means more than what youmight think. Let me work toward that issue...

A presbyter forever?

I would saythe Biblical model is...you become an elder and if you move to a newcongregation somewhere else, you're not an elder there. If you're visiting, sureyou're still an elder from your congregation, but if you've left thatcongregation, you don't have a continuing claim of authority. The newcongregation may make you an elder, they may take into account the fact thatyou were once before an elder, but you're not always an elder per se.

Once anelder always an elder is not an argument that can be made unless once againyou're trying to argue for some type of Apostolic Succession or attach inintrinsic quality to the office. Certainly the Apostolate was a lifetimeoffice, but is that true for the elder? I suppose someone might appeal toPeter's statement that he too was an elder...but he was also an Apostle. TheApostles were to teach faithful men...but were they transferring the concept,the foundation of their office on to the eldership? It doesn't seem possible,the tasks being quite different. If they are equals or meant to be, then wewould have Apostles today.

Local or universal?

Does anelder hold some kind of universal authority, over all the Church? Obviously avisiting elder would be held in some regard but does he have authority over orwithin another congregation? I see no basis for this, and Acts 15 certainlydoesn't teach it either. I would see that as an Apostolic level of authorityand part of the Apostolic mission, which ended about 1900 years ago.

Synagogue parallels

Even goingback to the Synagogue model which closely parallels the structure of the NewTestament congregation... elders did not have authority over other synagogues.But I will grant synagogues did eventually have presiding leaders...akin towhat we would call a pastor.

So arguingfrom that vantage point my strict two-office (Elder and Deacon) argument wouldlose and the three-office (Pastor/Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, and Deacon)would win. But with the synagogue there was definitely no formal organizationor hierarchy between the various congregations. They fellowshipped based on amutual understanding of recognition and respect. There was the Temple and thelocal synagogue and nothing more.

Thesynagogue model is instructive and an interesting study, but in the end we haveto rely on the New Testament itself. For those interested in pursuing thesynagogue issue, Lightfoot's 'Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmudand Hebraica' is helpful. It's been many years since I dove into the synagoguequestion and I'm by no means exclusively relying on Lightfoot for what I'msaying. I just recall that he's a very interesting read on some of theseissues.

Returning tothe charge of clericalism....

Intrinsic qualities, efficacy,legitimacy and Donatism

RomanCatholics teach a priest has intrinsic qualities. He has a certain ecclesialpower present in him regardless of his own personal faith or conduct. This allgoes back to the Donatist schisms in the 4^th century when you hadgroups of Christians claiming they were the True Church and Baptism and theSupper were not valid when performed by men attached to the apostate Catholicbody. Or from a different angle, when Baptism was performed by someone theybelieved to be unregenerate, they argued it wasn't valid.

Of course Iwould say I can't tell the state of the heart of the man who baptized me. Hemay or may not have been actually regenerate. In hindsight, I'm actuallyinclined to think not. That's not the issue. The issue is do I recognize hisauthority? Do I believe his profession and doctrine to be sufficientlyScriptural? If he denied the deity of Christ for example that would be a redflag that he's not a real believer. But if he does, then despite ourdifferences, and despite the fact that whether or not he's really and trulyregenerate...my Baptism is valid. It's not about him. It symbolizes what God issaying about me and my status in relation to Christ.

Church Federation

The Churchstruggled with these divisions and this was the beginning of what is calledChurch Federation...the prototype of what later would become Church Membership.(*Bingham's 'Antiquities' is helpful on this topic)

As thedivisions grew over time and exploded during the Reformation it got morecomplicated as the number of sects continued to multiply.

This way oflooking at the Church in terms of Federation I think is not only a doctrinalmistake but it's affected how people read Church history. I argue the Bibleonly knows of the Universal Church and the local congregation...and of coursethe individual. But Church History and much of theology is usually understoodby focusing on this realm that's inserted between the congregation and theUniversal....this realm that's tied to Denomination, Faction, or sometimesCulture, Nation, or Civilization. It'sthis inserted or fabricated mid-tier, that causes so many problems in so manyareas, both in the reading of history, the construction of theology, as well asthe understanding of the Church.

Catholics intime taught the priest has intrinsic qualities. These qualities are part of thepriest’s essence as it were. He can be a whoring drunkard as many priests havebeen and yet his sacramental administration, his ability to institutionallyofficiate is still valid.

I think theproblem here lies with the whole idea of clericalism, attaching this intrinsicquality to the man. Again, contra Donatism, my Baptism's validity or theSupper's validity isn't dependent on the man's conduct, and contra Clericalismit's not dependent on some kind of inherent quality the administratorpossesses. Either way the forms God has instituted for the Church aren’tdependent upon some kind of ‘holy’ man or cleric. I won’t go so far as to saythe Presbyterians treat their officials this way…but they come close. And someamong them are definitely moving in that direction.

The quality of Presbyterianclericalism

WhenPresbyterians remove their 'pastors' into this next level of the hierarchy theyare straying into clericalism. When the climax of the ordination service is thenew 'pastor' giving the benediction...that's clericalism. Some of them graspthis I think and don't really have a problem with the charge or the concept.Others chafe at this label, but I would say the practice and the structure itselfgives the charge some weight. I'm in no way suggesting they view theirministers in exactly the same way as the Roman Catholic system does, but I amsaying they've crossed a line and embraced a doctrinal construct that isrelated to and perhaps closer to the Roman system.

Office implies officiating. Permanentor intrinsic office implies permanent and continuous officiating.

This is a little harder to grasp and hence not easy to explain.

Since the'pastor' belongs to this special hierarchical tier, he has to be functioning orofficiating as a 'pastor'. He has to be assigned, installed somewhere, acongregation, a university, an administrative position. Since none of this isactually in the Bible, creating new categories isn't a problem.

However, theidea that a person possessing these intrinsic qualities would be floating aboutwithout an assignment is problematic. That an ordained man would just besitting in a congregation somewhere would mean he's not exercising theoffice...perhaps you can see this concept is something beyond a congregationalshepherd or leader?....this is a real 'office', a change in a person's status.This is why I'm calling it clericalism.

As Isuggested earlier if he left a congregation and moved elsewhere and was justassembling with a new group...that's a problem. Because then he would need tobecome a 'member' of the local congregation. But he can't, because that wouldmean he's no longer part of the hierarchical group, the 'presbytery'. And to beun-ordained or defrocked would mean you did something wrong, something thatmade you lose your status. If you just abandon it...well, that's abandoning a ‘calling’and it's a problem for someone to take up 'the office' and to lay it downwillingly. They don't like that. Once you’re in, you’re supposed to stay in.

So for a'pastor' to leave one congregation to go to another, he has to be 'called' and'installed'. If he leaves without a 'call' then he's floating loose. Like Isaid there are exceptions, university or seminary professors, administrators,military and nursing home chaplains...I seemed to have missed these offices inmy reading of the Bible.

What's theproblem? Well, I frequently hear Protestants critique High Church groups forhaving Archbishops, acolytes, Archdeacons, lay ministers, crucifers and more. Thecritique is rooted in Scriptural Sufficiency. But in their case they don't havea leg to stand on. Clerk of the Session, Moderator, Chaplain, and Professor...theseare all offices they've made up. Once you get away from the Scripture itbecomes difficult to draw lines. Where does it stop? It doesn't. It can't.

I won't evenget into the whole area of professionalism, and the clerical and institutionalissues with seminaries right now. That's something I'm dealing with elsewhere.

In fact if a'pastor' leaves without a 'call' he's in trouble. He'll have a very hard timegetting another congregation within the faction to 'call' him. He'll probablyend up having to 'resign' and it's something of a disgrace, a form of discipline.

They treatthe 'pastors' in a way very similar to how the Roman Catholics treat theirpriests. We don't need to go to the other extreme and reject all authority, allChurch government, and all offices. The Bible outlines these things and we canadhere to it and avoid both extremes.

There’s alsoa great irony in that Protestants retain the Reformational understanding ofVocation. Luther repudiates Medievalism by suggesting the shoemaker and carpentercan be faithful Christians and pleasing to God. You don’t have to become a monkor nun to please God. You don’t have to become an ascetic to be a goodChristian. Of course we all would agree with that.

But in thepost-Reformation era this was taken further and as Dominionism developedparticularly in Reformed circles the task of the politician, artist, lawyer andso forth became not only valid vocations but were also viewed as ‘holy’callings. This I don’t agree with. Our holy calling is to be Christians. That’sour vocation. And actually I would say the only special ‘holy’ vocation is toserve as a leader in the Church…and yet when I’ve said that I’ve been chargedwith promoting clericalism! I believe the vocation of Elder or Bishop is indeeda special calling with eternally oriented tasks that are of a different naturethan that of the sculptor, jurist, senator, carpenter or factory worker. There’snothing wrong with making a living at those common tasks. Nothing at all. Noram I suggesting ecclesiastical office holders are somehow more holy or moresuperior Christians. No, but in their case their work, their actual task is ofa different Kingdom-nature than someone who is soldering pipes or filling outforms.

I trulybelieve we can derive a simple but fully sufficient Biblical polity. But forthose committed to Denomination and Institution, it's far too simple and lacksvision. And then we're forced to ask a question. Before I asked, what is 'a'Church, meaning what comprises a Biblically valid congregation? Now, we have toask what is 'the' Church? That's a bigger question that helps shape how weapproach these issues. And I would add what is the Kingdom? The questions gotogether and both are beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here in thisseries.

We shouldn'tlet circumstance drive us. Reactionary solutions are just as bad asinnovations. This has been a major force throughout church history and thehistory of theology.

My Credentials and Views on Education- 2

2012-02-27T06:21:00.001-05:00

So as I'mlearning history and theology I'm also a member of the US military. I'm readingmy Bible, I'm learning history, I'm assimilating and developing theology...andI'm increasingly troubled. The America I grew up with...the greatest nation inthe history of the world, the greatest force for freedom and goodness...didn'texist anymore, at least for me. It was tumultuous and disturbing as I starteddown that road.

In the AirForce I was a flight line cargo handler. I loaded and unloaded the big aircraft,the C130's, C141's, C5's and just as I exited the organization, the new C17 wasstarting to show up. I loaded and unloaded bombs, missiles, trucks, jeeps, helicopters,dead bodies in transfer cases, nuclear weapons, pallets of cargo and much else.Southern Air Transport, a front for the CIA regularly came through shuttlingcargo across the European theatre and occasionally an odd unexplainedpassenger.

We also had the glamorous job known by theeuphemism of 'fleet service'...meaningwe hooked a hose up to the underside of the airplane and emptied the toiletsinto a tanker truck. Not glamorous but what was interesting was we got to goaboard all the planes. The cargo planes were a daily affair, but we also wentaboard Senatorial planes which was enlightening to be sure. They are treatedlike royalty and their staff people are unbearable prima donnas. Once we told astaffer we couldn't procure the kitchen product he wanted...to go with thesteak and lobster being loaded on board. His reply was "I don't give af--- what you can or can't do. Just get it and now!" So several of usspent the next couple of hours running around the area trying to put togetherthe list for the visiting royalty.

The Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs visited and I was aboard his plane. Air Force One came in acouple of times...the Secret Service wouldn't let us aboard that one, but wewere underneath it providing our 'services'. Yes of all my credentials, pumpingout the presidential toilet has to be near the top. I don't think the SecretService/Praetorians assigned to us were overly enthused either.

I got to seea whole lot of things...sometimes I was disgusted...in retrospect I'm thankfulfor these experiences. I wouldn't do it again, but it's all part of what shapedme. The Secretary of Defense visited a couple of times and since the passengerterminal was part of our squadron, a bunch of us were sent inside to fill theaudience as it were. You don't want the Secretary of Defense on televisionspeaking to an empty room. I ended up in the front row and friends saw me onCNN that night when they panned out on the crowd. No big deal, but it was veryinteresting to watch in person what one of those press conferences is like. Ithad a surreal quality about it. The impression is not at all what it looks likewhen you watch it on your television.

Many littlethings contributed to the experience. There were a couple of occasions when wesaw firsthand things being reported on CNN that we knew were not true, planemovements, preparations, official policy things like that. More than once Iraised my eyebrows and just filed it away in my memory. Everyone knows, buteveryone doesn't want to see. They keep their heads down. If you bring it up,people just shrug…don’t want to talk about it. When you get in trouble in themilitary it can be quite serious. Most people like the catered life, everythingbeing provided for you, the benefits, the vacation and security. Many want apension. They don't want to think about what they're doing or why. That waspart of my problem. I'm not the type of person they want. I didn't say much butas I went about my day I was constantly thinking about what we were actuallydoing.

To me it wasall perspective. I was in a little tiny squadron detachment at a more or lessbackwater base on the Adriatic Sea, and when I considered what I was seeing andthen if you magnify what's happening across the whole scope of the military andgovernment...it was breathtaking. It was also instructive to watch how acorrupt bureaucracy works. Every facet is trying to protect itself, justify itsexistence and get its budget increased. It ends up a black hole for funds.Based on what I saw in the realms of cargo handling, flight liner operations,both road and aviation mechanics versus what my experiences and observations onthe outside...the military requires 2 or 3 times the number of people versus thecivilian equivalent. As I often said, it wasn't hard to be a shining star inthe military. I had to fight the lazy bug everyone was infected with. EthicallyI was bound to work and consequently I was viewed as some kind of marvel andgiven responsibility beyond my rank. They didn't like me because I wasn'tsigning on to the team propaganda, but the quality of my work kept me out oftrouble. The quality of my work might have got me fired on the outside, but inthe Air Force I was being rewarded.

I won't eventalk about the Reservists who used to rotate in. It was a longstanding joke.These folks usually knew next to nothing and had little interest in work. Mindyou this was in the 1990's, and I would imagine this particular cultural aspectchanged after 11 September. Over the past decade many of the Reservists have moreor less became like the active duty and I would imagine many of the worthlessones were weeded out.

Anyway, Igot out of the Air Force early. Some were sorry to see me go, but I don't thinkthe officers in my unit or the senior enlisted personnel were. Though my workcouldn't be questioned, they knew I was not a team player. I had not signed onto the mission. I clearly lacked esprit de corps and they told me so. I was notinterested in the drinking banquets, going out on the town and all the rest. Iwas not inclined to ‘pal around’ with the same people I could hardly standduring the work day. It's really a wretched culture. At times I tried to besocial and not withdraw so much. But it was almost impossible to be around someof those folks. It's harder than in the civilian world. The military operatesas a caste system and that stays with you all the time. I spent free time withmy Christian friends, but days off did not always correspond and eventuallythey moved on while I had to finish out my term. It was lonely at times, butalso profitable. I cannot begin to communicate the hours I spent reading andstudying, drinking tea and walking the medieval streetscapes.

I had alwaysbeen afraid of committing four years of my life and then waking up six monthsinto the thing, regretting it and being stuck. That's exactly what happened.The Cold War was over and the post Gulf War drawdown was underway. My careerfield was saturated and I was able to get what's called an 'early out' and Itook it. I was honourably discharged, though I would have taken less in orderto extricate myself.

I was quitehappy to take off that uniform and toss it and my medals into the dumpster. I'mashamed to have worn it...but it was all Providence. I thought I had tossedeverything but later I did find a NATO medal certificate in my belongings. Isaved it as a...memento.

Part 3

Ecclesia Part 4: Form Takes Over

2012-02-27T06:19:00.001-05:00

Problems Ahead

We're goingto have problems. Right now this is just a church plant. They haven't grantedit 'formal' congregational status. The leader is a 'licentiate'...anotheroffice they've created out of thin air. Since he's not ordained there's noLord's Supper as of yet.

I have noproblem with ordination. Timothy had the hands of the Presbytery (local notregional) laid on him. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 outline the office of Bishop.They have the authority to teach and the people are to submit to him, butPresbyterianism doing something more with this and the whole membership system.

The Church or a Bureaucracy

Membershipends up being about binding yourself to the authority of the elders...butultimately the authority of the elders at the regional level...the guardiansnot of the congregation, but the faction.

Pastors oras they somewhat disingenuously call them 'Teaching Elders' are not 'members'of the local congregation. They are'members' of the Presbytery...in the sense meaning the regional body.

The localelders or Ruling Elders are 'members' of the local congregation. They are notallowed to serve the Lord's Supper, Baptize, or even raise their hands andperform what is commonly called 'the Benediction'.

Again theauthority rests in the regional body or faction... a wholly extra-Scripturalcreation. Again I'm for ordination and officers, but what they're doing ishierarchical...it's really clericalism. This body of clerics (as opposed tolocal elders) holds the power and they manage the forms (they've created) whichhold the faction together.

Sincethey've gone far beyond what the Scriptures have established, they've initiateda whole universe of offices, committees, and terminologies.

We have the'licentiate' who preaches every Sunday, but since he's not 'ordained' we don'tcall it 'preaching', we call it 'exhorting'.

Since ourgroup isn't a formal congregation and we're under the auspices of amother-Church about an hour away, we always have to have a Ruling Elder andDeacon present from the main body, but not to grant legitimacy. It doesn't yethave that in the eyes of the hierarchy. The symbols, Baptism and the Lord'sSupper are held from all of us.

The Elderand Deacon are there to prepare the congregation for joining the faction, tokeep an eye on the licentiate as well as the prospects, report to the Elders ofthe mother Church and if necessary, intervene to stop someone introducing falseteaching. They're also there to fill the chairs and to help promote the factionto any incoming people who are considering attendance.

The man whois the functional 'pastor' doesn't really have any authority yet. He and hisfamily are 'members' of the mother church, but when he's ordained he will ceaseto be a 'member' of the mother congregation and instead will become a 'member'of the Presbytery or regional body. Yet his family of course will remain in'membership' at the local congregation. They have to be 'under' pastoral care.Presumably when our church-plant is granted 'status' his family will becomemembers over at our congregation. They're not 'members' there yet, even thoughthey've been attending there (by that time) for a year or more.

When the'pastor' is ordained since we're not yet a true church in terms of theirbureaucracy he will be 'installed' as an 'Assistant Pastor' at the Mothercongregation, even though he won't be part of that congregation at all. He'llbe with the church-plant an hour away. But he has to be 'installed' somewhere.He can't be 'installed' at the place he's serving...because it's nottechnically a Church yet.

None of thishas anything to do with the Bible. These are bureaucratic games. This about thefaction imposing a form on the Church in order to hold it together. PersonallyI find myself getting enraged as I listen to them go through it all. To me it'slike they're playing a game of find the marble under the walnut shell. They'requite serious about what they're doing, very concerned with procedural detail.I find it to be a mockery of truth and clarity.

If their form is the means, they'vealso made it the end itself

Membershipis about the faction. It has nothing to do with the real concept of ChurchMembership which is rooted in the signs and symbols typifying the gospel. Thisis something else entirely.

Over theyears we've watched the game playing. We attended one OPC where they goofed andforgot to 'formally join' one man's wife to the Congregation. They were marriedand he was a member at a Church in another state and didn't wish to 'transferhis membership' because of some denominational issues. He was looking to becomea pastor and wanted to keep his 'membership' in his original 'denomination',even while away at school. His wife was a 'member' of another congregation inanother state and obviously when they married she moved to be with him. So herethey're attending a local church for more than a year but they both have'memberships' in other states. They were answerable to these elders in otherchurches in other states, churches they don't attend because they don't livethere. But they're not considered 'members' where they attend because theyhaven't formally 'joined'. I hope you find this all as absurd as I do. In factit's beyond that, it's really a mockery of the Church.

It getsbetter. Now they were moving again, and the elders panicked realizing theyforgot to 'transfer' his wife into membership and the letter they had was for atransfer from her previous congregation in the Mid-west to the present one inthe Southeast. Now if she moved, the new congregation would have to get ANOTHERletter because the paperwork would be wrong. So on the Sunday before they left,they stand up and quickly 'receive' her into 'membership' just so that they can'transfer' her to the new congregation where they were moving to. Of course herhusband is standing there too, even though he apparently had absolutely nothingto do with that local congregation. Even though he'd been there for a year ormore, he never 'joined' because he was still in his other denomination that hewas seeking ordination in.

On anotheroccasion, the elders realized the problems I had with what they were doing anddecided to try and find a way, find something in the Book of Church Order thatwould allow them to 'let me in' without having to jump through all the hoops.So now we're trying to find bureaucratic loopholes in order to get around therules of the bureaucracy they created in the first place?

This kind ofthing makes me want to tear my hair out. I realized long before this I couldnever function as a 'pastor' in this system. I think as a system, in terms offunction, it borders on sacrilege. The Church is reduced to a business stylebureaucracy. They've taken 1 Corinthians 14.40 to realms beyond what Paul couldhave ever dreamed of.

But again,they're trusting in the form to hold it all together. This is what happens as aresult.

Stuck within the circle

"Butyou have to have membership," one OP Teaching Elder/Pastor told me."How could we hold you accountable?"

I replied, "Ifyou saw me on Saturday night walking down the street completely drunk and youstopped and said, 'What are you doing? Drunkenness is a sin.' and I replied'Leave me alone, I don't want to hear it.' And then I showed up the nextmorning, would you serve me the Supper? Regardless of whether or not I was a'member'?

"Ifyou're not a member I don't have any authority over you," he replied.

This isridiculous. The Bible has given him authority. If I'm attending thecongregation he's an elder of...then he has authority, in fact more than that.He has a duty. In this case his man-made form has actually taken his authorityaway. I've met other elders who have admitted they would block me, but it's abig problem for them, because in that scenario I'm not a 'member'.

I would sayif I've been attending there, participating in the life of the congregation andpartaking of the Covenant sign...the Lord's Supper then I'm 'in communion' withthem. That's membership. And that makes you accountable. I realize it's not allneat and bureaucratically tidy for forms and all that, but why should we careabout such things? Why do we let cultural practices and tax issues dictate tous how we structure the Church?

Presbyterianismis trying to foster a level of conformity and the regional focus I think reallystems not from Scripture but from historical contexts where they're trying toenforce Sacral models...Christendom. You need that kind of form-unity if you'retrying to create a "Christian" country. This is what Scottish Presbyterianismwas all about and I don't hesitate to say the Scottish Presbyterians were quitewrong and paid dearly for it.*

The man'swife who was stuck in the 'membership' circus was not a member of the Church inthe Midwest. She didn't live there anymore. She was a member of the localcongregation in South Carolina. The form prevented the elders from seeing it.

I have afriend who was a member of another OPC on the east coast. He went overseas andliving in Europe he never formally 'joined' a group. So his membership justcontinued on at the OPC. They'd contact him via email once or twice a year.This went on for close to ten years. How is it they were 'shepherding' him? Howwas he a part of their congregation? But they wouldn't drop him because hehadn't formally 'joined' anywhere else.

He shares myviews and we often laughed over his 'membership' with a congregation he hadn'tattended for years. He wasn't a 'member' there. That makes no sense, unlessyou're thinking about Church Membership in the way you think about registeringto vote or getting a Social Security Card. But for them they've rested one'sChristian status in this man-made form...this un-Biblical construction ofChurch Membership which actually is harmful to the true form of Biblical ChurchMembership. So they can't just take you off the rolls so to speak. That wouldmean you've dropped out of the Church, the Universal Church altogether. Again asign of their sectarianism.

Theyrecognize 'membership' from other denominations. If I'm a 'member' at a Baptistchurch I can take the Supper at a PCA. But if I'm not a 'member' anywhere thenI'm barred from participation. This is promoting schism and I think they're insin for it. I know I'm being harsh here and I ask for your forbearance. As youcan tell I've been through a lot. I've met many good men in these circles and Idon't hate them or mean to malign their motives or their persons. But thisissue in particular brings out an equal fervour on their part. And it'sunpleasant to be on the receiving end. It's been good though. It has forced meagain and again to return to this issue and work through it. And in the end Ihave to say I think though they are sincere, they are profoundly wrong in howthey're thinking about the Church and these issues bring out the worst thesemen have to offer.

An over-correction?

Certainly welive in age of loose commitments and individualism which refuses to submit toauthority. That has to be addressed. So for example, you get a man that visitsyour congregation a couple of times, doesn't show up for three months, and thenshows up again a couple of times, and then leaves again. What do you do aboutpeople like that?

The dilemmais due to paperwork and classification. There's no dilemma. Talk to him. Doyour job. If he's just visiting on occasion because he's staying withrelatives...fine, talk to him, and find out what he's about. Is he part of aChurch somewhere? What does he believe?

If he'slocal and just has a kind of loose attitude about Church, then meet with him,explain what you believe about the Church and what the Bible says aboutattendance and Church life. If he rejects this, be gentle, give him some timeto consider, pursue him and in the end if he rejects it all...but then shows upthree months later, he needs to be pulled aside and told....yes, he's in sin.He's rejecting what the Bible says and therefore since he refuses to repent ofit...no, he cannot take the Supper. His unresponsiveness to Word-basedShepherding has led the Church to question whether or not he's really a part ofit.

These thingsdon't have to be done in a hurry and they can be done with some gentleness,compassion and understanding. People need time to work through things. He needsto understand he's welcome and wanted but on the Bible's terms not his.Factionalism just seeks to create forms like 'membership' in order to formalizethese relationships and plug them into a bureaucratic procedure.

I thoughtElders were supposed to be wise men that know the Scripture and can sit downand figure out what to do in each individual case. Instead they flip to sectionA, part iii and start reading something to you out of the Book of ChurchOrder....which in this case is functioning as Canonical Law. Again if it'sbinding and authoritative, they're making it equal to Scripture.

Summing up thus far

I will notbe brought under such an alien authority. I will not stand up in front of thecongregation and take vows which I'm essentially already bound to in Baptismand which I already reiterate when I take the Lord's Supper. The Membershiprites are superfluous and not in accord with Scripture. If the Church has theauthority to create rites and ecclesiastical structures, then they've just losttheir reason to exist. Luther's argument against the authority of the RomanCatholic Church fails. And for that matter if the Church has this authority, Iwould rather go with something more historic, far older, and far more pleasingto my flesh. I certainly wouldn't waste my time with Presbyterians. If we caninnovate then I would look elsewhere.

But Ibelieve in Sola Scriptura and so I'm limited in my choices. These folks professit, but their entire ecclesiology rejects it.

So we canassemble with them for years, but they won't regard us as 'members' because wewon't take their factional vows.

This systemsupplants the forms God has given. It takes away from the meaning and purposeof Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They seek to impose vows which are notrequired. It reminds me of the popular 'purity pledges' the youth will make atcamps and at Christian Schools. They try to get them to take chastity vows. Whydo they need to do that? If they're Christians, if they've been baptized andidentify with Christ, then they're ALREADY under the authority of Scripture.They're already bound not to fornicate. Setting up this secondary vow orcommitment undermines Baptism. You don't need to make up some new thing...pointthem to the fact that in Baptism they are covenantally bound to Christ and theywill answer for their behaviour if they deny him. They will be chastised orrisk falling under a greater condemnation in professing to be in Christ and yetbeing unregenerate and taking his name in vain.

We're toldto work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, to make our calling andelection sure. The Scriptures are more than adequate in dealing with modernteen issues. Much of what is called Youth Ministry seems to be rooted in thepremise that the Scriptures don't adequately meet the needs of our youngpeople. So we have to come up with new and relevant ways to reach, guide, andprotect them.

When peoplecreate these forms for the Christian life, Church government, and worship, theyare declaring the Scriptures are insufficient and lacking. We (man) have tofill in the gap. The Reformation tried to address some of these issues but itfell far short in properly dealing with them. And I'm afraid many descendantsof the Reformation have strayed.

*See, 'TheChristian and the State in Revolutionary Times: The French Revolution andAfter' and 'Puritan Perplexities- Some Lessons From 1640-1662' both by DMLloyd-Jones are very helpful in working through some of these questions. Bothof these lectures are found in 'The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors'published by The Banner of Truth Trust 1987.

Part 5

Ecclesia Part 3: The Need For Church, and my personal frustrations with the state of the Church and Presbyterians in particular

2012-02-26T21:38:00.000-05:00

What is a Church?

We'resurrounded by buildings with steeples that claim to be Churches or to housethem. It always astonishes me how the possession of a building with a sign outfront grants legitimacy to a Church. For many this is the mark of the Church.For many the building is the Church.

The questionmust be wrestled with...what is a Church? Just because a bunch of people gettogether and call themselves a Church does not make it so. I've talked aboutthis before and will do so again. But for now, I'll simply say a group thatdoes not faithfully preach and adhere to the Bible with some understanding ofwhat the Bible is cannot be called a Church.

That'spretty broad and for years I've wrestled with the question...maybe a nearbygroup is indeed a Church but they hold to many doctrines I find anti-Scripturaland therefore odious. Practically speaking because they belong to a factionwhich elevates these doctrines, or because their meeting-time (worship service)is so corrupted I find it hard to attend there.

But what ifthere's no other place to go? Some would argue we're duty bound to attend aslong as it is indeed a 'church'. If you don't like it you may have to travel toget to something more palatable. But one way or another you need to be inChurch every Sunday.

Normative versus Real life

I've come tothe point where basically I would say a local congregation may in some sense bea 'Church' but because of their errors I cannot be a part of them. Or I mightsay, it's not a Church, but there are many Christians present within the group.

There's aproblem with the idea that there are Christians 'outside' the Church, orChristians participating in a body that isn't a Church. Because again thenormative model for the New Testament is that Christians are part of a body,assembling there and participating in its life and symbols. If they're notpresent, or present someplace that is not faithfully engaged in the Gospelpreached and symbols that come with it...then what's their status?

Circumstantial non-compliance

But justlike in Old Testament times, there are periods of exception where it's just notpossible to fully comply. There were times when the faithful Old Testamentsaint could not attend the local synagogue or go up to the Temple. They had toabsent themselves from the forms God provided. Heresy and idolatry, orsometimes geopolitics kept them away.

Rejecting Means: A reductionisticunderstanding of the Church

That'sdifferent from saying...I'm part of the Universal Church and that's all thatmatters. I don't need to go to Church. It's nice but I don't need to go. Idon't agree with this view at all. Local congregating is expected. Ongoingparticipation in the fellowship and symbols provided at the local level ispresupposed. Sometimes you can't do it, but it should grieve you.

Remnant and the Visible/Invisibledistinction

For myself,I believe we live in a time of apostasy. In fact I believe most of Churchhistory has been about a Remnant. I think it's a key Scriptural theme many havemissed. I don't subscribe to the idea that we should look for a small faithfulgroup functioning within a larger nominal or moderate or sometimes apostatebody, an ecclesiola in ecclesia. No Ithink it's wrong to think in those terms whether they're applied to adenomination or to a culture.

Thisargument presupposes the concepts of Denomination and/or Christendom...bothfallacious constructs. These are abuses of the Biblical doctrine of the VisibleChurch and consequently and sadly many in reaction have jettisoned the wholeconcept of the Visible/Invisible distinction which is explicitly Biblical.Romans 9.6 is a good place to start.

They'veallowed the error to lead them into a doctrinal pendulum swing and they'vemissed out on a large part of what the Bible says about the functioning of theChurch before the end of this age.

My frustration with ReformedPresbyterianism

Idesperately want to be part of a local congregation. Many of the groups thatonce held to more Scriptural notions have apostatized over the last century orso. Small groups still meet in buildings but the Gospel is lost and talkingwith the people it's often sadly clear there probably aren't any Christianseven there.

I'm not a Presbyterianin any way. Some might label what I hold to as a sort of IndependentPresbyterianism...a local congregation ruled by elders, but this misses pointof what is the essence of Presbyterianism...it rests on their creation of amid-level form or denomination that bridges the supposed divide between thelocal congregation and the universal church.

Again localCongregations should meet together and maintain contact and fellowship. Thecongregation in Arlington could meet with the groups from Bethesda andAlexandria. They could discuss a doctrinal issue, a troublesome man whocirculates among them, and many similar things. They could even produce a jointletter, but this meeting has no authority. The men from Alexandria cannotdictate to Arlington what to do even if it's done in the name of the temporaryregional body. Only the Apostles had that authority and the Scriptures do notprovide any model or form beyond the congregation for the post-Apostolic age.If the authority rests in the regional body then what we have is a hierarchy, aform of clericalism.

This is whythe famous Independent John Milton wrote that Presbyterianism is nothing more'priest writ large'. It's really just Episcopacy with a plural hierarchy ratherthan one comprised of individuals. It's just a recasting of Episcopalianism,instead of priest, we use the longer word....presbyter.

The problemis Presbyterianism claims to be Scriptural. This is why in some ways I am morehostile to their claims than that of the Episcopalian or Anglican.

Since wehave a problem finding sound churches, and since in the past I've identifiedwith the larger body of Reformed thought, we've attended Presbyterian Churches.In the past I've been a 'member' both in the OPC and PCA, and even brieflyattended a seminary considering entering their faction. After extricatingmyself from these groups I all but swore I would never have anything to do withthem again.

But we'vefound ourselves once again in a situation where we have nowhere to go toChurch. For years we drove over 90mins. to a PCA. Gas prices, over 200,000miles on our vehicle and a growing apprehension and dissatisfaction with theteaching caused us to finally give up on that.

Afterknocking about for a few years trying various but dubious options, we found outabout a closer PCA church plant. I don't like bouncing between congregations,but we're not doing it because we're church shopping or looking for betterprogrammes for our kids. We're trying to find something we can sit through. Ifafter four weeks I'm dreading Sunday morning, then something is wrong. Usuallyin most Churches we're gritting our teeth through the carnival they callworship waiting for the sermon and hoping it will be something substantive.More often than not we're disappointed. When our children were young or when Iwas single I could put up with much more. I would just read my Bible during the'entertainment' portions of the meeting and try and ignore much of what washappening.

But now Ifind I'm having to spend an hour de-briefing my kids after each meeting. Inaddition, having almost nothing to talk about with the people afterward also isa disappointment. We're not Republicans (or Democrats), we're not into sports,and I'm not interested in talking about my work, insurance (or lack thereof) orretirement plan (or lack thereof). The one thing I want to talk about is thingsrelated to the Kingdom of God. Only in Reformed congregations have I been ableto find others who are also keen to engage along these lines.

So why arewe there? To fellowship? There isn't really any to speak of. I also have to becareful. Though I hope to influence others in a good way, by gently bringing upthings, or gently and humbly disagreeing...the reality is, I don't haveauthority there and I can't come in with the object of taking over. If I'm indirect contradiction with the doctrine the leadership holds to, then I probablyought not to be there. I'm talking about Dispensationalism, the doctrine ofSalvation, the Sovereignty of God, America, Politics, and all those issues. Ican bring things up and carefully discuss them, but I have no right to come inand undermine other leaders. If I'm speaking the truth, then fine, speak it,but that's from without the congregation. Maybe I hope people there will leaveand go elsewhere...that's a legitimate desire. But I shouldn't try to stir thepot within.

So if we'renot fellowshipping, we're not worshipping, we're not being fed fromScripture....why are we there? We end up asking that and eventually in somecases we leave.

After beingfrustrated for awhile we heard about this local PCA start up. Not the PCAagain! But what are we to do? Stay home? We've tried Bible studies in the pastand people are very interested but most are unwilling to leave their localbodies. They're involved there in the programmes and music and so forth.Meeting in a living room, fire hall, or hotel seems depressing andun-churchlike to them. I pray as things get worse more people will awaken tosome of these issues and begin to feel comfortable rejecting theseinstitutional and cultural forms which have been imposed on the Church. Weshould feel equally comfortable meeting in a barn or the woods and frankly theChurch often has throughout the ages. The New Testament Church doesn't need (orwant) buildings, sound systems, crosses, organs, pianos, pews, stages, pulpits,or any of it. These things are just examples of what I'm often callingJudaizing and Paganizing. Going back to Old Testament forms already fulfilledor borrowing from the culture.

I'm notsaying you can't sit down or that the speaker can't stand at a podium. But thenotions of Church architecture, worship music, and using 'gifts' forperformance are based on serious theological flaws. Much of what happens todayis rooted in entertainment with the people in the pew being the audienceinstead of God Himself. The Puritans with all their flaws understood the Churchwas the body and the building was simply the meeting house. The reason it wasbare inside was not because they were stodgy and anti-culture. Far from it. Itwas rooted in a theology that understood far better than today why we aremeeting and what it is we're doing there. They understood the only props, theonly helps, the only symbols we need are the one's God has given to us...theBible, water, bread, and wine.

We've beenattending the PCA. It's nice to be able to sit through a meeting and not grityour teeth. We don't agree with their denomination or denominationalism. Ihardly see eye to eye with the people on much of anything...but at leastthey're keen to talk and think. It's refreshing.

Part 4

Ecclesia Part 2: Membership

2012-02-26T20:30:00.002-05:00

The Membership Debacle

ManyChurches practice 'membership' wherein they wish for local congregants to bindthemselves to the congregation and agree to adhere to certain doctrinalstatements and to be under the authority of the leadership. In many Churches alittle ceremony or ritual has also been created to go along with this process.

Whether itis admitted or not, everyone and every congregation adheres to some sort ofcreed. We all believe something and even in loosely affiliated groups there areboundaries. In creedless bodies, the problem is, the boundaries are often notwell thought out, and many individuals have given little thought to what theybelieve.

Anti-creed chaos

I've sharedthe story before but once I walked into a local 'church' and the service hadjust ended. A woman was up front singing 'Going to the Rapture and I'm going toget married' to the tune of 'Going to the Chapel'. It was blasting over thesound system and I could see from the speakers and the instruments up front itwas probably a pretty vivacious (if you want to call it that) meeting. Jesuswallpaper (that was a new one for me) covered the room. I asked the sound-manfor a copy of their doctrinal statement and smirking he handed me his Bible.They believed (thankfully the folded) that they followed 'just the Bible', ofcourse from my standpoint what they were doing had almost nothing to do withthe Bible. They had a definite creed and I'm sure they went looking for itwhenever they read the Scriptures.

That said,there's also a real danger in constructing and binding people to verytheologically complicated and developed creeds. They can become divisive.Instead of guiding, they can function like restraints or chains that actuallyprevent any kind of corrective.

Requirements of 'Membership'

DutchReformed Churches require all their congregants to adhere to the Three Forms ofUnity: the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession.I contend most congregants when signing their name to these documents do notunderstand what they're doing. Besides even if I can agree with 85% of whatthey say, should I be excluded from fellowship because I won't sign on to anobscure theological point?

Presbyteriansrightly decry this as being too demanding and that we need to be more inclusivein terms of whom we allow into the Church.

So theydon't require Confessional subscription for the average member or layperson,just an understanding of the Gospel. But the officers are required to subscribeto the Westminster Confession and of course they will use it to govern theChurch...the people who are have signed on and taken vows to be judged by astandard they did not agree to be judged by....or else wouldn't they subscribeto it as well?

The Extra-Scriptural Standards bywhich you are held to account

Little doesthe congregant realize that though they're not required to sign the WestminsterConfession, they will indeed by judged by it and held to account by it...orrather how the local body of elders and regional Presbytery interpret it.That's a wholly different matter and beyond the scope of this discussion.

In additionthe Presbyterian Church has another book called the Book of Church Order. Thisoutlines all their procedures for dealing with various issues, wrestling withquestions, committees and so forth. This book functions very much as aPresbyterian equivalent to Canon Law, because it is treated in this way. It isbinding on both the congregation and the consciences of these Elders. Theychafe when I call it this, but it functions exactly like Roman Catholic CanonLaw. It's binding and authoritative...and therefore functionally canonical.They grow very frustrated when they appeal to this book and I refuse to submitto it. Personally I would destroy every copy I could get my hands on.

While I findit to be somewhat duplicitous and deceptive to bring people in without themfully understanding what authority structure they will be under, forPresbyterians it's not a problem. For them again the real structure of theChurch, its essence and well-being lies at the level of the Regional Presbyterywhich is comprised of ordained men. They are the guardians and caretakers ofthe Church. While certainly I believe God has appointed officers to guard theflock, He did not appoint a regional body of clerics to function as the gluewhich binds many congregations together. This smacks of Apostolic Successionand I've heard some Presbyterians admit this but without shame.

The power rests in the regional'Presbytery'

You see thelocal congregant doesn't matter so much because they have no authority. Theauthority rests in the body of elders...not the local body...they have toanswer to the regional grouping. The local body's authority is granted by theregional and answers to it. Robert's rules of order, keeping minutes and therest help in this regard. Elders who are trying to avoid trouble on thepresbyterial or regional level will at times engage in somewhat shadybehaviour. In some cases if only one elder is present, no minutes or notes aretaken. This elder can say things, even outrageous things to people and doesn'thave to report it....plausible denial. But if he visits with another elder, areport has to be made. I realize this is a pretty serious thing tosay...suggesting some of these men operate in a less than up-front and honestfashion. Am I suggesting some of these men abuse their power and manipulate therules in order to wield it? Absolutely. I want to be clear. That's exactly whatI'm saying.

Sufficiency- The honest and not sohonest

Now, if wewanted to say the Bible doesn't provide for us enough information to form aChurch government that would be one thing. Episcopalians argue along theselines. The Bible gives us a rough outline and it's up to us to develop the particulars.We can take culture and geography into account, and history has given us theEpiscopal and hierarchical form of Church government. They're not trying toargue it's Scriptural. All they're saying is...it's historical and it works.When you say, where can I find in the Bible that it says we're to createArchbishops? They'll say...'it's not in the Bible.' At least they're candid. Ican respect the position even though I don't agree with it.

Presbyterianismhas a much bigger problem. They claim to adhere to Sola Scriptura and theyclaim the Scripture is Sufficient for all things in terms of the Church and theChristian Life. How then can they justify what they've done? It's as if theScripture is a hook to hang your hat on, but instead of hanging a mere hat,they've suspended a Volkswagen. Its connection to the text of the New Testamentis comprised of mere threads. They've constructed a colossus on top of a rathersimple foundation. They believe the Scriptures provide the rough outline andthey're merely filling in the gaps via logical induction and pragmaticrequirement.

Biblical polity far more simple

I believethe New Testament is sufficient for the construction of a Church polity orgovernment. The Biblical model is real simple. Baptism brings us into theUniversal Church...and we assemble locally. The Lord's Supper is akin to theCovenant renewal meals of the Old Testament. It binds us to both our God and toeach other. It shows the sign of our continuing, abiding faith. It shows notjust that we've become Christians but that we continue to be. Our faith isalive. I believe God does use forms and that these forms or symbols are themeans by which we know in time and space who is part of the body. They arelimited of course, but in terms of the normal or normative operation of theChurch, they are essential.

I believethe New Testament presupposes we will be part of a local congregation. Itpresupposes we will assemble with a congregation and when we participate in itslife we come under its authority. The Elders need to do their job and whenpeople visit, they need to talk with them and get to know them. They need toexplain what the congregation believes. A broad creedal statement might behelpful. Part of this would be an explanation regarding what I just said above.

This idea ofjust coming and going, popping in every once in awhile and so forth is notreally compatible with fellowship, teaching and authority. This doesn't mean wehave to adopt some kind of rigid system of attendance. If people aren'tattending regularly, then it's not a matter of rule breaking, it's a matter ofsomething being wrong. The elders need to address this, not as Lords, but asShepherds.

Church discipline does not requirebureaucratic forms

When someoneis engaged in sin and they refuse to repent then we're instructed by Matthew 18and 1 Corinthians 5 to put them out of the congregation. Here the Presbyterianargues, they'll just go down the street to the next congregation. That's a realpossibility. But Presbyterians seem to miss the fact that though they'veerected this massive form structure, this denominational apparatus, the samething still happens. So then they have to create new forms to determine whichother mid-level bodies or denominations they will 'join' with and recognize. Sothen they create more extra-scriptural bureaucracy and form to govern theextra-scriptural form they've created.

They'reunwilling to say their denomination and the others they've joined with infraternal relations are the only 'true church' but they might as well. It'svery strange in their zeal to protect the church and erect forms that willguard against schism, they're actually promoting it.

Schism and Communion

When someonelike me attends the local congregation, because I'm not a 'member' of thePresbyterian Church I and my family are barred from Communion. Sometimesthey'll say if you're a 'member' of a Church that preaches the Gospel, then youmay partake. Well, if someone is part of a church that doesn't...will theyknow? The PCUSA doesn't preach the Gospel but would a PCUSA member attending aPCA know that?

Isbureaucratic membership more important than an understanding of the Gospel? Itseems so.

Communion isthe sign and symbol of the Church's unity. It's Covenantal in nature. Excludingsomeone from this sign is tantamount to saying...you're not a Christian, wereject you.

So when I'mbarred from participation, but not under some form of discipline, then they areguilty of schism and promoting disharmony in the Universal Body. I would saythey fall under the condemnation of the Apostle when in 1 Corinthians 3 herejects the creation of factional parties. They would say these werepersonality cults not factions being created to maintain orthodoxy. I'm all forprotecting the Bible, but you don't have the right to erect structures whichprevent other Christians from partaking in the life of the Church....UNLESSthey agree to a whole body of ideas completely foreign to Scripture. Pauldoesn't provide an occasion to form a proper faction, nor does he elaborate onthe issue. He condemns the idea of forming up into groups and identifying withthe group instead of Christ...and in that sense his critique is very applicableto all proponents of denominationalism.

Lording instead of Shepherding

Trying tobind the consciences of people to extra-Scriptural doctrines and the procedurescreated as a result is not only legalistic and schismatic, it is claiming alevel of authority not granted by Scripture. It is the 'lording it over' theflock Peter warns again. We are to submit to the elders, the Scriptures areclear. If I'm in sin, then when approached I need to submit and repent. Butthis authority is not unlimited. The Scriptures themselves are the guide. AllI'm asking for is Scriptural justification for practice. When it cannot beproduced, I'm not bound to follow, in fact I could argue I'm bound NOT tofollow.

Faction Membership versus BiblicalMembership

The wholeconcept of Membership falls under this. It's superfluous. Baptism visibly providesa symbol demonstrating our Unity with Christ and our membership in the Church.This is the Biblical concept of Church Membership. I'm not denying the concept,but what it is commonly called Church Membership is something else. It's anextra-Scriptural form binding the individual to either a faction or a Creedalstatement.

We'realready bound to pray for the Church, to support the members, to submit to theelders and so forth. These things are not optional. When we're baptized, we arebound. When someone refuses to do this, they need to be confronted. Justbecause the doctrines of Scripture have been abused and millions of people havebeen baptized who shouldn't have been doesn't mean we need to create a newform...a kind of Baptism without water to bring people into the Church.

Aside fromdetracting from the real meaning of Baptism it also creates a host of newproblems.

Localmembership is symbolized by the Lord's Supper. The Church needs to warn andexhort regarding the Supper but it also needs to be careful regarding who itturns away. I would rather have someone partake for a week or two wrongly thento just turn someone away when they visit. Again, the elders need to be activeand do their job. Resting in a form...we have a 'membership' list...is anunacceptable abdication of responsibility and takes away from the profoundongoing meaning of participation in the Lord's Supper.

The system creates more innovationsand problems

Membershipvows are superfluous. Making it into a ceremony, though they often refuse tocall it that, is an innovation in the realm of worship. It's no different thanlighting candles or something else. They can't demonstrate it from Scripture.In frustration they usually say...you should do it in submission to the elders.At this point I ask them, "If the Elders want me to dance down the aislechanting and swinging a pom-pom should I do it?"

I've had afew say 'yes.' But most realize the problem of trying to ask me to do somethingthat's outside of Scripture. What's next? What if they ask me to pray withbeads? Make the sign of the cross? Kiss an icon? What's the difference?

For menclaiming to hold to the Reformed Regulative Principle of Worship which theirown Confession explicitly teaches...they have a dilemma.

Part 3

Ecclesia Part 1: The Presbyterian Problem

2012-02-26T20:23:00.000-05:00

A quick summary of the Presbyterianlandscape

For thoseunfamiliar with American Presbyterianism, the Presbyterian Church split as mostbodies did during the Civil War (1861-65) and even after Appomattox, the bodiesremained divided.

TheseChurches both operated under the revised Westminster Confession (1646) whichhad been modified after the American Revolution to remove the notion of anEstablished Church and a magistrate that could call for Church councils tomeet. This was incompatible with the American Experiment, and consequently theychanged the Confession to reflect not only the new reality but a sentiment manyshared. Some Presbyterians continue to reject this modification and want anofficial established Church.

The NorthernChurch fell under the influence of theological liberalism during the latterpart of the 19^th century. Beginning in the 1700's largely in Germanythis movement was heavily engaged in textual criticism and a re-casting of theentire Christian faith. The introduction of Darwin's ideas only helped toaccelerate a large scale deconstruction of the Bible which continues today. Itsdanger was that it retained historical doctrinal terms but redefined them tomean something else. The average person in the pew often didn't realize whatwas happening.

By the dawnof the 20^th century the Northern Church like many other Protestantbodies was compromised of people who questioned Scripture and almost everydoctrine basic to the Bible, while others sitting beside them still wereclinging to forms of historic Christianity.

This was thetime of the Fundamentalist reaction. The Fundamentalists were so named becauseof a series of books put out at the time that tried to identify the doctrineskey to the Christian faith, the non-negotiables as it were. Some Presbyteriansstarted to embrace this thinking as well as the rising tide ofDispensationalism with its modified Pre-millennialism.

In the late1920's, J. Gresham Machen left Princeton's theologically liberal climate andtaking some of the faculty with him he formed Westminster Theological Seminaryin Philadelphia. In 1936 the conservative remnant of the Northern PresbyterianChurch again led by Machen formed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or OPC.

In theSouth, theological conservatism held on for another generation and it wasn'tuntil 1973 that a large group left the old Southern Church, known as the PCUSand formed the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA. There's some debate aboutthe reasons behind the formation of the Northern and Southern remnantdenominations. The OPC was definitely driven by theological concerns and latersplit with the Bible Presbyterians who had largely embraced Fundamentalism andthe Premillennialism and legalism that went with it at the time.

The PCA ithas been argued was formed more out of the backlash to the 1960'scounter-culture, the shift in government and the Supreme Court rulings. TheChurch was divided on where to stand or not to stand. The PCA being rooted morein this social narrative rather than a strict theological construct, ended upbeing more of a big-tent or umbrella movement. It brought many into thedenomination that were not as concerned with maintaining the oldPresbyterianism of previous generations. Some of the issues related to thiscontinue to vex the PCA to this day...how strictly to adhere to the old formsof Presbyterianism.

The mainlineNorthern and Southern Churches continued to drift into apostasy and eventuallyrejoined and formed today's PCUSA....Presbyterian Church in the United Statesof America.

Just don'tconfuse the PCA with the PCUSA. They are quite different. One is adhering to aform of Bible-based historic Christianity, the other has embraced modernism andmore or less rejected the authority of the Bible.

Creating a Middle-Tier

As aCongregationalist I whole-heartedly reject the entire Presbyterian model, butfor various reasons I continue to find myself having to interact with it. Thereare some core reasons and many practical ones. I'm going to address some of thehere and attempt to explain this in a way that won't be too difficult tounderstand.

I believethe Church has a universal aspect...the Church in all nations across the worldand all the individuals within it. And I believe this Church is manifestedlocally in Congregations.

AsChristians we're part of the universal Church which itself can be discussedfrom several angles and in different senses, and like Paul in Acts 13 weassemble locally.

DespitePresbyterian and other denominational arguments, nowhere does the Bible presentto us another level, another organizational tier between the local anduniversal aspects of the Church which is what a denomination is. The oneargument they have is Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem.

It isimportant for local Churches to not live in isolation. Their elders, and yesthere must be a plurality of Elders, not a single Pastor which is novel to theNew Testament...should reach out and meet with other leaders of congregations.Presbyterianism seeks to institutionalize this relationship creating amiddle-tier and consequently they generate a massive host of ecclesiasticalforms to go with it. This is what happens with Denominationalism. You're tryingto bind local Congregations together and create a body between the localassembly and the Universal Church.

Supposedlythis brings about unity but in reality it erects forms which the Scripturesknow nothing of and these forms (like Confessions, Books of Church Order,Committees, Regional Presbyteries and the like) actually prevent localcongregations and Christians from participating in the full life of theUniversal Church. Rather than leave openings to bridge difference and yes thedanger of error, it erects walls. Walls which protect, but which also divide.

Does Acts 15support this? I don't think so. This was a meeting of Apostles over a doctrinalissue. Their declaration claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit...'it seemedgood to the Holy Ghost and us'...

Noecclesiastical body can claim that today and if they do, they're far out ofbounds. The Church does possess authority granted by God but this authority isonly within the bounds of Scripture, it's not Apostolic in nature. The Apostlesunder inspirational guidance could give pronouncements like that. The Churchtoday does not possess that type or quality of authority.

It couldalso be argued James presided over the meeting which if anything would grant amore Episcopal flavour to the assembly.

Looking for Unity with a man-madeform

Again,Churches need to be in contact with each other. Different congregations canmeet and discuss issues affecting their area. They can meet and discuss thestatus of persons which have been excommunicated.

Presbyterianismand other denominations are trying to create bureaucratic structures which holdthe Church together and prevent people from bouncing around betweencongregations and ignoring discipline and accountability.

True Unity is found in the BiblicalForms and the Holy Spirit

I wouldargue the Holy Spirit binds the Church together. Man-made forms do not help inthis regard and frankly men do not have the authority to erect them. And, theydon't work anyway. You can end up with denominations where the leaders arebound to forms (Creeds, forms of discipline) but the congregation itself may belargely ignorant. No one will come out and say it to me, but on more than oneoccasion I've received the impression they like somewhat ignorantpeople...they're more compliant. The essence of spirituality lies more in thedirection of compliance with the elders than learning the doctrine ofScripture, learning to think...and hence learning to question.

Presbyterianismis largely content with this because they believe the essence of the Church,its real core lies with the mid-level body, the denomination itself. It'sreally about the Presbytery as they call it, or the regional body. The variousPresbyteries meet in a General Assembly, usually once a year.

Plurality of elders does not meanplurality of offices

The Bibleuses the word Presbytery in 1 Timothy 4, but there's no reason to believe thiscouncil of elders was anything more than the local church body...a local groupof elders or Bishops as the terms seemed to be used interchangeably in the NewTestament. The Overseer or Bishop the Episcopos is the same as the Elder orPresbuteros. I'm not going to dive into that here, but I think anyone who looksat the issue will find this is the case. Deacons are the other office, buttheir position is one of service, not authority. Many Baptist Churchesmistakenly call the Bishop/Elder the 'pastor' and the Deacons are really whatthe Bible calls 'elders'.

But what youdon't find in Scripture is an office called 'the pastor'.

SomePresbyterians try and get around this by claiming there are two types ofElders...Ruling and Teaching elders. They base this on what I believe to be aquestionable reading of two passages...Romans 12 and 1 Timothy 5.17. TheTeaching Elder they call the Pastor and though in the PCA, they claim theRuling and Teaching Elders essentially hold the same office, their practiceindicates otherwise. The OPC goes ahead and just creates two distinct offices,the Teaching and Ruling Elder.

Part 2

A Strange Encounter Part 10

2012-02-24T18:23:00.000-05:00

From the standpoint of other people across theworld, the American Empire has three main arms. It has a military arm(symbolized by the Pentagon), a political arm (symbolized by the Capitol Mall),and an economic and cultural center (symbolized by the Manhattan).

The people that would fight the Empire are likefleas fighting an elephant. The United States cannot be militarily attacked orinvaded. Any convoy of ships or aircraft will be annihilated long before itarrives on our shores. The only way America can be attacked is through acrippling strike...like a clandestine nuclear submarine attack...or some kindof guerilla attack which serves as a symbol or contains some kind ofpropagandistic value. Only the Soviet Union had the capability for a nuclearattack by submarine. Everyone else has to look to some other kind of battletactic. That means guerilla warfare which when brought to an Empire's domestic shore will be labeled as terrorism.

The Al Qaeda hijackers unleashed a symbolic guerillaattack. It was like the 1968 Tet Offensive...it really didn't accomplish muchbut by stinging the elephant in the eye it got its attention, and moreimportantly the public's attention. As Communism was a vehicle for Vietnamesenationalism and anti-colonialism, an outlet for anger andfrustration....Islamic Terrorism largely recruits from an angry disenfranchisedunderclass coming from societies which are dysfunctional, societies often crushedunder the indirect weight of the American Empire. Are the Americans puttingtheir boots in their faces? Often not directly, but through political andcorporate proxies...yes. And the people in these places realize it.

Since then there have been many others who havejoined the movement and don't fit the profile. But it must be remembered thatthe majority of people picked up in recent years by the FBI are not genuinehomegrown terrorists but stupid people that have been entrapped. Most of themwould have never actually done anything but when goaded on by undercover agentsthey press a button to a dummy bomb, are shackled and paraded on the eveningnews. The Law enforcement community gets a feather in its cap, themilitary-industrial complex justifies its existence and the political powersgain more capital because the public is once again scared. And our so-called'liberal' media accepts and promotes this misleading Establishment narrative.

After 11 September, Americans were frustrated andangry with the lack of outrage in the Islamic world. Many who would notsympathize with the Salafism of Al Qaeda seemed unwilling to absolutely condemnBin Laden. Why? Because it's not really about Salafism...it's anti-Western Imperialism.Though many Muslims wouldn't want to live next door to Bin Laden they couldn'thelp but admire the fact that he alone stood up to the giant, stung theelephant in the eye and humiliated it.

It's logical for these people to think...ah, maybenow the average American who is part of the system will question the wholemodel, the Empire? Maybe they'll realize that their Imperial Machine is killingpeople and destroying cultures all around the world? Maybe they'll stop andreassess what they've been doing and start to back off?

It would be logical but it shows that Bin Laden and hisentire ilk grossly misunderstand the American psyche. Non-self examination and arobust self-righteousness are built into our social DNA. We're right and we'regood, full stop. Even when our public schools are willing at times to paint theAmerican past in a dubious light, they’re still promoting patriotism, themilitary, and the same Establishment narrative.

11 September 2001 provided a platform, a vehicle forthe visionaries of the American Empire. They had their raison d'être. They hadtheir Pearl Harbor for a new generation, the cataclysmic event they wrote aboutin the 1990's which would enable and empower them to initiate this agenda. TheAmerican Empire did not back off in response to the terrorist attacks. In factit aggressively expanded and has used this paradigm-shift to expand into otherrealms. It's trying to ride this wave into the Asian and Africa spheres aswell.

Don't be fooled by the recent calls for militarycuts. They're only looking at cutting back to levels maintained before the IraqWar escalation. Even the 'trigger' cuts which would come about if the budget debacleisn't solved would only take levels back to pre-2001. What Obama is proposingare 'cuts' only in a technical sense. Cuts which only undo the massive increaseunder Bush. The military machine continues to grow, and not fast enough forAmerican Conservatives. The American military establishment is far and away thelargest employer in the entire world.

I'm not sure how brilliant Bin Laden was. If hehoped America would back down he was wrong. If he hoped America would escalateand the escalation would push the Middle East beyond the breaking point...hewas right. However, he may have also inadvertently self-destructed.

The Arab Spring has been fueled by democratic grassroots people-power and at present many are lamenting the ascendancy of variousIslamic parties across the Middle East. This is problematic. America can'tpreach the intrinsic value of democracy but then continue to tell other peoplethey're voting wrong and are thus giving America a right to corrupt theirdemocracy. This will only lead to more extremism and instability.

But secondly Americans really stumble over the word,"Islamic". Islamic doesn't mean Al Qaeda. These are people reactingagainst forced secularization and Westernism being both imposed and culturally overrunningtheir country. American Corporations and pop-culture are ubiquitous across theglobe. We see the ‘values’ angle when it comes to movies and music but we don'ttend to see it when it comes to McDonalds and Starbucks. It's there too. It'sabout a lifestyle, attitudes about money and possessions, and it's also abouttemptation...

To many America is an attractive whore that beckonsto people. People all across the world wrestle with both desire and revulsion.It's like looking at Lady Gaga. She's repulsive as she writhes about on thefloor, but there's a part of you in your flesh that wants to look and watch,even if it's just a sort of repugnant fascination. That's America. Oh, and whenwe tie America in with Christianity as our Presidents often do...to the rest ofthe world Lady Gaga becomes a symbol of Christian culture. Wonderful witness.The problem isn't to eliminate Lady Gaga. She'll go away soon enough on herown. The problem is that we shouldn't be identifying our Imperial culture withChristianity.

Many of the Islamic parties if morphed into AmericanChristian terms would be akin to Focus on the Family. They're trying toemphasize things like family and societal values. They're Islamic but they'renot Salafis. They are Sacralists but they're not like the Crusaders and theInquisition.

The Christian Right is Sacralistic and Dominionistbut there's a difference between James Dobson and Rousas Rushdoony. Dobsondoesn't want to eliminate religious minorities, he just wants them to be secondtier. He wants laws that favour Christianity. Theonomists would close downmosques, deport dissidents, execute heretics and outlaw dissent. That doesn'tmarket well and they frequently lie to others and perhaps themselves when itcomes to these issues. But if you read their writings and think about whatthey're saying, it's pretty clear. They laugh at the suggestion their viewwould necessitate a type of Inquisition to hunt down and expose heretics, but Itake it as axiomatic... power will resort to extremism to maintain itself. Whentheir pseudo-theocracy began to collapse, inquisitorial powers would becomemandatory.

Both camps operate on the wrong side of theSacralist line, and certainly Dobson's type can be hijacked by the othercamp...that's a legitimate concern...but they're not the same.

The Islamic parties in Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey aremore like Dobson. They are trying to steer their countries against Westerncultural influences nor do they want rulers who act as Western proxies. Thisdoes not mean they want to crash jet airplanes into buildings in Americancities.

This is the irony in all this. If Bin Laden hoped togalvanize the Islamic world, he did, but they're largely rejecting his vision.If Bush hoped to promote Wilsonian democracy at the point of a sword, hefailed...but he so destabilized the region a grass roots impulse has indeeddeveloped....largely built on rejecting the Pax Americana Bush hoped to expand.Rather than expand the American archipelago of allies and proxies, he empoweredthem and en masse they're rejecting the American Imperium.

Here's the danger. Will the American Empire leavethese countries alone and let them find stability on their own terms? Will theyallow the Islamic parties to fail and be voted out, or to reach social andpolitical compromise and take a more moderate tact? Or, will the Americansintervene both overtly and clandestinely and further agitate the situation?Will they turn to brutal proxies and bombs to enforce American policy? If so,then a new generation of young angry men will find an outlet in the narrativeand nihilism of Al Qaeda or whatever group is on the stage by then.

Bin Laden and Bush have both failed...and for themoment that's a cause for celebration.

My Credentials and Views on Education- 1

2012-02-23T22:00:00.000-05:00

I frequently receive emails askingfor my credentials. I don't have any formal credentials to speak of. I'mliterally a nobody. So what gives me the right or authority to discuss theseissues? Why should anyone listen to what I'm saying about history, theology,current events and the rest?

I can't really give any goodreasons. All I can do is attempt to explain my path. I've already talked quitea bit about how my ideas have been shaped and have shifted over time in the'Why and How' series. So in this series I will try and focus a bit more oneducation and credentials and how I approach these issues.

I started this blog during the summer of 2010. I hadjust started to write when I was afflicted with a sickness putting me in bedfor the better part of two weeks. Even after that I was able to slowly returnto work but every free moment was spent in bed trying to recoup.

I used the time to start writing and I wrote in abit of a flurry. I haven't really slowed down, in fact I'm just gettingstarted.

I wasn't converted until I was a young adult and yetI felt so much time had been wasted. I'm afraid I was the typical wastrelAmerican teenager, just lost and wretched. I always had a love for learning butI was so easily distracted by things that just didn't matter.

Post conversion I went into hyper-drive and consumedeverything I could get my hands on. Looking back I realize now what washappening with my life. Providence was guiding my steps. Though today Iwouldn't go into the American Air Force and wouldn't recommend for anyone tojoin the American Military...for me at the time... it was the place I wassupposed to be.

I was newly converted, alone and somewhat isolatedand that's exactly what I needed. Returning to my home and being near oldfriends at that point would have probably been a disaster for me. I had a fewmonths alone in Texas and then found myself stationed in northern Italy on asmall airbase near Venice.

I had even tried to be stationed elsewhere atfirst...it was really interesting how it all played out...but I obviously wasmeant to be sent to this particular location. It's all clear now as to why.

Not knowing what to do as far as Church I wanderedinto a local Baptist Church. This was part of mission organization thatspecifically targets American Military people. I was kind of sick about it. Ihad come out of those Churches. I grew up on Hal Lindsey books, Scofield'stheology and had attended a couple of different Christian schools which wereassociated with Baptistic-type Evangelicalism.

Prior to my arrival in Italy I had already embracedCalvinistic soteriology and was daily growing and wrestling with the corollaryissues. I was reading Pink, Francis Schaeffer, Spurgeon and others.

I knew the Baptist Church in Italy was going to beArminian in the Charles Finney tradition, as well as Dispensationalist and so Idecided to keep my head down and not make waves. Well within a very short timeanother young man approached me and wanted to get to know me. Over coffee hespecifically brought up predestination...and I cringed. Well it turned out hetoo was a Calvinist and was proselytizing a bit. He was shocked when I affirmedwhat the Bible teaches on these matters. We became fast friends and in fact itwas through this friend that I later met my wife. She's from the same smalltown he hailed from. There were other Calvinists there and I was quicklybrought into the group.

I benefitted from these friendships in so many ways.One of the men was married and I was greatly blessed watching how he dealt withhis family and his children. I learned things which I later applied to my ownfamily.

There was another man within our larger group thatwas a Dispensationalist. We spent hours going round and round over the issues.I cannot tell you how beneficial these exercises were, because not only did Ihave to come to a better understanding of the Dispensational theology I hadbeen raised on, but I had to work through why I no longer agreed with it.Thankfully this friend later abandoned that error.

With my Calvinist brothers there were many latenights and long discussions. Being young and single I possessed preciouscommodities and I only had a faint notion as to how valuable they were. I hadendless time, the freedom to pick up and go, and certainly more disposableincome.

If I wanted a book, I bought it. If I wanted to takea trip, I went. I was part of the hard travel school. I took trains that leftat night so I could sleep on the train and not have to pay for a place to stay.Arrive at your location, find a place to brush your teeth and you're ready togo for the day. Other times if I hired a car, it also served as my hotel roomfor several days. I slept in hostels, stayed with friends and contacts. I wasnot idle.

Those couple of years marked the commencement of myeducation, or at least the foundation of a new and better phase. I was learningabout theology...reading Calvin's Institutes and commentaries, readingendlessly from Systematic theologies, Church History, the Puritans, Spurgeon,Lloyd-Jones, Packer, Iain Murray, John Murray, the Hodges, Warfield, Sproul,Van Til, and many more.

Early on I had been exposed to Steve Schlisselthrough a relative. Schlissel is a well known Theonomist. I received sermontapes from him, his newsletters and before long I was reading Rushdoony, North,and listening to, as well as reading Greg Bahnsen. I never agreed with them,but since they represented the opposite extreme contra Dispensationalism, Ifound them intriguing and challenging. I spent hours listening to Bahnsen cassettesas I checked my mail and went about my work.

I hiked the Italian Dolomites and spent hoursthinking through these issues and sitting in the woods, on mountainsides, and Icannot even begin to guess the number of hours I spent on trains travellingEurope...always reading.

There were a couple of local coffee shops and theyknew me well. The barracks/dormitories were Sodom and Gomorrah...wicked densand wretched. My roommates were often pretty intolerable. They'd eat my food,steal my belongings, leave piles of dirty clothes on my bed...and endlessnoise, thumping stereos, smashing bottles...it was not a very nice existence. Ispent very little time there. On days off I'd get up early and do laundry andlisten to sermon and lecture tapes. You had to stay with your laundry or itwould be stolen...even your underwear. Evenings I was in the coffee shopsdrinking tea for the most part.

In addition to theology, I was learning history andI cannot tell you how wonderful it is to read history, and then the next weekendget on the train and go see where it took place. It's a nice way to learn. Ispent a lot of time in Rome, and visited nearby Venice more times than I canrecall. As a good Calvin disciple I took a trip to Geneva, wandered Milan andthe lakes, journeyed through the Alps...I particularly fell in love with theSalzburg region of Austria and the adjacent Berchtesgaden area where Hitler'sKehlsteinhaus (aka the Eagle's Nest) was located.

Slovenia was nearby and oft visited. Croatia, andHungary also beckoned...the Iron Curtain had just come down. The British Isleshave always been dear to me and though they weren't as conveniently located Iventured there as well. I had been to England, Wales and Ireland back in highschool. But now I ventured back and spent a good deal of time in Scotland aswell.

At first I was disappointed with my assignment toItaly. I had wanted very much to go to Britain or Germany. But I later had torepent of my attitude. Northern Italy became my favourite place in the world. Ithoroughly enjoyed all my travels but I came to really love knocking about theFriuli and Veneto regions. Wonderful places...the little towns in themountains, always some new discovery to be made. The scenery is as good as itgets...the people were great, the food unbeatable. And best of all a neverending supply of history around every bend.

Part 2

Answering Questions #15- The Kuyperian Roadblock on the Pilgrim Road to Metapolis

2012-02-23T07:30:00.000-05:00

Someone emailed me this link and asked for my response.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001016110209/www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr94/1994.05.SepOct/mr9405.mjg.TwoKingdoms.html

I responded with the following:

(this is an unedited email)

Interesting article. While Ican agree with much he says, the approach he takes is a bit different. I’mafraid I didn’t agree at all with his Cain/Abel contrast in terms of theurban/rural comparison. I know of others who might make much of that argument,but usually Two Kingdom people are not into Christian Agrarianism. I realizethat wasn’t his point, but his way of framing the issue reminded me of it! That’susually found among Dominionist minded folks who have embraced a certainnarrative with regard to Western Civilization and the root of its socialdecline.

He seems to hint at what Imight call the Pilgrim Identity and ties that in with the ‘rural’ narrative.There may be something to that, but it also might be a case of hyper-typology.

Another point I would takeissue with his identifying the City of Man as satanic. I guess I would probablytend to stand with others within the Redemptive-Historical camp in this regardand view the City of Man as the realm of common grace. We believers live withthe unbeliever in the City of Man. Fallen man is constantly trying to turn theCity of Man into a satanic Beast, but this doesn’t mean the City of Man is evilper se. It’s the matrix God has provided for the Church to do its work, it isthe realm of Providential restraint exhibiting his longsuffering but of coursealso increasing the condemnation and judgment for those who reject the Gospelof Truth. The Kline quote was interesting, because in other places heessentially argues what I just stated. The City of Man certainly has an eviltendency but civilization, government, culture, all these things are notinherently or intrinsically evil. We view them as Common or non-Holy.

The Transformationalist sayswe have to make the Common realm into the Holy…we must be involved and permeateevery facet of every sphere.

The Separatist says theCommon Realm is in fact the Evil Realm and we can’t touch it or else we’ll bepolluted.

The Pilgrim (my term) says welive in the Common Realm and we don’t need to retreat or transform. We live assalt and light in the community, contribute what we can with a very limitedexpectation and also understand that often we can’t participate. In terms ofculture, we can take it if we determine it’s good, leave it if it’s bad. We don’thave flee or conquer, we simply tarry, build our houses, raise our children,worship God, and pursue the Gospel imperatives.

I’m not sure Augustine reallyheld to the views many Amillennialists would ascribe to him. I say this anardent Amillennialist. Or perhaps he was just inconsistent. He was what mightbe called a flawed giant. His ideas were so massive, so profound, he was sobeyond his era, that he was great and good but also in terrible error on somepoints. Obviously if the author’s understanding of Augustine is correct, thenthe North African made a terrible mistake and was most inconsistent when hecalled upon the Emperor to bring down the sword and ‘compel’ the Donatists.

I thought his concluding ‘profoundimplications’ were excellent. There’s some real meat there to chew on…but thenhe lost me when he threw in the Neuhaus quote! An adherent of purgatory, papacy and supererogation hardly grasps theprofundity of Kingdom life.

The paragraph following thisthrew up some alarms. As I said I don’t believe in what he calls the ‘evacuationist’tendency, but I also don’t agree with interpretation of ‘rendering’ the Caesarnor the call to citizenship. We are to seek the peace of the city and likeJeremiah said live in it, but Daniel’s service was as a prisoner of war, not awilling servant.

We can participate in societyas individual Christians. But it’s not the mission of the Church to transformthe society. As Christians we also have to be willing to just walk away whenthe society is calling us to do something we cannot do. If we can’t keep thepromise to uphold a law, then we need to say so, not duplicitously affirm theobligation and then work to try and put a Christian spin or promote a Christianagenda on the issue. I’m thinking of things like jury duty. There might betimes when we say I can’t judge this case according to the law. The law iswrong. And if that means we can’t serve on the jury or we’re punished forcontempt….then praise the Lord.

I also disagree with hisinterpretation of the Reformation. As helpful as the Reformation was it’s greatfailure was that it largely re-embraced the entire Constantinian/Christendommodel. It set about to use power, political power to aid the Church in buildingthe Kingdom. This was and is a disaster. Calvin’s Geneva, Knox’s Scotland,Huguenot France, and even the Netherlands under the House of Orange all failedin this regard. That said I’m not so naïve to pretend the questions of theirday were not difficult and often people found themselves in the midst ofdifficulties beyond their control. I heartily acknowledge that. But that doesnot excuse them or place them outside the bounds of critique. It simply meanswe can have some empathy and compassion. However I find many Protestanthistorians tend to accept the magisterial sword working with the Church andhail it as a good thing and the men who frankly erred in doing this were infact heroes. The Reformation was meant to focus on religion but in reality itwas a very real Cultural Revolution that led to almost two centuries ofincessant war. It happened. I’m thankful for it, but it wasn’t glorious and Idon’t wish to pretend it was something it wasn’t…but it was far more than theauthor is willing to acknowledge.

Overall a good article. Ilargely agreed with him at least in terms of the general thrust. I think he’s abit off…much in the same way I would think about Michael Horton and some of thefolks surrounding him. They still retain a Kuyperian element to their thinking.Their Two Kingdoms theology for the most part overrides it, but as I said inour conversation the other night…that Dutch fellow is always hovering in thebackground. Kuyper’s ghost is almost omnipresent today. I hear ArminianDispensationalist radio preachers talking about sphere sovereignty and ‘everyinch’ belonging to Christ. As Dennison recently said…Transformation is the neworthodoxy. Because of Francis Schaeffer and Chuck Colson, the ideas of AbrahamKuyper have overtaken the Church even though very few know who he was.

The author doesn’t touch onit, but I would have focused on the concept Kline most aptly brings to theforefront…the distinction between the REIGN and REALM of Christ. Christ reignsover all…he is the creator, the universal Lord, the sustainer of all. Theentire universe is in one sense his domain. But on the other hand His REALM isHoly and separate, a meta-realm under the auspices of Spirit-led Redemption.

Kuyperianism and all forms ofDominionism claim the whole universe as being part of the Holy REALM. Theybelieve the mission of the Church is to bring this reality into being. Theyacknowledge the antithesis but believe it is the task of the Church toeliminate it. We all agree the antithesis and the dynamic between the realmswill be eliminated at the Eschaton. I would say only the Parousia of Christwill bring this about. We cannot, nor is it our task. In fact I would gofurther and say with Kline that when the Church sets out to embark upon thattask you don’t end up with Zion, but with pseudo-Zion. You never end up with777, but with 666. Man trying to build the City of God (as it were) ends upwith yet another version of the City of Man. He can dress it up all he likes,but it always ends up not just a failed form, but a perverted form.

In closing here’s one of myfavourite quotes from Kline:

"Latent in the Apocalyptic symbolism is an even moredirect contradiction of dominion theology's postmillennial eschatology. Themelding of church with the state and its coercive power, the arrangement whichtheonomic reconstructionism regards as the kingdom ideal to be attained duringthe millennium, is precisely what is anathematized in the Apocalypse as theharlot-Babylon church, the monstrous perversion of the true church."

Meredith Kline
God Heaven and Har Magedon, pp.186

Thanks for sharing that article. I look forward toyour reply.

A Strange Encounter Part 9

2012-02-22T22:06:00.000-05:00

The Common Citizen An Agent of Empire

Today with technology and globalization the'frontiers' are often on the other side of the world. It's not the gritty faceto face type of confrontation the American pioneer faced when dealing with theindigenous Indians. Though today it looks different, the war for expansion andnew conquests has not abated.

Today, it might be a broker hitting the 'enter' keythat just caused a chain reaction leading to several families in Indonesialosing their jobs and homes. Two months later they're selling their kids, and adaughter is forced into prostitution in order to buy medicine and keep grandmaalive.

Did the broker mean to do it? Hey, he's just tryingto make some extra money to pay his $2500 house payment and save up for his 17year old to go to college. And, he's still paying off the credit card balanceon that holiday cruise he and his wife took last December. Is he wicked? Well,no...and yes.

On the one hand, he's just a guy trying to providefor his family, on the other hand he's part of a system, a cog in a machinethat's spreading death and suffering even as it brings life and riches toothers. It's the same with my pioneer ancestors. They were trying to live andwere made of much sterner stuff than we are today. But on the other hand theywere part of a system, a machine that was enslaving and killing people, asystem of theft, taking lands and resources from other people. The pioneer andthe broker don't believe they're guilty because there's always someone else theycan look to that seems more covetous, more aggressive, more grasping. They knowthey don't mean to hurt others but they have fooled themselves...

They think they're guilt free, innocent, if theyjust look the other way and don't see the consequences of what they're doing.

We are all guilty of this. And 99% of the Americanpublic is guilty of looking the other way. On the one hand it's not theirfault. The educational system and the media have not given them the tools toexamine these questions.

And of course failed parenting has raisedgenerations of spoiled children pursuing youth culture and materialism. Asadults they never question the system, they’ve never been encouraged to look atthe world around them. And if they do, it's largely with an Americo-centricmindset. Christian schools and homeschools are often just as guilty in thisregard.

The real danger of the public school is not a lackof prayer or the teaching of Darwin. The danger is that it is producingconformists, drones that will follow the establishment order, people who will notthink outside the framework society provides. In some ways Christians due totheir commitments to Establishment preservation (or recovery) are often evenmore subject to this than the average public school student.

Conservatism is about rolling the clock back interms of society and preserving the American model. If you reject this mindset and I pray allChristians do…then by definition you are not a Conservative. Does that mean theonly alternative is to be a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual communist? Hardly. Butas a Christian I think it’s essential to reject any kind of restricted modelwhich forces me to see the world through an American lens. The Kingdom ofChrist and America are not the same thing. You won’t find any AmericanChristians who will come out and say the Kingdom is America, but it’s hard tofind Christians that don’t in some sense operate this way in pragmatic terms.And certainly among the more Biblically minded, they are raising their childrento think this way.

Dominionism the present default encouragesChristians to think of the world and all that’s in it as the Holy Kingdom, ifnot now…then in the future. It’s a rejection of Christ’s declaration that HisKingdom is not of this world. And when you talk to most Conservatives they’repretty clear if it were up to them, they’d make the whole world into America.Looking at Christian homeschooling catalogs is a lesson in itself. It’s veryinstructive and makes it pretty clear what’s happening with Christian childrenand how they’re being taught to think about the world and more specifically theUnited States.

The handful of Americans who are encouraged to interactwith the larger world do not come from Christian homes. They become theanti-globalist protestors at G20 meetings and IMF summits. As I often say withregard to protesting groups and counter-cultural movements...they're raisinggood and valid questions, they just don't have the right answers.

Christians on the other hand have no excuse.

American Conservatism and especially ConservativeEvangelicalism have become suspicious of higher education. Just the other day Iwas in a Barnes and Noble and came across the Patriot's Guide to AmericanHistory recommended by Glenn Beck no less! Yes, 'Higher Education' is going tosay...the title of the book is more than a little problematic. It shows thatthe author is not approaching history as an attempt to arrange, analyze andinterpret facts from the past, instead the author is trying to shape the pastin order to fit a narrative. It's not history, it's propaganda.

Conservatives are largely more interested in mythand propaganda than in honest discussion....like what I was just doing withregard to my own family history in the previous chapter. There are more than afew liberals who fall into the same trap, but there's one difference. They'rearguing against the Establishment view, or at least the narrative long providedby the Establishment. While I can hardly agree with all their methods orviewpoints, the rejection of Establishment myth is in itself an important step.

Ward Churchill, the now infamous University ofColorado professor did little to help the fight against Conservativeanti-intellectualism when he said the people in the World Trade Center on 9/11were 'little Eichmann's'. Those who remember this will also recall the outrageand backlash from the public. It wasn't the most prudent thing to say especiallyin the wake of those events.

Others like Chalmers Johnson and even Ron Paul talkabout Blowback. This is a more vague and less offensive way of talking aboutthe same general set of ideas...that our policies as a nation even when we thepublic are largely ignorant of them bring about consequences. Though we feelinnocent going about our business, our system is really at war with people inother parts of the world. They have little means to fight back and when theydo, we profess shock and outrage. The attackers believe they are responding toevil.

Churchill was trying to express the fact that peoplesitting in skyscrapers tapping keyboards can still be guilty of murder andother crimes. They're not SS storm troopers gunning down women and children, orforcing people into gas chambers. They're bureaucrats and planners. They'relooking at numbers and flowcharts. They're moving money from one account toanother. Eichmann wasn't ignorant of what he was doing. As he worked out trainschedules he knew what it was for, but he approached it as a bureaucrat. He wasn'tgetting his hands dirty. He wasn't personally killing anyone. And yet the worldacknowledged that he was guilty of war crimes. He played his part and wasexecuted for it.

Brokers and lawyers in the World Trade Centerweren't deliberately trying to wipe out populations in Latin America, Africa,the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific rim, but they represented one arm of amachine that was deliberately or not...accomplishing that task.

You don't always need Gas Chambers to destroypeople. Sometimes you can just look the other way while people are starving.Sometimes you can make the conditions even worse and make it look innocent.Sometimes you can take the long view and instead of destroying a people overthe course of a few years, you can slowly bleed them and weaken them over thecourse of generations. Often the people committing these crimes don't see thewhole picture, they're just seeing a small part of it.

But they're still guilty in some sense. For exampleif you work at a car factory and you (and others) know there are some problemswith the design, some potential safety hazard, you complain about it andnothing is done. The management insists it’s fine, you’re mistaken. It bothersyou but you say, 'that's not my department,' and you go on building the car.Years later it comes out that dozens of people died because of this. Were youresponsible? Certainly not in the same way deliberately blind executives are orthe engineers who ignored the problem. But you knew about it. You didn'trealize just how serious it was, but you knew. Are you guilt free? What wereyou supposed to do? Confront the management and get fired? Quit your job? Youcould have, but the price is a heavy one. You've got a mortgage, your healthcoverage which includes the medications for your asthmatic daughter is also tiedto the job, and they've got a great pension plan. What's a Christian to do? Howare we supposed to look at the world and the things in this life?

Churchill's comment was inappropriate in that itapplied cognizant guilt to the people in the World Trade Center. I thinkthere's more cognizance than many people realize. I’m reminded of the audiotapes of Enron executives rejoicing over Californian wildfires and what it wasdoing to their electric bills. Did they start the fire? Did they do somethingwrong? People found it offensive they were making money on the suffering ofother people. It happens every day in our society but few see it.

I do think many powerful people do know something ofthe effects of their actions...and they simply do not care. But most of thepeople under them neither realize nor think about what they're doing. They'rein their own little worlds.

The guilt comes in the fact that they never stop andquestion the system they're part of. They never stop and question what thesystem is doing. They go along with it in the same 'banal' fashion Eichmanndid. And like Eichmann they say...I did nothing wrong. I didn't shoot anyone.

Churchill's comment was too simple but not entirelyuntrue either. To get what he's saying would mean Americans would have toreally look at themselves in the mirror...something our culture will not evenentertain.

Summing up and the Christian Response: Part 6 of the series on American Evangelicals, War, and Iran

2012-02-16T07:39:00.000-05:00

Iran is thehub of the Shiite world and represents the foundation, center, and caretakerrole of Greater Persian culture. Shiite Palestinians, Lebanese and many Azerislook to Iran as a cultural and religious leader. On the eastern side, Hazara,Tajiks and to some extent the Ismaili community are also naturally inclined toIran. The Iranians are very bitter that what should be their great regionalrole has been taken from them, or at the very least reduced by numerous powersthroughout history and up to today. The French have at times shared a similarbitterness with regard to their role in Europe, a shadow of what it once was,and their former Empire.

One way forIran to assert this role and gain credibility and standing is to oppose Israel.They can't do this overtly (in terms of a military attack) so they've playedpower politics and used guerrilla proxies, often defined as terrorists in ourmedia narrative. Syria up until recently was a key player in the Iran schemeoften playing a middle-man role in both the Iranian conflict with Israel andwith regard to their own interests in the Kurdish fight against Turkey. Boththe Kurds and now the Iranians have a lost a key player with themarginalization of Syria and the Turkish shift in attitude.

Iran willstrike back when attacked. If they can't hit Israel or America directly they'lldo so abroad. Some might recall the attacks in Argentina a few years ago...aretaliatory gesture. Our media often presents Iranian actions as aggressive andterroristic but often and certainly as of late, their moves are responses torather aggressive attacks they’ve been subjected to. Their responses send aloud message….back off. If you hit us, we will hit back.

The ideathat they’re in the position of aggression, ready to strike out offensivelyagainst the United States is to ignore both the past and present reality. TheUnited States has been in a low-grade war against them for more than ageneration. Iran knows an attack means annihilation. Their moves represent an aggressiveand ever more desperate defensive strategy.

I am stillwaiting for more time to elapse and more facts to emerge before I am convincedof the Iranian plot in Washington DC. At present I'm quite sceptical of it. Ifit’s true then it shows a real desperation on the Iranian side. However, itwould not be the first time the Mossad, the CIA or the two working togetherhave engaged in such false flag operations.

This covertand proxy war will continue. As the Americans and Israelis continue to attackand kill Iranian scientists and diplomats, as they send computer viruses andengage in sabotage...Iran will respond. They have to. They have ideologicalreasons and their survival depends on it.

Do they wanta large conflict? Probably not. As I said it would end their regime. It's a bitof a game of chicken. The United States can defeat Iran, there's no question.But what will the fallout be? That's anyone's guess. It depends on the level ofrestraint to be found in the various players. Will we have leaders likeKhrushchev and Kennedy who remained level headed and refused to listen to theirgenerals and in human terms, effectively saved the world? Or will we have RickSantorum at the helm? Thankfully not. At least, I hope not.

But againdon't underestimate his voice. He's stirring the pot and tying the hands of theObama administration. They don't want to give fodder to the Republicancandidates. I hope Obama is willing to go down as a one administrationpresident instead of taking the nation to war...but if he loses that meansRomney, Gingrich, or Santorum will be in power and that's not very hearteningwhen it comes to the issue of Iran.

I hopethings de-escalate and calm down. Leave Iran alone. Eventually they will havetheir own revolution and the new regime will be more likely to engage theUnited States... as long as they don't feel under threat!

Shiite Islamand Iranian inclinations are generally more tolerant of sects. The regime whichcame to power in 1979 represented a radical shift. I believe the presentpersecution of Christians in Iran is a direct result of Western threat andmeddling...which sorry to say to a Sacralist mind...the West, theAnglo-Americans are perceived as 'Christian'...and thus converts are a threatto the state, a potential fifth column.

Summingup....What's the Christian perspective?

One we needto understand that other countries and peoples have interests too. The UnitedStates does not possess a divine mandate. The rulers of Iran are a wicked andlost group of men. They persecute Christians though again I argue much of thepersecution in the Middle East is due to what I call the Shapur Effect.

This doesnot mean the Church needs another Beast to come fight its battles for it. Wealso need to understand that intervention from an Empire which is perceived(right or wrong) as Christian does not help either the cause of the Church(which should be first in priority to us) or the security of the United States(the Babylon in which we live).

I'm sorry tosay, but American Imperialism will just make it more dangerous for Americans totravel and for expatriates to live in other countries. American militaryoperations and the Imperial worldwide footprint are not making us safe orfree...it's actually making us less free and less safe, but abroad andespecially at home.

We need tounderstand Empires manipulate and use the tools available to them. They want acloak of legitimacy. They prefer to maneuver weaker countries into conflictwith international institutions and diplomatic arrangements. This can make theaggressor which in this case is the United States (since 1979) appear to bepacifistic and to hold moral superiority. For those who don't think the UnitedStates is aggressive, just consider that America has conquered the nations onboth sides of Iran and diplomatically declared war on them long ago. This doesnot mean Iran is innocent or good. That's not really the point.

Iranultimately will fall apart on its own. But it must be understood the initialreplacement will probably not wish to embrace the United States or Israel withopen arms. However, that said, if the situation is dealt with wisely andrestraint is used Iran perhaps more than any other country in the Middle Eastis likely to forge cultural ties and harmony with the United States and Israel.Persians are a vibrant intellectual and wildly artistic people. They lovebeauty and innovation and they are not naturally inclined to the religiousconservatism that has been forced on them for the past thirty years.

AsChristians we can look at this whole situation, in fact we need to look at itfrom a non-American bias and perspective. It's the only way to wade through it.I don't see good vs. evil here....I see two evil scheming regimes, both playinglarger games, and one in a situation where its survival is at stake. Bothregimes care very little for the loss of life or suffering.

That said,the response and agenda coming out of the American Christian community perhapsmost aptly represented by someone like Rick Santorum is completely contrary tothe Kingdom and Pilgrim ethics taught in Scripture. It is rooted in heresy andrepresents the goals and aspirations, the power lust exhibited by the falsechurch wedding itself to state power.

I have beenfrankly horrified and filled with revulsion listening to Gingrich and Santorumespecially in the recent debates. The satanic arrogance these men exhibittalking about regime change and militarism more than once left me almostgasping.

This has tomatter to us because I keep running into Christians who like Santorum and whathe's saying, who are afraid of Iran...and yet don't seem to understand what'shappening or why?

Many haveembraced a theology which won't allow them to understand it. This is true bothin conservative Reformed circles and definitely true in larger Evangelicalcircles where Kuyperianism has made inroads and when wedded to a Dispensationalunderstanding of the Middle East...there's no talking to them. The brick wallis almost impenetrable.

What shouldwe want? Actually something along the lines of a Realpolitik when it comes toresolving these issues. I’m not talking about Kissinger’s Imperial Realpolitik,but the notion of non-ideological, pragmatic, take the world as it isdiplomacy.

That's whatallowed Begin and Sadat to sit down at the table. It wasn't about ideology,good vs. evil, it was simply issues of security and interests. They weren'ttrying to convert each other to the rightness of their cause. They sat down ina state of mutual respect and worked it out.

ContemporaryChristian thought is adamantly opposed to this approach. They want tounderstand modern geo-politics as an ideological battle and when cast that wayyou can't sit down and solve things. Your opponent is evil, no compromise ispossible. The theological error is assuming that one side (always ours) issomehow good and pure.

These arethe same folks who were upset with Nixon for going to China. Mao was drippingwith the blood of the Cultural Revolution. Nixon was responding to theSino-Soviet split and striking a diplomatic blow at the Soviet Union. He knewthat millions had died because of Mao's policies. He looked at it practically.The United States wasn't going to invade China in the 1960's to stop it. That’sthe reality. Perhaps his actions in the 1970's, going to China… could improvethe world situation? That's what he hoped for.

I'm notpraising Nixon and to be fair I don't think his going to China meant he wasindifferent to the suffering of those people. That's the wrong way of lookingat the issue. I don't think he personally cared in the least, but continuedantagonism to China wasn't going to bring them back, nor stop future domesticChinese conflicts.

Mao's deathin 1976 led to the power struggle and the eventual rise of Deng Xiaoping in1978. He's the real father of modern China, a rejection of Maoist ideology. Thepictures of Mao are about the narrative, the modern Chinese myth, not reality.But would Deng have been so open to the Capitalist shift in the 1980's and tradewith the United States if Nixon hadn't gone to China in 1972? Who can say?

Viewing theWest or Christendom as 'good' and the rest of the world as evil is a mistakeand not Biblical. The world is broken and this will not change anytime soon. Inthe meantime leaders who are more pragmatic in their approach to geo-politicsand diplomacy, less given over to ideological extremes are probably better forthe peace of the world. They're not going to be fiery Christians. For me thisis not a problem in the least. They're just leaders of Babylon trying to getalong with Assyria, Persia, or some other empire.

We shouldpray for the situation in Iran. I sure don't want to see thousands killed andanother war in the Middle East. But I think we need to pray with greaterearnest for the Church in the United States and the ideology and doctrine itspreads to Christian communities around the world.

Iran may begone tomorrow. The United States may someday drop from the pages of history.But the Church will still be here. I hope the faithful Remnant isn't reduced toa miniscule number resisting the bloodlust and power of a false Church whichwould be a return to the Middle Ages... or that backlash against the falsechurch leads to several generations of suffering on the part of Christians.

In the endGod knows best.

A Strange Encounter Part 8

2012-02-13T07:15:00.001-05:00

InnocentMotives and Unintended Consequences.

For the Church this tendency toward willfulblindness in the name of Patriotism is most dangerous of all. While I argue itisn't good for the nation and its citizens, ultimately the nation doesn't mattermuch does it? They come and go. None are good, not really. And certainly noneare Holy...things that are holy will survive the Eschaton because they belongto the Kingdom of God. There's no nation on earth that can make that claim.

I've written pretty extensively about the BabelImpulse and the danger of bringing the Church into the power game. Tying intheological concepts regarding the Kingdom with culture and power is an attemptto sanctify the Beast, to sanctify the tower of Babel.

Man is trying to make a name for himself, he'strying to build a transcendent Kingdom that has a Divine Mandate, is holy or'Exceptional'...one ruled by Sons of the Gods so to speak. This is as old asthe fall. This is Lamech declaring he's better than everyone else, he issuperior and the justice he demands is based on his superiority. God's threatof retribution and curse isn't good enough for him. He's better than that,better than the other men and nations around him. This is the pride of thedevil, the pride exhibited in the typological-symbolic language of Isaiah 14and Ezekiel 28. The king of Babylon and of Tyre also represented this type ofimpulse. It wasn't unique to the kings of antiquity, it's the story of historyand very much with us today.

Early on the Church fell into this trap. In theearly 4^th century she believed she had won a great victory. True thepersecutions ceased but the victory would result in a defeat worse than any aRoman sword or coliseum could ever inflict. If you can't kill your enemyoutright, infect them with a disease, a virus, and watch your enemy killhimself. The Church wanted to become the Roman Empire or at least to join withit. Within a short time she ceased to be the Holy Bride and instead became afilthy Whore. That’s a theological label for the covenant community given overto idolatry and apostasy. She lost her identity and traded a Holy Kingdom for aBestial one.

Thankfully for both the world around it and thepersecuted Remnant who refused to go along, the Beast and Whore often fighteach other, they are often competitors. Everyone's trying to climb to the topand they keep cutting each other's throats. It's a shame this is done in thename of Christ, but this 'distraction' allows the real Church to quietly workand survive.

This is the impulse that led the Bishops of Rome tograsp for more power and create a Papal Empire. This led the Holy RomanEmperors to oppose them and struggle for power. This guided the Emperors ofConstantinople, and sadly all too often it guided the Reformers and theMagistrates which backed them. Later this impulse drove not only the Conquistadorbut the British and French as they created worldwide empires. It also guidedthe young American nation which broke from one empire to form its own. Ideasand verbiage changed, but it was all window dressing for the same old impulse.

America is historically ironic just as 'Christian' Romewas. People freed themselves from tyranny and empire but within a generationforgot all the lessons and went about creating a new form of the same creaturewhich previously persecuted them. The difference? The Christians in Rome 'won'by suffering and then lost to the Babel Impulse. The 'Christians' in Americatook up arms, won through violence, and never looked back.

Personally I've got a wide array of ancestors. Somemembers of my family were German Reformed who came in the early 1700's toescape the wars of Louis XIV. Some were Anabaptists who showed up around thesame time. They had settled the devastated Rhineland after the Thirty Years Warlooking for a place to live unmolested.

Others were Ulster-Scots who settled along thefrontier from Pennsylvania to Georgia. These families moved west, intermarriedand mingled in places like Southern Illinois, Arkansas, and Ohio.

My great-great-great-great-great grandfather foughtin the Revolutionary War with all of his brothers. His father a veteran of theFrench and Indian War died during the Revolution. Like many others, theystarted in the old cradle of Virginia and slowly migrated south through theCarolinas. My ggggg-grandfather left Georgia around 1810 and moved intoArkansas, which had just been purchased from France a few years before, and thefamily buried themselves in the Ozarks for more than century. The 1860'sbrought my ggg-grandfather out as he rode in the Confederate Cavalry. The GreatDepression led them to abandon that part of the country and head for Californiawhere they settled in the Central Valley.

Other ancestors of mine fled America after theRevolution and went to Canada, only to reappear in Illinois in the 1850's. Theymarried into a line of New England Puritans who previously had lived in theWest Indies and run a sugar plantation. Though his ancestors had grown rich onslave labour, my ggg grandfather (on that side) was part of the Union army. Theheat caused him to fall out during the siege of Vicksburg. His descendants alsowent west.

Another branch of my family abandoned Germany in the1760's...the wars of Frederick and others had worn them out. Lured by promisesof peaceful living and good farmland, they left Germany and settled on theAsiatic side of the Volga, near today's modern Kazakh border, just south ofSaratov. There they dealt with Kirghiz and Cossacks and after being forced tofight in the Russo-Turkish war for the Tsar in the 1870's, they left and cameto America, settling south of Fresno California. This is the one branch of myfamily almost entirely exempt from the American story. Truly they cannot becharged with being part of an imperial impulse. They just wanted to be leftalone, but trouble always pursued them.

All of these people were just plain folks, trying toget by, trying to make a living and provide for their families. But at the sametime, they were part of a growing Empire. As they settled the newly boughtterritories of the Louisiana Purchase it never occurred to them those lands hadbelonged to others, had been stolen and conquered. The Ulster-Scots orScots-Irish (as they're called in America) often settled the frontiers and werenotorious for getting into tangles with the native populations. Every agreementmade with the Indians ended up being broken as the whites insisted on continualexpansion and pushing into the territories which they had just promised to stayout of.

During the Civil War, many in the South decried whatthey viewed as the aggressive imperialism of the North, though many of the samemilitary leaders had just a few years before marched American armies throughMexico...having no problem with subjugating that nation and gobbling up thelands that would later comprise the American southwest.

My ancestors that settled the Tidewater in the 1600'sheld massive armies of slaves. Their descendants that settled the Ozarks weremuch poorer but I have copies of several of their wills and inevitably therewas a slave or two being passed on to the descendants.

My Puritan ancestors who came to Massachusetts fromthe Indies ran sugar plantations and one of my gggg(I can't remember how manygreats off the top of my head) was reputed to be a sea captain. Well it doesn'ttake a whole lot of speculation to figure out that a sea captain with familyties in the Indies and Massachusetts was probably part of the infamous TriangleTrade of sugar, rum, and slaves.

The family married into another Massachusetts familythat had fought in the Pequot War. In fact I'm a descendant of Samuel Stone theminister who served as a ‘chaplain’ in the war and is considered one of thefounders of Hartford Connecticut.

All of these people were good old plain folk, justpioneering Christian people...but they were also part of the Protestant Sacralvision. I'm sure many of them never thought in those terms. They wouldn't haveto. It was the default. White Christians were superior. The New World belongedto them. They had a right to those lands. In many cases the settlers had not'taken' the lands...they were just settling ‘vacated’ lands. Lies or not, thatwas the narrative, and people believed it.

We use similar arguments today. We personally aren'tenslaving peoples in other countries. When we buy the goods produced incountries that live under the shadow of the American sword, goods sometimesproduced by what must be honestly called slave labour, we don't feelresponsible. We personally didn't create the situations. Those in government,in power did these things. We're just trying to live our lives right? Iguarantee you that the average American soldier stationed overseas never evenconsiders why they're there. They never even question the fact that we have aright to be there. They never even entertain the thought that the people wholive there might resent our presence and the manipulations which placed us there.

On the other hand there are a whole lot of innocentpeople that unwittingly are part of a large and often quite evil machine. Theyonly see their tiny part, they can only see one small facet on a jewel whichcontains thousands of surfaces and angles. And for many of them their ignorancealleviates them of any guilt or responsibility.

Were my ancestors bloodthirsty imperialists tryingto conquer the world? No...and yes. Maybe they hadn't thought of it in thoseterms but there were people behind them and above them that were...and willingor no they were part of what was happening.

Today we're taught that previous generations had amore Biblical Worldview. It's simply not true. Everyone was a ‘Christian’ butvery few were really thinking about things in terms of what the Bible said.Everyone pretty much went along with the cultural norms. The same is largelytrue today.

Interestingly with my own family, it's theVolgadeutsche, the Volga Germans who lived in Russia for several generationsthat seemed to have the best perspective. Granted they all came here and becamegood patriotic Americans. It was my great-grandparents who came over in thelate 1800's, and their American born son fought for the Americans in World WarII. I've read a good deal about the Volga Germans and their own history largelykept them from allying themselves too strongly with any group or movement. Allthe German exile groups of the Auswanderung (the exodus after the Thirty YearsWar) and the Ostsiedlung (Eastern Settlement going back to the Middle Ages) allseem to have had this identity. It's quite interesting. They lived as exiles invarious lands outside of the German lands. German communities were spread allover Central and Eastern Europe, my own ancestors I mentioned above being onthe far eastern fringe, almost outside of Europe. Others had surnamesoriginating in Bohemia but ended up in the Rhineland by the late 1600’s…probablyrefugees from the Thirty Years War.

They weren't perfect but I always find their kind ofpilgrim identity to be intriguing. The Volga Germans were rounded up by Stalinduring the German invasion...he feared they would collaborate with the Nazisand he shipped them to Central Asia and Siberia where they still live today. Iwould have many cousins among those people but of course my immediate ancestorshad already been in California for a generation.

Sadly so many of the German exiles, the colonists ofEastern Europe, were all too happy to look to the Nazis as empoweringliberators. Long content to live in their enclaves, when the opportunity tograsp power came to them, they reached for it. Allying with the Third Reichthey could now enslave and dominate their Slavic neighbours and they largelywent along with it.

They paid a terrible price in the end. Beginning in1944, millions of these Germans were forcibly removed from Poland,Czechoslovakia, and other lands. Perhaps a million or more died but after whatthe Nazis had done very few cared or even bothered to report it. It's one ofthe great unreported genocides of history, the Germans outside of Germany afterWorld War II. They bore the wrath of the Nazi victims and the accounts make forunpleasant reading. I’m afraid once again it was a case of empowered victimstreating others to the horrors they had suffered.

These Germans were not the ones who had put Hitlerinto power but sadly when Hitler came to them, they largely signed on. Justlike the Jews, though not free of guilt, their communities were destroyed andanother part of the wondrous mosaic of Central and Eastern Europe was removedas the post-War establishment created for the first time ethnically homogeneousnation states. So much was lost from 1914-1945...it's not just the dead...awhole and very rich part of European cultural history was wiped out.

Pardon the German detour, but what I'm trying to sayis that normal people without realizing it can fall into traps. Because theyequate cultural norms as being compatible with religious ethics they neverquestion the status quo. They're not trying to be wicked and to harm others buttheir actions have consequences. The Ulster-Scot frontiersman felt this acutelyas he fired warning shots at Indian scouts trying to keep them away from his'settlement'.

Reading history one is left with the impression…thereis none good, no not one.

I am suggesting when we are renewed in our minds,when we are Born Again, our way of thinking about the world should bedifferent. We will still live in one or another Babylon, but we of all peopleshouldn’t get caught up in Babylon’s wars and programmes. If we do…we’re alsoguilty…and we must suffer the consequence. We can learn from it, but more oftenthan not, man finds a way to justify his actions and paint himself as the onein the right, the good…and the other side as evil.

There’s a lot of evil in the world, but I don’t findmany who can claim to be pure and good.

more to come....

A few comments on the employer-based health insurance system

2012-02-12T16:00:00.000-05:00

I don’t mean to dive into the whole Health Caredebacle quite yet, but when I look at the political theatre taking place at themoment over the issue of contraception, I am struck by the fact that no onewill entertain the solution.

We can talk about contraception and whether or notit should be used. We can talk about whether as Christians we should use it,and if we don’t, whether it matters that those outside the faith use it. We cantalk about our posture on this issue as Exiles in Babylon. The Christiancommunity has politicized this issue as they have with almost the whole ofChristianity, so even discussing it grants political capital to the other side.Whatever the other side does must be opposed. It’s pretty pathetic and franklyit’s starting to make a significant contribution to the breaking of oursociety.

This whole problem stems from the reality that oursystem relies on the EMPLOYER to provide healthcare. I’m sure employers lovedthis 40 years ago. Employees are less likely to cause trouble when their bossholds the reins as to whether or not they can go to the doctor. They may beregretting it now as the prices and debates have turned ugly. Originallyemployers used it as an incentive, part of the package to ‘sell’ to potentialemployees. Back then you could still afford to go the doctor, so it was viewedas a perk, not toying with someone’s life.

Today, those without coverage due to their job’slack of provision, their unemployment status, or a pre-existing condition live undera shadow. We’re all going to die of course, but there’s something very sickabout a society that spends thousands on their pets while we have millions whocan’t receive even the most basic health care.

If health insurance wasn’t tied to the Employer…inthis case religious organizations taking tax money, but still demandingexemption from societal rules…then this debate would evaporate. I’m afraid ifyou’re going to take tax money, you subject yourself to certain laws.

Removing the Employer system means it either must bereplaced with a state system, or it means prices would need to drop in orderfor healthcare to become affordable to common people in a free market. Eitherway it means breaking the insurance companies, something our corruptlegislators are unwilling to do. Why? The insurance industry, not to mentionthe pharmaceutical industry own them.

There’s another solution, but I’m not sure it wouldwork economically and socially it would be rejected. That is…de-regulate theentire health care industry. Let anyone practice medicine, and let the publicpurchase any drugs they want. You’d have a true free market, but that would beoperating under caveat emptor. There would have to be massive tort reform aswell. I’ve floated this extreme Libertarian view at many (just to playadvocate) and I’ve found very few takers. You can have this type of system or aSocialist system, but even under a hybrid Free Market system…if there’sregulation, then of course the state will be heavily involved. If the state isinvolved, then it seems anti-democratic to cut people off, to deny peopleservices which are considered the social norm for health care. That’s ourpresent system and it’s not just about birth control, it’s about things likegetting a check-up or a cavity filled.

Right now for many they face a reality in which theycan’t get basic health care. Say you get a bad case of poison oak. Say you’vehad it before. You know what it is and know what topical medication you need.But you don’t have insurance. You can’t find a doctor who will see you becauseyou’re uninsured. And when you visit the pharmacy they won’t sell you the drugbecause you don’t have a prescription. The government has regulated the systemand the system won’t grant you access. The companies involved from doctors todrug-makers all want the regulation because they don’t want Fred the plumberpracticing medicine, nor do they want Ed the garbage man to be able to purchasehis diabetes drugs out of someone’s trunk, perhaps brought into the country fromsomewhere else, or even worse (in the minds of many) something manufactured ina basement.

In the end if you’re having a really bad time withyour poison oak, you’re forced to go the Emergency Room and pay an inflatedbill about 5 times what you would have paid to go see a doctor. And then if youcan’t pay the bill, somehow you’re blamed for ruining the American healthcaresystem?

Of course there are a host of larger issues, publicsafety and so forth. And as I’ve suggested this ‘free market’ approach to manyConservative advocates of the Free Market…they recoil in horror at the thoughtof a de-regulated industry. They don’t want people to be able to just go andbuy whatever drugs they want!

And on that note I’ll stop, before this turns intoan 80 page discussion. I only mean to suggest that few are able to identify orare willing to address the real problems, the root causes of these tensions.Since few have the ability to work this out they will be endlessly subject toemotional appeals and crusading politicians who in the end are only leading thecavalry charge for their own wallets.

The Employer based system is inefficient, unjust,and probably should just be called what it is… immoral.

This isn’t the ‘Christian’ view of health care. TheChristian view is that you sell your car to help your neighbour get surgery.And if you want to argue that should be a private function instead of a statefunction…either way I don’t see anyone doing it.

Instead let’s look at the social reality. We’reexiles in Babylon. What do we want for the Babylonian health care system?Something reasonably fair and something that works…nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to practice medicine outside ofBabylonian social norms…that’s fantastic. Really it is. But you can’t take fundsfrom the Babylonian treasury and help support the Babylonian regulatory systemand think you get to be exempt. That’s called favoritism and in our systemtends toward establishment. I just have a feeling these same people wouldn’t bekeen to protect conscience issues of a Hindu hospital or a Buddhist one.

I have little sympathy with Obama but far less withthe medical community…and even less for the religious medical community.

I heard a Church leader declare the other day thatwithout the Church there would be no medical community in this country. A goodthird of the hospitals are operated by religious groups. If that’s true, that’sa badge of shame. The medical industry is corrupt and criminal and puts profitsahead of caring for people or trying to save their lives. To me the statementof this ‘pastor’ makes perfect sense…he represents the sick and polluted worldof American Christianity. One in which money and the love of it is placed abovethe Throne of God. If the love of money is the root of all evil…then Americanculture and the American church are in big trouble.

Islam's Inescapable Trap: Part 5 of the series on American Evangelicals, War, and Iran

2012-02-12T08:51:00.000-05:00

The 19^th and 20^th century provedpretty humiliating for much of the world. The West climbed to the top and has,up to now dominated the planet. The 20^th century in particular hasbeen a time of grief for the Islamic world. They have been brought low and aremost humiliated by their own inter-cultural betrayals...nouveau oil elitesselling out the Islamic world for Western treasure, and dictatorial leadersoften acting as Western ‘strongmen’. Both camps due to Western acquiescence have capitulated to Israel'sexistence and even 'right' to exist. And the fact that these regimes terrorizetheir own people, engage in inter-Islamic war, and all the while using Westernpurchased armaments also adds insult to the injury.

And so there's a complicated web of anti-Westernism workingagainst these Western proxy regimes. Popular movements have brought down a fewof them as of late. And though both liberals and conservatives in the Americanpolitical system have tried to ‘spin’ the narrative, the bottom line is, theserevolts of the ‘Arab Spring’ have brought down American proxies. Gaddafi thoughno longer out in the cold wasn’t quite an ally, and certainly Assad of Syria isno friend. Yet the toppled Tunisian and Egyptian leaders were friends andallies to the United States. Some in our media try and pretend their fall was agood thing for Western interests, but among the American power-elites and strategists,this was a sore blow.

There's a mutual dislike for Israel but also a desire on thepart of some to keep the status quo. There are old ethnic and cultural tensionsbetween Turks, Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and the host of minorities...Alawites,Druze, Assyrians, Copts, and of course the larger divides between the Sunni,Shiites, and the many who prefer forms of Sufism above all.

Though it would do little to further the gospel, sociallyand culturally an Islamic Reformation of sorts is long overdue. In terms ofpragmatics for themselves and for the peace of the world it would be a goodthing if they came up with a new paradigm that blends the secular and sacred,the concerns of nation and society with the claims of the mosque. We may beseeing something akin to a prototype of this coming out of Turkey. The publicand government have moved away from secular Western oriented Kemalism, but haveretained a mindset both modern and progressive and yet also Islamic. Kemalismwas also primarily nationalist. Islamism is of course pan-national and thatfocus will give a greater venue than just a 'Turkey for the Turks' way ofthinking.

And thankfully in no way are they remotely interested inWahhabism or Salafi interpretations of Islam. Turkey's problem is that theirsecularism is breeding internal radicalism and Turkey has not reckoned with itsminorities and it’s still present nationalism is uncomfortable with socialpluralism...not out of religious concerns, like American Evangelicals whooppose social pluralism, but out of historical and nationalist concerns.Acknowledging the eastern 1/3 or so of their country historically belonged toArmenians and Kurds is an argument they refuse to entertain. And there arestill all the tensions with the Greeks over their shared and bloody history.Yet despite these problems, everyone is watching Turkey. They have come to avery interesting time in their history, and the history of their region whichstraddles the Middle Eastern and European worlds.

But will they be left alone? Historically the Americans usedthe Turkish military to stage coups and remove anyone it did not approve of.The present Erdogan government is not favoured by strategic thinkers in theAmerican and NATO establishment. The Bush administration was not happy withTurkey's refusal to use bases during the March 2003 Iraq invasion, nor inTurkey's new posturing in recent years. The Israeli relationship has beenruined and Turkey has even made overtures to their longtime enemy the Assad’sof Syria. Long an American lapdog, Turkey is becoming a serious player, atremendous influential force in the region.

Just in the past couple of years there have been large scalearrests of numerous officials, some quite high ranking within the Turkishmilitary and talk of a coup plot going back to 2003. While the proof has notbeen provided this 'Sledgehammer' plot, one would have to deliberately averttheir eyes to try and suggest this activity was not prompted by Americaninterests. History and common sense demand it.

The majority of the Islamic world is overtly Sacralist, andunder this way of thinking, the political regime also has theologicalresponsibilities and roles. Saddam Hussein and Assad of Syria represent regimeswhich reject this model, but like the ‘Communists’ they try and establish asort of secular religion usually built around a cult of personality. SaudiArabia would represent the most extreme version of Sunni sacralism. Mostcountries have some sort of mix.

Pakistan comes to mind...another country where the majorityof the people are very deliberately Islamic, but few are what would beconsidered extreme. They want Islamic-minded rulers, but not extremists. In the1970's when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government promoted Socialist ideas, theAnglo-American backed army staged a coup against him and Zia ul-Haq wasinstalled. He as an American ally brought sweeping changes to the country promotinga pretty hardline Islamic agenda. The United States was okay with that becauseit kept Pakistan far away from People Power/Communist movements and kept thepeople ratcheted up against India which during the Indira Gandhi years washardly pro-American. And of course after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in1979, the Islamisation of Pakistan could only help the cause of the Afghan mujahideen.

This continues to go back and forth. In 1988 ul-Haq waskilled in a mysterious plane crash. Bhutto's daughter Benazir becomes leader ofthe anti-American pro-modern, pro-Socialist PPP and becomes Prime Minister ofPakistan… and is later ousted. Another military coup puts General Musharrafinto power in the late 1990's. Though the United States publically didn’t wantto support a military coup, they once again found an ally.

And we all watched as Benazir Bhutto was killed in 2007 asshe tried to return to Pakistani politics. While she was hardly innocent orfree of corruption she had to know the army, American interests, and theIslamic elements were against her. And she like her father was killed. Todayher husband Asif Ali Zardari sits in Islamabad, having taken power in a wave ofanti-Musharraf sentiment. He’s cut a deal with the Americans and in the endseems to care far more about money than forwarding the agenda of his party.Realistically the country is on the verge of a meltdown, and he wields verylittle power in an astonishingly complex country...this remnant of BritishIndia, sharing a British drawn border with Afghanistan, a line cutting thePashtun lands in two. The Pashtuns are the soul of the Taliban and they have nolove for either Kabul or Islamabad. Their society I'm sad to say is largely thesource for much of what Western eyes and ears consider to be the harshness andwickedness of the region and the ideology of the Taliban. Thirty years of warhas only made it worse. And ironically the power vacuum created in Afghanistan byAmerican withdrawal may end up providing nothing more than a proxy battlegroundfor arch-enemies Pakistan and India as well as Iranian and Russian via CentralAsian interests. The Chinese have recently been trying to get in on it. Cut onehead of the hydra off...and it's replaced by three more at least.

This is the legacy of Empires, the direct rule of theBritish Raj and the proxy-power of the Americans. The region has always had itsproblems, modern life has brought some improvements as well as creating newproblems…but as bad as it might have been under the Mughals, look at the messWestern domination has brought them. And yet I still hear British Christianstalking of the glory of the Raj, and the British Empire. Shame on them.

Khaled Hosseini’s novels capture the sense of innocence lostin Afghanistan when the king's cousin Daoud Khan overthrew the monarchy in1973. They had no idea the blood of the 20^th century was going to bepoured in a potent concentration on their land in but a few short years. Theystill are passing through the fire. I think of Afghanistan as I try and imagine,try and even grasp what it was like to live in the Rhineland or central Germanyduring the Thirty Years War...the endless torment and suffering. People goingmad and insane with it. It helped to turn subsequent generations intoa-religious apathetic sceptics. So-called 'Religion' had only brought pain anddeath. What will the Afghans do when their land once more knows peace? Willthey become cold hearted or will the tribal codes demanding honour and revengehaunt them for generations? What will their understanding of the state be? Whatis the role of the leader? Will they still want a sacralist ruler? Most likely.After years of the secular, reforming Shah the Iranian people decided in 1979they wanted a Sacral society, one ruled by the Ayatollahs. When the clerics havebeen removed from power, what sort of society will the Iranians want?

In America we're so proud of our democratic legacy. Butreally we dealt with all these questions during an era when our only enemy werethe natives we were conquering. This country has geographic advantages almosteveryone would envy. It's given the United States an unprecedented andunimaginable security. Our history isn't as rosy as many a Conservative wouldpaint it...but, there have been few threats. Other countries have not had theluxury and people (I insist) always desire security more than freedom. Noteveryone has had the elbow room and resource availability our continentafforded either. Until modern times our population was paltry. What I'm sayingis, I don't think the United States should be as proud and pompous of its socialexperiment as it tries to be. If the colonies were somewhere else, the storywould have obviously been quite different. But few I think grasp just howdifferent.

Many countries started to wrestle with these questions acentury ago but were impeded by European empires and dictators which held theirsocieties in a state of stasis. Now that things are changing for many, theyhave to wrestle with issues we frankly take for granted. That hardly meansthey're inferior. In fact Iran's post-Revolutionary model I expect will bequite impressive. The road there might not be easy and it may not please theUnited States if it is still wielding hegemonic power. But from what I've seenof Iranian culture and brilliance, and considering geography and history, theywill someday be a leader on the world stage. The Saudis don't want to see thathappen. And since Israel is the enemy of their enemy, yes...even the Sacralrulers of Arabia, the keepers of Mecca and Medina are more than willing to workwith Israel to keep Iran becoming what Iran is probably destined to be.

The Iranians are Muslim but they're not Sunnis. And thePersians had several world empires and a vast civilization centuries before theArabs emerged from the sands of the desert and moved beyond pitching tents andriding camels. The Arabs also constructed an amazing civilization but thePersian-Arab rivalry is old, bitter and very much alive.

More to come…

The Israel Factor: Part 4 of the series on American Evangelicals, war, and Iran

2012-02-11T00:40:00.001-05:00

So is Iran the threat they're being made out to be? DoesAhmadinejad want to see a mushroom cloud over Tel-Aviv? Santorum would sayabsolutely, but most geo-political analysts would say it's quite unlikely.

That's not to say the situation isn't dangerous. Ahmadinejadand the Ayatollahs know that a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv means theirdestruction. We don't know if the Pentagon would annihilate Iran but no matterwhat...the Islamic regime installed in 1979 would end. An attack like that wouldsign their own death warrant. To suggest they wouldn’t use an offensive nuclearweapon is pretty much common sense and the way this argument is being defeatedin the Right-wing narrative is to portray them as fanatics, people who haveabandoned reason for the sake of their cause. People willing to self destruct.Of course it might be argued Santorum is also a fanatic but I'll leave that forsomeone else to work out.

Many reputed analysts try to hide the grins on their faceswhen talking about the Holocaust denial coming out of Tehran. I tend to agreethat Ahmadinejad knows full well there was a Holocaust. Iran is veryanti-Israel and speaking this way is to directly attack modern Israel'snarrative, their raison d'être being rooted in the Holocaust and Zionism. Iran’srhetoric is a challenge to Israel's moralclaims for the existence of the modern Zionist state.

I don't want to be misunderstood here. The Jews of thepost-2^nd Temple Diaspora are the most persecuted people throughouthistory. The Holocaust was just the capstone on a house of horrors going backto the Middle Ages. Growing anti-Semitism in the 19^th centuryinspired Herzl to develop Zionism and the Holocaust gave it a moral andpolitical mandate.

However the Jews going back to the Levant andre-establishing a state is akin to English and Americans of Norman (Viking)ancestry setting up in Norway, claiming it as their homeland. I’m directlydescended from Vikings who settled in Normandy and later crossed with theConqueror in 1066. This same family, my paternal line left England in the 1650’sto get away from Cromwell’s regime. They settled in the Tidewater region ofVirginia. Let me put it this way….my claims to land in Norway are probablybetter than European Jews claiming the Levantine littoral, the lands west ofthe Jordan river, the land we today once more call Israel. It is of courseabsurd and no one would seriously consider the claim.

By the way I’m not boasting in my ancestry. I don’t considerit anything to be proud of. The Normans were an impressive lot but in justabout every case I would identify with the side resisting them.

Now, if some regime came to power and rounded up everyone inthe British Isles and North America who had Norman ancestors and tried to killthem all and succeeded in killing more than a 1/3 of us…would the world feelsympathy? Of course. Would we have a right to seek redress? Of course. Would wehave the right to go and conquer a big swath of Norway claiming it as ourancient homeland, claiming that we had to have it in order to be once moresecure? I think not.

The Palestinians are Arabized but genetically they arelargely the descendants of Jews and Canaanites that have been living theresince antiquity. The disastrous breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the imperialscheming of the French and English drew many of the lines on the map we knowtoday. Though the lines are invented, the people are not. That the Arabized peoples in that region came to be called Palestinians at a later date in no way even suggests they aren't historical residents. History, anthropology and much more point to that.

The British and Americans helped the Jews establish a new state. In1948, the United Nations was still functioning as a department of the Americangovernment. It continued to be dysfunctional as an international body forseveral more years. While it is hardly relevant today, at least it is accessible to all peoples, though only a select few actually can accomplish anything.

While there are undoubtedly some in the Anglo-Americanestablishment who really believe the Jews have moral or perhaps theologicalclaims to the ‘land’, most are more concerned with Wilsonian ideals ofdemocracy, geopolitical posturing, a wedge, a reason to have interests andinfluence in one of the most pivotal regions on the planet, a region with vast politicalimplication and proximate to the greatest resource prize in the history of theworld.

Some have tried to blame the Palestinians because they wereoffered a two-state solution at the time of Israel's formation. They didn't accept the offer so now it is argued, six decades later they no longer have any right to argue thus.

But why would they have accepted?Would the Norwegians accept it if a bunch of Norman descendants arrived off thecoast of Trondheim? I don't think so.

Would they be upset if over the course of a couple ofgenerations the Norse-Norman returnees forced large segments of the populationinto ghettos, restricted their movements, endlessly harassed them and when theyshowed resistance...send in an air force using planes and missiles purchased from theUnited States?

Would the other nations of Europe appreciate this? Assumingfor a moment (which I don't) all the European nations are Christian...let's saythe Norwegian conquest included a reversion to Odin worship and the Normansstarted imposing that religion and its values on the people there. I'm beingabsurd but I'm trying to paint a weak portrait of why Israel's presence andexistence is so outrageous and offensive to the people around it. Myillustration doesn't even begin to touch on the severity of their actions, andthe implications of Israel’s existence when tied in with Western Imperialism.

Truethey've been attacked and have proven valiant fighters, but their expansion in1967 and the increase of settlements ever since has only made the situationmuch worse. I'm not going to pretend there isn't plenty of guilt to go around.But the choice of the Jews to establish an Imperial-backed state, essentially aWestern satellite in the direct center of the Middle East, was just invitingtrouble. The Zionists play a hard political game. Though they're hated, theyare admired and respected. But they're a cold hearted group. They would nodtheir heads and say... they have to be.

Who cannot be moved at what happened to them under the ThirdReich? That's why it's so bizarre and ironic that they've turned around andtreated others in the way they have.

Dispensationalism has led many an American Christian to turna blind eye to the sufferings and valid claims of the people who lived in thatportion of the Ottoman Empire going back to Roman and Byzantine times...thepeople we today call Palestinians.

If the Bible doesn't teach the Jewish people are still the'plan A' and will go back to being God's primary covenant people when theChurch is 'Raptured' out...If the Bible doesn't teach a return to Temple Judaism at anypoint after Jesus Christ, then the modern Jewish state and the land it has demarcated does not belong toanyone in particular, and those living there whatever their claims, don'tdeserve a special theological consideration. There are many Jews who rejectZionism and don't believe the Jews can return to the land unless a prophetarose who communicated God's will for them to do so. On that point, they'reright. And I promise them it will never happen. That Prophet was here almost2000 years ago. The Kingdom he established was one they rejected and continue to do so.

The actions of the Zionists must be weighed and consideredin the same way we would look at any other people.

The Magyars or Hungarians presumably came out of CentralAsia in late antiquity, many claiming to be descendants of Attila’s horde. Inthe 9^th century they crossed the Carpathians and settled in today'sHungary. What if they claimed 'holy' sites back in Central Asia? What if theydecided tomorrow to carve out an enclave from Eastern Kazakhstan to the Chinesefrontier of Xinjiang? Would anyone really accept that claim? I can give endless examples of this kind of argument that no one would accept...but the Middle East is supposed to accept the Zionist state of Israel?

What should the Jews have done after 1945 to find autonomouspeace and security? I can think of several options but re-establishing Israelwould not have been one of them. And in no way has it made them secure or safe.

While Christendom has all but disappeared or rather beenreplaced by Westernism, Islam's situation is a bit different. The Islamicworld, like Christendom was never really able to maintain any kind of unity,and it's no different today. Yet there are certain issues which can bring abouta kind of unity...a powerful tool to leaders. Israel has proven quite useful in this way.It's a focal point for anger and resentment and he who takes up the mantle, hewho wields the scimitar against this enemy becomes a hero...a Sobieski, aMartel, a Winston Churchill to the Islamic world. A regime in danger needs distractions;it needs to be a hero fighting a dragon. An Islamic regime needing a dragon tofight so it can become the saviour/hero...need look no further than Israel…thegreat offender, the bride of the Western Empires.

Though some truly want Israel eliminated, I don't thinkthat's even remotely true for the majority of leaders and thinkers in theIslamic world. The costs and consequences are too great. And in terms of politics,it's convenient to have an adversary that can be pointed to and blamed. Israelis the object of everyone’s convenient scorn.

Democracy at work in Egypt has recently empowered theIslamists. This is largely a backlash against the American proxy Mubarak andthe continued domination by the Egyptian army which also is closely tied in withthe Americans. But once the Islamists are in power, what will happen? Mostlikely the people will in time grow disgusted with corruption, mismanagement,and restricted freedoms... and if the Islamists won't hand over power willinglythey'll be forced out.

But actually that won't happen. Why? Because the West willmeddle and manipulate, corrupt the democratic process and either install apuppet through a coup or revolution or the people will back the Islamists allthe more due to resentment and anger at the interference. Or, a new dictator orgroup of clerics will arise and use the external threat as a way to maintainlegitimate power.

And after many years, and many dead, a new generation willbe born loathing and hating the United States. They don't hate us because we'refree, because we vote in money-corrupted elections, or because we eat pizza andwatch American Idol. They hate us because we murder and kill and bring evil totheir lands. And to add insult to injury we do it with a Wal-mart smiley facetelling everyone how good we are.

And what would the Christian politicians in this countryhave us do? Keep meddling. Keep intervening in Egypt, Iran, Syria, Turkey andon it goes.

We can't be Isolationists they argue. So anti-Isolationismmeans we have to conquer the world? We have to insert ourselves in everycountry on the globe to make sure our interests and the interests that mightaffect our interests and the interests of our friends who are protecting ourother interests aren't affected?

This is Christian statesmanship? Christian geopolitics? Thisis the Christian Worldview being applied to government, war, and internationalrelations? This is what Paul had in mind in Romans 13? I read that one today and it raised an eyebrow, I can tell you.

This is called making a name for yourself. This is calledbuilding the Tower of Babel and putting a cross on top of it.

This all must be taken into account as we address thisquestion of America, Iran, and Israel, that is if we're interested in actuallylooking at this truthfully. Truth it seems to me is probably a good factor toconsider in trying to formulate a Christian approach to the world. Why can't Ifind any of it coming from the mouths of Christian teachers and leaders when itcomes to these issues?

More to come...

American Evangelicals Beating the War Drum Against Iran Part 3

2012-02-09T07:44:00.000-05:00

Contrary to Santorum Obama seems to subscribe to the ideathat future American power in the Middle East needs to be soft power. Proxies,mercantilism and cultural influences will probably have more success than amilitary presence.

The United States isn't going to evacuate the region by anymeans. The military is switching to a policy based on stand-by troops, drones,and Special Forces. Obama wants to increase the American footprint in East Asiain terms of naval power and the Air Force. At this point South Korea and Japanare the only American satellites in the region. Australia has been salivatingfor some time wanting desperately to be a player, to become a more active andassertive member of the Anglo-American alliance.

Despite an already significant presence, new bases are inthe planning and the United States is trying to re-establish ties with oldsatellites like Indonesia and the Philippines. I cannot fathom why thesecountries would want anything to do with the United States after the horriblerecord of bloodshed in their lands resulting from American Imperial policy. Yetthe South China Sea is critical to their political and economic security andthey are uncomfortable with China's self-assured and somewhat aggressiveposturing. Though the United States has a terrible record in these lands, atleast it's far away and perhaps they think they can play the two sides offagainst each other? Hard to say. Maybe it's something far more simple, the loveof money. When empires can't win over allies, or cow them with threats, theycan always find someone to buy.

Taiwan, though estranged compared to the past will alsocontinue looking to the United States on security matters and the Americans mayuse it as a wedge in China relations.

And it may be the supreme irony that Vietnam's historicantagonism with China may actually drive them into a more friendly relationshipwith America in the not too distant future. Few Americans remember that in thelate 1970's Vietnam and China renewed their ancient animosity and the two'communist' nations actually fought a brief conflict. Few also remember'communist' Vietnam forced the Khmer Rouge from power. Pol Pot and his forcesreturned to the jungle but were backed by the United States in the UN assemblyand also received other aid from freedom loving American tax dollars. This isnot to say the United States admired the genocidal mind of Pol Pot, but theyhated the children of Ho Chi Minh far more.

It's an ugly game and ideology matters little in the end.It's power, blood, and money most of the time. Power is like a magnet on acompass. The compass needle is powerless and is quickly drawn away from itstrue direction.

Of course the American presence and projection willexacerbate the situation and instead of relieving tensions and securing the region...itwill increase tensions and create fault lines. This is how the Cold Warstarted. It wasn't necessary but the American public succumbed to fear andlistened to people who wanted it...people who ironically gained a massiveamount of wealth and power from the forty year exchange. We seem to be headeddown this road once again. Obama did not bring any kind of change at all. He'sproven quite friendly to the establishment even in the way his supposedly'radical' social changes have been engineered. Somehow the same people alwaysmanage to stay on top.

These matters are all related but returning to how theyaffect the situation with Iran...

The Chinese would rather have the United States tied up inthe Middle East than expanding back into East Asia. The Americans have neverleft but lost quite a bit of their influence throughout the 1980's and 1990's.The Mao era was over, the Sino-Soviet split, and Nixon's visit had helped calmthe situation and the Americans were looking to the end of the Soviet Union andthe Middle East...but now East Asia is once more in the sights, it will be thenew theatre for a new paradigm. New but not new. New boss same as the old boss.

If the Middle East crisis created by the Bush regimecontinues, this can only help China. America's economic realities will notallow it to maintain a massive force presence in the Middle East (with thenecessary support bases in Southern Europe), while at the same time it engagesin a massive buildup in the Asia-Pacific. China perhaps wouldn't mind a newarms race, but they also don't want to see the American economy collapse.

This was par t of the rationale for Globalization. Bind thenations together through political and economic ties and they can't go to waragainst each other anymore. Control can be exercised through politicalarrangements, military alliances, and trade agreements delivering massivewealth and influence to multi-nationals. We're still waiting to see if it'sgoing to work. One of the tests right now is in Europe. Not a few have notedthat France is keeping itself closely tied to Germany...the powers that be donot want these countries to start operating separately again. And I can't beginto describe the resentment toward the Cameron administration for effectivelypulling Britain out of the arrangement and quest for a solution to the crisis.

The Anglo-American alliance also plays a part in Britain'srelations with the Continent, something entirely missed here but very apparentto the people in France, Germany, and elsewhere. There's a growing resentmentin Britain toward their American cousins. Britain has long been the 'lesserpartner' in the post-War arrangement, but increasingly the United Kingdom seemsto just be taking orders. American politics seem to get as much coverage on theBBC as their own domestic issues, and frankly the commentary is often morehelpful than the flashy entertainment that passes for news in the UnitedStates.

All these things work together and actually I'm onlytouching on part of the picture. There are many more factors I could discussand not a few areas completely beyond my grasp...technical aspects concerningcurrency and trade, debt, and the particulars of the global petroleum economy.

While some may think I've been horribly sidetracked, otherswill see I'm trying to present a panoramic view because in order to understandany one event or incident, you have to be able to look at the big picture.Nothing is isolated. There are many factors playing into what may seem simpleor even unrelated to the whole.

I've been disappointed in some of the Conservative coverageand commentary concerning these events. Why did Russia and China veto the UNresolution on Syria? Well, because they're evil regimes and they're afraid thatsomeday the UN might want to pass a resolution against them. So they'reprotecting themselves. This was the argument one Christian commentator gaverecently. I was shaking my head. His news from a Christian Worldview is neitherChristian nor able to grasp the way things really work. I have no problemcalling the Russian or Chinese governments evil as long as the same label isapplied to the Pentagon, White House and State Department. This commentatormight be willing to apply the label to the Obama White House, but certainlywould not have done so prior to 2008. He is quite blind in this regard.

Of one thing I'm sure. Russia and China are not worriedabout the United Nations coming after them. Christian conservatives have longbeen very hostile the United Nations. This particular commentator I mentionedisn't a Dispensationalist looking for the coming global government under theAntichrist who will be a UN General Secretary. But, he's still echoing the sameconspiratorial fears of the United Nations and the threat it poses to Americansovereignty. If he really understood the world situation and talked to anyoneoutside of American Conservative circles he would soon realize the UN is alaughing stock, a joke. It's used to dress up actions and give them legitimacybut it wields no power and all too often the General Secretaries are made tolook foolish, running around the globe practically begging world leaders tolisten to them. They are patronized, patted on the head and sent on their way.The UN is a tool and one easily set aside when it's not needed. They didn’tveto the resolution because they were afraid of Ban Ki-moon.

American Evangelicals Beating the War Drum Against Iran Part 2

2012-02-08T08:12:00.000-05:00

Americans view Iran as the aggressor but imagine if youwill...China conquering Canada and Mexico and sailing warships along our coast,tailing our ships etc... and then in the Chinese media the United States isdenounced as dangerous and an aggressor, a threat to China. Asserting theUnited States was in a position of aggression would of course be laughable, andthe United States would be taking drastic action I assure you. The Iranians arein just such a situation.

In 2002 George Bush identified Iran as a member of the Axisof Evil...coined by an Evangelical speech writer of course. Iraq fell shortly thereafter;North Korea went nuclear and even though they've been far more aggressivetoward South Korea than Iran has toward any other country....and guess what?They're left alone.

Iran would be irrational not to pursue a nuclear deterrent.Why should they de-weaponize or end their nuclear programme? Of course it hasn’tbeen proven their nuclear programme will be converted to produce weapons but I’llgrant the probability. Look at what happened to Ghaddafi? He got rid of hisweapons and tried to reenter the international community after 2003. He did allthat he was supposed to do. But then the people rise up against him and he nolonger has any threat or any deterrent against an invasion from outside…andNATO comes in, and he's done for.

American Hawks like Santorum do all they can to portray theIranian regime as mad and suicidal. There are many propagandists like JoelRosenberg and Joseph Farah at work in Christian circles trying to tie in Shiiteapocalypticism with the goals of the Iranian regime. The Iranians want the bombso they can attack Israel and they'll do this knowing that Tehran, Qom,Isfahan, Mashhad, and perhaps Tabriz will be eliminated? Actually no one knowswhat the response will be...would the United States really wipe them out? I'msure Israel would if they were still able to retaliate. It's hard to say, Idon't think anyone knows but an Iranian strike against Israel would be perhapsthe greatest crisis since 1962 if not 1914.

But is this what Iran wants to do? That's part of thedebate. There's a lot of psy-ops activity going on both sides. Part of theproblem is there are really no diplomatic relations between the United Statesand Iran and this creates a very dangerous situation. I will at least giveObama credit that he has made attempts to remedy this situation and wasrebuffed. Lack of communication is dangerous. American Conservatives refuse toeven entertain establishing diplomatic ties, because doing so grants legitimacyand recognition. But not doing so runs a greater risk. One incident can cause akind of chain reaction and put the two nations on a path to war. It's the Gunsof August all over again.

There are some in America like Santorum who really wantthis. For some it's ideological. It can be tied in with American Imperialpolicy, doctrine concerning Israel, and it would certainly represent a completedomination of the Middle East by American interests. This was their hope asthey pushed for an attack on Iran during the Bush years. He had lost too muchpolitical capital both at home and abroad and they were disappointed.

Now the situation has become so dynamic they may reach outto grab power and find it slipping away from them. It would also lead toBlowback undoubtedly on the scale of another 11 September and a sharp uptick inIslamic extremism. Of course I wouldn't be alone in suggesting the Hawks on theRight would eagerly embrace such a scenario. Fear and instability allow them toact with impunity.

The Iranian regime would appreciate a small scale war and a permanentstate of low-grade threat, because the resulting precarious security situationallows them to maintain power. Security leads to leisure and leisure leads todiscontent and the threat of instability. Low-scale external threat real or nothelps to empower a regime...that’s no less true for Empires. In fact anexternal threat is viewed by many political strategists as an absolutenecessity.

Americans in general and certainly the American public seemsto be quite naive and simple when it comes to the language of geopolitics. FewAmericans realize placing a sanctions regime on another country is an act ofwar. Ron Paul again is the lone voice in national politics arguing this point.America is diplomatically masterful and has an impressive historical record offorcing adversaries to fire the first shot. This allows the White House toestablish the narrative in terms of the moral high ground. They might even finda few lemmings to tell them they've met the criteria for Just War Theory to beapplied. American policy toward Iran is very reminiscent of what Roosevelt wasdoing with the Japanese prior to 1941.

By cutting off oil exports, the regime's economy is placedin jeopardy. Destabilizing the shipping on the Straits of Hormuz, even as sillyas the prospect of an Iranian blockade is...nevertheless forces oil prices up,and if the Iranians are selling less of it...the consequent result is anincrease in their profits. It makes economic sense to agitate the situation andraise the price of oil. It decreases the effectiveness of the sanctions. And,the elevated security threat once again strengthens the regime. But in the WesternMedia it’s portrayed as raw aggression and indicative of the fanatical natureof the regime. Actually it’s far from fanatical or aggressive…in light of what’shappening it makes sense. And remember they’re the ones in the vice, not theother way around.

Some debate over whether or not the American StateDepartment understands this...that sanctions strengthen the regime they'rebeing imposed on. It allows them to consolidate power and the people are reallythe only ones who suffer. The people don't rise up; instead they are forced todepend on the regime doling out the strained and restricted resources. Thesiege (for that's what it is) is supposed to break the people inside, sothey'll rise up and overthrow the regime, but it has rarely worked. And theprice can be terrible. An estimated 1.5 million people died in Iraq from1991-2003 as a result of American policy. The Americans admitted it and did notshy away from the claims that 500,000 children had died. Madeleine Albrightfamously said, 'it was worth it.' And that's not even touching on some of thelong term environmental issues the Americans have unleashed through theirmethods of warfare.

But once again, the sanctions didn't work. Saddam was noteven close to losing his grip on power. It never worked with Cuba either. Evenwith their failed economic system and heavy-fisted government, they've kept on.Castro must laugh. He's outlived his enemies. He probably wishes he could liveanother forty years and watch the United States disintegrate. The Republicancandidates have made it pretty clear, they'd like to deliver him a partingshot. He's humiliated the United States throughout much of the Cold War andpower elites don't forgive or forget.

Some might point to South Africa as a success story forsanctions, but their internal situation was already unsustainable. They werelooking at Civil War if action wasn't taken. Apartheid had to end sanctions orno. The demographic realities were simply against the regime. The Whiteleadership would not be able to go on like that indefinitely. Sheer numberswould mean their eventual loss of power.

Whatever happens in the near future, Cuba and Iraq are apowerful testimony to the failure of sanctions.

Some believe the American diplomatic corps knows this welland they use the sanctions to actually keep the regime in place allowing theState Department and Pentagon to pursue a specific foreign policy and strategicagenda. Many believe this is why the United States stopped the drive to Baghdadin 1991. Retaining Saddam Hussein was a justification for an American militarypresence in the Gulf region and drove a strategic wedge into southwest Asia,something they were quite keen to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Why are China and Russia helping Iran? Well because they'reGog and Magog right? I wish Reformed and other Christians would realizeDispensational theology is nothing to wink at. It wields considerable politicalpower in the United States and like it or not...affects policy. Don't forgetthis is 2012, an election year and Obama's actions concerning Iran will bepounced on by the Christian Right. These doctrines concerning Israel thoughoften misunderstood even by those who hold them, play a part. I've known morethan a few people attending mainline theologically liberal churches with womenpastors and all the rest who have read the Tim LaHaye books and in someconfused sense are attuned to what they now think the Bible teaches about thesegeopolitical issues. It's affecting how they vote and what politicalorganizations they contribute to.

Russia was kicked and essentially ravaged by Americaninterests throughout the 1990's. The United States didn't win the Cold War andpat them on the back and say...'good match, better luck next time.'

In every way possible the United States took advantage ofRussia while it was down. I won't go into all that here. I've touched on itelsewhere. Putin brought stability to the Mafia-capitalistic society which hadtaken over. However he's played the traditional Russian strong-man role. It wasappreciated in the early 2000's, but he's now suffering the results of amiscalculation. He brought security and stability to the streets and in part tothe economy. This leads to leisure and leisure leads to discontent. He perhapsunwittingly has created the conditions which are now leading people to start questioninghis power model which is largely based on cronyism and thus very corrupt. He'sparanoid of dissent and external machinations...and has every reason tobe...and rules with a pretty hard fist, even when using proxies. People nowhave the security to resent it and are starting to manifest this and give voiceto their displeasure. This displeasure stems from the fact that they believe he’sholding them back to keep his grip on power. Nevertheless he's still quitepopular even though a growing number of people are unhappy with him. Our mediawill focus on the growing instability and dissent rather than the majority ofRussians who continue to support him. Hilary Clinton’s remarks concerning thevalidity of the recent elections was yet another display of outrageous hubrisand the type of meddling we would heavily resent if focused on our own country.

The Obama administration tried to undo some of the tensionsthat developed over the Bush years but didn't follow through and continues totake a pretty aggressive posture. Russia wants the United States out of itsbackyard and of its business. This gives it a mutual interest with theIranians. Russia wants the EU to back off which it now has to do unilaterallydue to internal problems and Putin is undoubtedly very hostile to NATOexpansion. It's not just a military treaty. It affects much larger spheres. TheRussians feel like they got burned and manipulated with regard to the UNapproved NATO mission in Libya and they're not going to allow this to happenwith Syria. The Syrian question also plays into the Iran situation. And I'msure from a more mercenary standpoint, Russia would rather see NATO entangledin the Middle East then poking around the Caucasus or Central Asia.

China needs resources to feed its economic juggernaut. Chinais also trying to expand into Central Asia...the key to power on so manyfronts. Forces within the United States are increasingly taking a hostile tactagainst China. We've got presidential candidates using pretty harsh languageand the Obama administration is basically setting forth a doctrinal shift andre-tooling of American military policy...shifting it to the Asia Pacificregion. Obama has proved an utter failure to the anti-Imperial wing on the Leftwhich helped him get elected. I must say he's only getting worse as time goesby, only a step below George W. Bush. He's compromised on almost every issueand on more than one he's actually advocated positions in support of theAmerican Establishment and the Imperial project. No 'change' in the least. TheRight has always been against him…the question is has he so alienated his ownbase that it will harm him in November 2012? The swing voters might vote forhim simply to oppose candidates like Gingrich and Santorum. A Romney-Obama raceI’m sure is not looked on with favour from the Oval Office. How would Romneydeal with Iran? It’s hard to say. His rhetoric is not hopeful but he seems tobe a more a moderate and reasonable man than others in the Conservative Wing.

More to come….

American Evangelicals Beating the War Drum Against Iran Part 1

2012-02-07T22:44:00.000-05:00

I will not make the same mistake the mainstream media oftendoes by calling Rick Santorum an Evangelical. He's a Roman Catholic, howeverEvangelical has doctrinally become an all but meaningless term, and the mediais in part correct in basically viewing it as a socio-political movement. Inthat sense, it is appropriate to speak of someone like Santorum when talkingabout American Evangelicalism, even if he cannot actually be placed under thatlabel. His recent endorsement by famed Evangelical leader James Dobson onlyvalidates this framework.

For most Americans the present situation with Iran dates tothe Carter administration, the fall of the Shah, the arrival of Khomeini, andthe Hostage Crisis. Some Americans will remember the glamorous Shah and hisqueen visiting the United States during every administration going back toTruman, but the real focus today in the American mind is 1979.

For the Iranians, this is all goes back to World War II, whenReza Shah was forced to abdicate by the Anglo-Soviet invasion. Theypreemptively overtook Iran to secure its oil from the Nazis who were pushingtoward the Caucasus. The Shah was forced out and his son Reza Shah Pahlavi (theone everyone remembers in the West) came to power.

He like his father was a liberal reformer, but he was youngand allowed others to essentially run the country. Liberal reforms aredangerous because it can lead to elections...and when the people voted forPrime Minister Mosaddegh who wanted to nationalize the oil fields (effectivelyremoving British interests) the Anglo-American alliance acted, staged a coupand subsequently installed the Shah as something akin to an autocrat. Over thenext twenty-five years the Shah acted as a proxy for Western interests,offended his people on many social fronts, and crushed dissent with a brutalforce of secret police.

This led to the rise of what has been called ShiiteFundamentalism and the revolution in 1979 which helped to destabilize the wholebalance of power in the Middle East. Some of the instability was deflected byCarter's peace deal brokered between Egypt and Israel at Camp David.

Former enemy Saddam Hussein was embraced and encouraged tomilitarily engage the new force in Persia, something he was keen to do. TheKurds were betrayed then and would be again. And of course to the Iranians,this war with Iraq was viewed through the lens of further American aggressionagainst the country. Over a million people died, and the war resolved absolutelynothing.

Iran has never forgotten these events and it continues to bea very complicated society full of internal turmoil. The internal conflict isboth masked and magnified by the severe Islamic social cast. Women are forcedto wear the chador, but behind closed doors there's a vibrant youth and partyculture where the drugs and alcohol flow and at least as recent as a few yearsago the most popular television show was Baywatch. Satellite dishes areforbidden and the regime usually looks the other way, but can also use thedishes and other minor infractions as an excuse to crack down on dissent whenit wants to.

For years Iranian experts have predicted massive uprisings.The majority of the people don't like the Islamic regime, and the population inIran is very young, the result of a post-Revolutionary baby boom. Iran isactually a pretty modern country with modern social attitudes. Westerners havereported that behind closed doors, women are vocal, smoke, and look you in theeye when they talk to you...something that just doesn't happen in much of theMiddle East. There are a wide range of Iranian films available to the westernaudience if you're willing to listen to Farsi and read English subtitles. Manydeal with the dark side of the regime, but many more show something of Iranianlife and culture which is full of surprises.

Americans mistakenly believe that all people desire freedomand impose this thinking on other societies and cultures. Many do desire socialfreedoms, but first and foremost people desire security and stability.Americans are actually no different on this score. Iran is caught in ageo-political maelstrom and is both victim and perpetrator. The regime usesthis to maintain power.

Wilsonian ideals lead the United States to want to interveneand help Iranian dissidents but Iranian pride (yes other nations have it too)and anti-imperial resentment works against this. They don't like it whenpowerful empires step in and manipulate their internal affairs. The presentmess they're in is a result of outside meddling extending back over seventyyears.

An external threat helps to unify the nation. People willput aside their differences and unite when the nation as a whole is perceivedto be under threat. Just think of the days after 11 September 2001. Everyoneexcept for a handful of people like me was behind President Bush and he waspractically given a blank check to do what he wanted.

The narrative in America at present is that Iran is a threatto the world order. Rick Santorum and thus many Christians who are feeding fromthe same ideological trough want to cast this in terms of 1938. The Iraniansare the Nazis...will we sell out the innocent nations adjacent to Iran througha Munich style appeasement? Santorum wants to portray Obama as a Chamberlainclone, a diplomatic weakling, a blind misguided and naive lemming while he'sthe brave Winston Churchill warning the world and telling everyone how itreally is.

Churchill was a brilliant and very flawed man. Despite histremendous mistakes and miscalculations and his own dubious morality on manyfronts, he was more than anything a leader. The emotional outpouring ofaffection at his funeral displayed the general consensus, the high regard andesteem the British people have accorded him. Santorum is an amateur, utterlylacking in the worldly-wise sophistication and instinct Churchill had acquiredthrough his long career spanning the globe. He had a certain cunning and asense of his own ability long before World War II. Santorum is untested andcomes across to many as something of a boy scout or even a whining child. Ithink he's much worse than that and in addition to his potentially disastrousforeign policy, his adherence to Roman Catholicism, his views of government andthe role of the state in personal lives, 'in our bedrooms' as he put it,reminds me much more of Franco than Churchill.

This Revolutionary Iran/Third Reich parallel is a fantasyand it’s dangerous. This is just not the situation. Iran is not ruled by aHitler even though American media has often tried to portray Ahmadinejad inthis light. His Holocaust denial language has helped to further this portrayaland identification. I'll come back to that. However it must be noted theIranian president is not a dictator. He is a political leader but in theIranian system the macro-agenda as well as individual policies have to passthrough the Ayatollah's, the clerics who are the guardians of the Revolution.Ahmadinejad frequently clashes with the clerics led by Khamenei who couldprobably be described as a sort hands-off but actual or de-facto ruler of thecountry. He doesn't get his hands dirty so to speak in the way a president mustand it places the president in a very difficult and sometimes impossiblesituation. There have been several rifts recently between these groups.

Prior to Ahmadinejad, Mohammad Khatami was president and hetried to maintain the balance between social pressures and the Islamicprogramme. He failed and was forced out. He was viewed as a reformer, hispolicies leading to people taking to the streets giving some indication as tolevel of pressure beneath the public veneer. The Ayatollahs wanted him outbecause his concessions were destabilizing the country.

Ahmadinejad has tried to ramp up the geo-political situationto focus his public on these issues and galvanize the country. The fact thatAmerica invaded and conquered the countries on either side of them has helpedin this regard. An external threat always helps to cool down internalpressures. A regime in danger will always look for a threat as a politicaldistraction.

Justification Controversies in Contemporary Reformed Protestantism Part 2

2012-02-06T20:26:00.000-05:00

Lutherans by and large have always retained thisheavy focus on Justification by Grace Alone…the key word being Sola or Alone.Luther even added the word to the Romans 3 text, arguing the Greek implies it. Thiscame to dominate much of Lutheran theology. Lutheranism became associated withwhat we call the Law-Gospel hermeneutic, categorizing Scripture intoimperatives (law) vs. Gospel (grace).

This focus led Luther to struggle with the book ofJames, calling it an ‘epistle of straw’ and questioning its canonicity. TheReformed wing has certainly not gone to this extent, but some have revived theLutheran Law-Gospel hermeneutic in an effort to explain the many (and what mustbe troubling) warnings and commands found in Scripture. Repeatedly the NewTestament exhorts Christians to ‘do’, to change, to transform, to work out, tomake, to put to death and so forth.

This camp places these imperatives into the categoryof Law as opposed to Gospel. Christ they would argue keeps the commands for us,our works are nothing. They’re right of course about our works and they’reright that anything we do isn’t us, but Christ working in us. So the answer isto focus on Christ and the works (so to speak) come on their own since it’s notus anyway.

While this is certainly true, the Scriptures justdon’t present these ideas in this form. The Law-Gospel hermeneutic is somethingthat has been placed over the text, being derived from making Sola Fide the Centraldogma.

Others have argued this form of thinking, inReformed circles often tied with Predestination, has made shipwreck of what theBible says about the Church, the Christian Life, Assurance and so forth. Thesecamps have argued that Justification by Faith Alone is true, the Law-Gospelhermeneutic and the placement of Sola Fide in the central position (as it were)has been a mistake, and they have set about to recover a more full orbedteaching of what the Bible says.

The one side placing the emphasis on Sola Fideaccuses the other side of works salvation and sacramentalism, while the othercamp arguing for a more comprehensive understanding of salvation accuses theother camp of Easy Believism, a watered down gospel and of practically speakingan elimination of the doctrine of Sanctification.

The largest group is probably somewhere in themiddle trying to synthesize the different views and often more concerned withclinging to their understanding of the historic creeds. Of course all thesegroups (with the exception of people like me) are trying to ‘claim’ thehistorical confessions support what they’re saying.

There’s a lot of dishonesty and self-deception whenit comes to the Confessions. The arguments are very reminiscent of what we findin the United States with regard to the Constitution. Many are arguing from thestandpoint that…the Confession (or Constitution) COULD be made to say that, ordoesn’t necessarily speak AGAINST this or that, when everyone knows full wellthe original authors didn’t mean what the person is suggesting.

Such a reality is highly problematic to creedalsubscriptionists!

Because in addition to the theological arguments theissue of historical continuity is just as, if not more important. That’sunfortunate but a reality. Every side is trying to claim they have historicalstanding. Nothing is worse than the charge of novelty, the very charge leviedagainst Protestants in the 16^th century by the Roman entity.

I argue this is an abuse of creeds and confessions.They are at best guides, and as I’ve said many times before, using them thisway makes them into ossified chains. Truth is indeed absolute and objective,but our understanding of it is at best limited and subject to error. Error isnot always turning the wrong way and embracing a lie. Error can be much moresubtle and theologically more often than not the greatest error is speculative systematictheology based on a reductionism. This is not to say Systematic Theology isinherently of no value. This is not to say limited speculation is forbidden.But often the theological tendency has been to Anchor (see glossary), to pick alogical focal point, and then construct a massive theological super-structurebased on the Anchored Centraldogma.

If there is something approaching a central dogma ordoctrine in Scripture it is that of the Incarnation which in and of itselfdefies Systematic mapping or subjugation to syllogistic evaluation.

If the Incarnation is unverifiable via syllogisticdeduction or induction, or to put it more simply, if the Incarnation is notsomething we can logically explain, and it is the Central focus of God’sRevelation to us…that ought to tell us something about how we approachtheology.

As I’ve argued elsewhere, the Incarnation is notillogical even employing temporal-based logic. It must be understood as Supra-or Meta-Logical. The Incarnation is Revealed to us and we are not to pick apartthe Person of Christ, we are to accept His Person based on the testimony of Hiswork. The Incarnation can only be understood…by faith.

The disagreements stem from both Centraldogma and method. These issueswhen addressed end up entangled once more in the historical claim debate and atpresent there seems to be no way out, no solution, no means of reconciling thevarious factions.

As a person who no longer identifies with ReformedChristianity, I’m quite outside of the debate. I hold to doctrines some withinReformed circles sympathize with and several that exclude me entirely fromtheir community.

Sadly in the end, from an outsider’s perspective, itseems to be more about institutional control than anything else.

Michael Horton and much of the Westminster Westfaculty, many Klineans and people like Tullian Tchividjian represent the sideadvocating what I call hyper-Solafideism.

While I disagree with them on these issues, I amlargely in agreement with them with regard to the doctrine of Two Kingdoms andtheir critique of Theonomic and Dominionistic theology. I think Tchividjianmight be exception considering he took over the pulpit previously occupied bythe late D. James Kennedy, one of the most vocal proponents of what I oftenrefer to as Christo-American Sacralism.

Norman Shepherd, and the group known as the FederalVision would be representative of the other camp. (Federal referring to Foedus,Federal or Covenant Theology in this case, not referring to some kind ofpolitical action)

This would include people like Douglas Wilson, SteveSchlissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach and others. Sadly, though I am more thana little sympathetic with them on these issues, the movement is largelycompromised of Theonomists.

Thus I find myself both in sympathy with and instrident opposition to…both camps. The emergence of Federal Vision around 2002startled me because my good friend (from part 1) and I were discussing thesesame issues at the kitchen table in 1998 and had been for a few years prior.

How did we come to these positions? Ironically wewere somewhat isolated from the American Reformed mainstream. We had formulatedour ideas while overseas with nothing more than old books at our fingertips andendless hours of discussion and debate. Though we realized Calvin himself didnot exactly teach what we believed or what the Federal Vision was to come outwith a few years later, we also realized that most Reformed people weencountered in the United States in the late 1990’s were not in line withCalvin either…at least in terms of spirit and methodology.

Since then I’ve moved farther and farther away fromJohn Calvin on several fronts, but on these issues I’m pulled back to hiswritings and methodology. I don’t find most people who claim to be hisfollowers, to be in line with his Christian Humanist way of reading the Bible.On this point at least they would do well to return to the Genevan font.

I have been nothing less than frustrated by therapacious dialogue at work in Reformed circles. The accusations aredisheartening and often times what’s most disappointing is listening to peoplecritique the other side without even understanding where they’re coming from.I’ve used the illustration before but it’s like a man in a skyscraper shoutingfrom the 70^th floor at another man in an adjacent building on the 30^thfloor. They can’t understand each other. They don’t even realize what theproblem is. Until they return to the sidewalk, to ground level, they’re notgoing to resolve anything.

The other day I encountered a glimmer of hope. Ioften listen to the Christ the Center podcast, put out by some folks associatedwith Westminster Seminary’s Eastern campus outside Philadelphia. The Westcampus is in the north San Diego area. I remember as a lost teenager drinkingbeer and shooting pool down the street from it, thinking, “huh, wonder whatthat place is?”

Anyway, Christ the Center was doing a podcast on Sanctification and I was most pleased to hear some other people in Reformedcircles not belonging to either of the ‘fringe’ camps (which I both reject andembrace) having an intelligent discussion on this issue. And it was interestingto me because they picked up on the fact that Hyper-solafideism, or as theyrefer to it, Hyper-forensic soteriology effectively undermines the doctrine ofSanctification.

I don’t agree with everything they said, nor do Iagree with how they were trying to parse it out in systematic terms…but I couldagree with much they were vocalizing and the spirit in which it was said…wasexcellent.

What was even more surprising was that one of mainpanelists was Richard Phillips, the pastor of 2^nd PresbyterianChurch in Greenville South Carolina. I used to attend there pretty regularlyback in 1998, before he was there. Phillips in the past has put me off for atleast two reasons. One, any pastor who touts his military ‘service’ and boastsof his leadership of combat units receives an immediate black mark in my book. I find it pretty sick to behonest. Two, Phillips wrote an essay in perhaps the most helpful book debatingFederal Vision theology. It’s called, “The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons:Debating the Federal Vision.” In this book proponents of both camps go back andforth arguing the issues. Phillips was set up in opposition to Steve Schlisseland Schlissel is pretty hard on Phillips…and I have to say I completely agreedwith Schlissel. I thought Phillips position was a perfect expression of modernReformed theology with all its flaws.

But here he surprised me. I thought hisunderstanding was much more nuanced and insightful. I still don’t agree withhis commitments, but the discussion and his insights are worth listening to.He’s striking a still flawed but healthy and certainly much more helpful andwise middle ground, and I hope more people within his camp will listen.

To sum up, the issues stem from a fundamental divideover methodology. Little of the argument engages along these lines. Everyone isusually arguing up in the superstructure and frankly it ends up being anunproductive waste of time.

The answer to both the Justification dilemma and theother issues related to Dominionism that I’m constantly harping about is inhermeneutical method. How do we read the Bible? I continue to argue the answeris found in the Incarnation and in the Apostolic witness of the New Testament.The clear perspicuous didactic passages of the New Testament teach us how to readthe entirety of Scripture. The Incarnation teaches us how to relate the Alreadyand Not Yet, the Divine and Human, the Invisible and Visible, theEschatological to the Temporal in the realm of theology.

Perhaps the supreme irony to this debate and itcomes up constantly is the fact that the Hyper-Forensic crowd (holding toessentially a Lutheran doctrine of Justification) criticizes the Hyper-Covenantcrowd (Federal Vision) as having Sacramentalist tendencies. Of course theLutherans themselves while holding to Justification by Faith Alone are alsoaccused of teaching Baptismal Regeneration, and they see no conflict. Now Ipersonally find the Lutheran explanation of this to be rather lacking andconvoluted but I don’t find the concepts to be in conflict if properlyunderstood.

Just the other night I stumped a Reformed man onthis issue. He was saying Federal Vision’s teaching regarding Baptismoverthrows Justification. I said the Lutherans hold to a form of BaptismalRegeneration and you certainly can’t accuse them of playing fast and loose withJustification can you? On that point our Lutheran friends are more concernedwith accurate Scriptural fidelity than adherence to systemized logic.

I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again here, onthese issues I’m quite sympathetic to what might be called a conservativeAnglican position, as in the 39 Articles. I completely disagree with Anglicanpolity and liturgy but I think their rather broad and somewhat seeminglyundeveloped position on the relationship between Justification by Faith Aloneand the Sacraments is quite balanced and faithful (I think) to the text ofScripture without imposing a system on it. Few readers here will resonate withthat statement but remember Ryle remained Anglican and Packer still is. TheReformed have generally been unfriendly to deliberately ‘undeveloped’ theology,but I think they’ve gone too far, not only in their probing but in theconstruction of dogma. Rather than unify I think it has actually proved schismatic. I definitely find their polity to be so.

I continue to watch these debates with greatinterest. I’ve been wrestling with these issues since my earliest days as aChristian. These theological issues and the entirety of Church History have ledto me constantly re-think and re-examine many of these issues.

System, method, history, historical theology, andhow all this is playing out today is what has driven me for many a year andfrom my perspective all these things come together at certain points…and that’swhy I continue to write and comment even if very few are interested in what I’msaying.

I hope some will find my somewhat different andextra-factional viewpoint to be helpful in trying to navigate what must be formany an overwhelming and quite confusing factional struggle.

Justification Controversies in Contemporary Reformed Protestantism Part 1

2012-02-06T06:26:00.000-05:00

Afew thoughts…

Years ago before I was married I livedfor a brief time in the American South. In 1998, I shared an apartment with aroommate who was a Theonomist, and needless to say we didn’t always see eye toeye.

I was sitting at the kitchen table withanother friend and we had been working on issues related to Justification forquite some time. If I recall we spent a good number of hours in coffee shopsand pulling late nights talking about it. My roommate was in awe that we couldspend so much time on a topic which to him apparently was pretty simple. Henever said the words, but it was almost like he was saying… “Justification? Youhaven’t got that figured out yet? Hey, it’s by faith.”

I remember us being amused with hisfrustration that we could so endlessly pursue such a blatant and simple topic.Obviously he hadn’t really spent any time looking into the issue.

Like most Biblical doctrines,Justification is indeed quite simple, but also like most Biblical doctrines itis also an almost inexhaustible labyrinth of complexity and dialectical nuance,an endless treasure trove of revealing Divine glory and instilling wonder.

And with any topic this rich and complexthere are endless questions and debates and to say it gets a little heated attimes, is putting it lightly. In fact if one narrative of history is correct,you could says wars and social upheaval have hinged on how this doctrine isunderstood. I even heard one philosopher-theological rather absurdly suggest allof Western Civilization is built on the doctrine of Justification by FaithAlone.

Many of the legitimate questions I wouldargue stem from differences in methodology. How is Scripture structured? How dowe formulate dogma or doctrine? And of course the historical issues with alltheir baggage come into play.

Do we dig into the text, extractdoctrinal topics and place them into categories based on logical order? Ofcourse then we must discuss whether or not we’ve come up with the rightcategories, what is our doctrine of logic and so forth. Each of these subjectscan easily fill a library bookshelf.

Justification in particular is a quitepotent and divisive issue because in the Protestant historical narrative, thiswas the issue which led to the Reformation, and provides it with both the casusbelli and raison d’être.

Most Protestants (erroneously I argue)recognize the Roman Communion as the legitimate church up until the 1500’s. Ofcourse when the Ancient Latin Church became the Roman Catholic Church is anotherdebate. Regardless for many Protestants, Justification by Faith Alone (SolaFide) is the article by which the Church stands or falls.

But how is this to be understood?Historically it is problematic because one is hard pressed almost to the pointof despair to find Luther’s formulation before the 16^th century.Certainly the essential issue is…what does the New Testament say?…but it sowsmany a seed of doubt when for the better part of fifteen centuries you can’tlocate it, taught in that way, in any historical text. This has led manyProtestants to view it as a ‘recaptured’ or ‘recovered’ doctrine. Alternativeexplanations are too troubling to seriously consider.

Many Protestants have taken the doctrineof Sola Fide and placed it into a position of doctrinal prominence orcentrality. Some have argued, and I would be in agreement, that making SolaFide the Centraldogma, has actuallyharmed the full scope and development of many other doctrines. Most theologiansfollowing the impulse to systematize have read doctrines like Sanctification,Assurance, even their understanding of the Church and Sacraments (ordinances)in light of Justification by Faith Alone.

There’s quite an active debate atpresent within Reformed circles over this issue. A lesser debate is takingplace over the whole issue of method which I think is actually paramount. Manyof the questions and battles would simply evaporate if a different method isemployed.

History again comes into play. For mostof the Reformed community their historical confessions play a key part. Andthose confessions were forged employing a certain method and mentality withregard to doctrine. This establishes certain rather formidable walls, not easilyovercome. In fact, I don’t believe they can be. Such a Reform would essentiallyentail Doctrinal Revolution and lead to a negation of both historical identityand validation. The reforms I would advocate would essentially undo theReformed wing of Protestantism. This is why I cannot in good conscienceidentify myself with the movement, even though at one time I was a zealouspartisan. An outsider might place me on the fringe of the movement, but thosewithin understand clearly enough my positions undermine fundamental structuresof what it means to be Reformed.

Despite my pessimism toward ReformedProtestantism, I still cannot entirely vacate the discussion in these circles.The Reformed community is hands down the most intellectually vibrant wing ofProtestantism. That’s not always a good thing. Historically intellectualvibrancy and the need for progress and development led the Church down some badroads, but ossified dogma can also prove harmful. In fact, I would argue such amentality toward documents like the Westminster Confession stifled real andbadly needed thinking and rather than uphold the system and mindset of thedrafters, late 19^th century and much of 20^th centuryReformed Protestantism had actually departed from it. Rigid thinking and coldlogical method applied to the Westminster Confession led leading stalwarts likethe Hodges and Dabney to actually hold to a reduced theology not quite in linewith or in the spirit of the 17^th century authors they so wished toemulate and gave birth to various 20^th century theologies which onlyserved to confuse rather than clarify the salient issues. I’m thinking ofeverything from Gordon Clark, to Carl McIntire, to John Murray. Others wouldinclude Geerhardus Vos and Meredith Kline who I tend to hold in high regarddespite some sizable points of difference. In terms of the debates between theKlineans and the Murray-ites…which also plays into the Justification Controversy…Iagree and disagree with both.

These assessments are all debatable ofcourse. Many, perhaps a majority of those within Reformed circles woulddisagree with what I just said. But many would not and it’s only been in thelast couple of generations some within those circles have begun to look backand ask some of these fundamental theological questions and re-visit thehistorical theology.

Theology doesn’t just appear. If you’veever been part of Independent Fundamental Baptist circles, you’re familiar withthe thinking that posits their theology and liturgical mindset are straightfrom the pages of Scriptures. Just good old-time Christianity right? And mostin those circles believe it because they’ve never bothered to pick up ahistory, theological text, let alone a historical theological text. If theydid, they would soon discover that rather being ‘old time’ the theology andmethod of their churches is really barely over a century old. From the AltarCall inspired by Decisionalistic Easy Believism, to the talk of thepre-Tribulational Rapture, these doctrines cannot be traced beyond the 19^thcentury. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re false, but it should give onepause. If they’re that obvious and essential to Christianity, then why hadn’tanyone come up with it before?

Much of 19^th and 20^thcentury Evangelicalism has been permeated with Moralism. We all believe inmorals and morality, but many a Bible teacher has made the Moral Imperative acentral element to both his preaching and the Christian life. For those of uswho grew up in those circles, the phrase ‘get right,’ comes to mind. Moralism,a focus on changing your behaviour has certainly led to many focusing onthemselves, the behaviour of others, and also has played no small part in thedevelopment of rather spirit-crushing legalistic systems of piety.

Moralism, turns people away from Christand puts the focus on the individual’s conduct. In the end it can easily becomea system and mindset which really overthrows the gospel of grace and replaces itwith a works based salvation.

In reaction to this and for some otherreasons a couple of factions have arisen within Reformed circles which havemade an attempt to re-focus the gospel and bring about a return toChristocentricity, the magnification of grace, and to deter anything that evenapproaches an understanding of works playing a part in the Christian life.

A Strange Encounter Part 7

2012-02-05T22:18:00.000-05:00

The Price ofSyncretism...Patriotic Blood Idols and Molech Worship

In thepast, pagans have sacrificed for different reasons. Sometimes to merely pacifythe wrath and anger of a deity and sometimes to atone for sin...which obviouslyis a concept we can resonate with. Whatever the theological particulars it wasunderstood that the sacrificial victim whether man or beast was giving up lifeso that the collective group might be permitted to continue on.

Thisbecame particularly horrifying when pagans sacrificed their own children toMolech, Chemosh, Melqart, and other false gods. And as grieved as those parentswould have been, to them it was an act of piety, a sad but necessary sacrificefor the continuation of Edom, Moab, or Carthage.

Allthese nations tied their 'cult' in with the state...all were Sacral entitiesthat blended the concepts together. Christianity was different, because theRedemption purchased by the Sacrifice of Christ was for a metaphysical nation,an eschatological nation, a Spiritual nation...not a common political or ethnicentity.

ChristianSacralism reverts to the old model...and the cult by necessity is tied in withthe state and larger culture. Redemptive concepts are mixed and blendedproducing a product that is no longer Christian in any Biblical sense of theword.

Yes Iknow the argument that culture is merely an outworking of cult...so thereforewe need to capture the culture right? No, we need to make sure that as we livein the larger culture we don't confuse it with our true and Biblical cultus,our worship. We need a conscious antithesis, something the worldview teachersand Dominionists talk about, but actually work against.

Bywedding cult and culture what we really end up with is...Christians sacrificingtheir children to Molech...or whatever you prefer to call the false idol ofAmerica and its civil cult.

Icontend this whole convoluted and bizarre blend of American flags andpatriotism, the honouring of veterans and the cult of the military beingpresent in the Church is just that...idolatry, and the martyr-izing of thefallen from within those ranks... and the eagerness of parents and leaders tosacrifice their children in this way is highly reminiscent of the cult ofGehenna.

From astrictly secular standpoint...from the standpoint of a citizen that lives inthis country...rather than be pleased that there is a segment of the populationso willing to give up their lives, the lives of their children and theirfreedoms for these reasons, the cult of state...I don't find it to be a sourceof comfort but a great cause for concern. For several years now I've heardChristians argue for a return of military conscription and many decry that 'sofew' bear the burden for so many.

I rejectthat argument in its entirety. They bear no burden for me or my family. If theywant cause to persecute by reinstating the draft then so be it. In fact in someways I would appreciate the lines being drawn. The faithful will rise up anddenounce the false church and we will either suffer or leave.

I do notfind comfort in the fact that we have millions of people who love America somuch that they are willing to kill and die for it.

In partthis is because I don't believe people like the man's son died for thenation...not if you define nation as the people who live within thegeo-political boundary. He died for a false religious ideal, but his death inno way affected my life, made me more free, or kept me safe from anything.

I findit disturbing that so many in embracing this idolatry have adopted what must becalled a willful blindness, a moral mandate forbidding them to even entertainanything that might question the goodness of their nation, or question thevalidity of its actions or paradigms. They won't hear it, not because theydon't want to...they won't hear it because it's immoral to even consider thepossibility that America might not be the holy nation, that its dead sons mightnot be heroes.

Thistells me these people are highly susceptible to fear-based propaganda. Theseare exactly the kind of people that can be handed a gun and told they are doingthe right thing in shooting someone else. These are the kind of people who canbe convinced of threats which do not exist, who can be taught to turn a blindeye to suffering. These are the people who can easily fall for reallysimplified and juvenile arguments appealing to deep emotions regarding race andethnicity.

Ifanother 11 September had occurred with a couple of years of 2001, I don't doubtmany of these people could have been convinced that the American (and henceChristian) thing to do was to round up all the undesirables and place them intocamps. While it sounds far fetched, I don't think so. Many would just unhappilygo along, but many would be eager to take part and encourage their children to'sign up' for 'duty'.

PersonallyI don't think the great experiment of Democracy works at all. I think it's beena pretty miserable failure. It's very telling in our present system thatwhoever raises the most money will probably win...not because of their message,but because they can flood the market with advertising. That shows where thepublic is at. Information doesn't really work anymore. Entertainment andsensationalist propaganda are the only way to reach people. The Church is nodifferent. In fact in some ways it's in even worse shape.

This manat the shopping mall and his son are not good for the country. What is neededis people who won't fall for the lies, people who will question what is beingdone and help to hold others accountable...speak truth to power. Rather thanworship Molech with everyone else, we need people who will be Salt and Light orat the very least express some skepticism toward those who would shed bloodbased on obvious disinformation. From a purely secular standpoint, I wouldprefer citizens who aren't blind patriots but who understand patriotism as aresponsibility...not the responsibility of picking up a gun, but of examiningthe claims and agenda of elected leaders. Patriotism might mean refusing tofollow them or taking to the streets to protest what they're doing.

It mightmean as Christians we can't be the most patriotic people, but if I was apicking a Babylon to live in...I'd sure rather live in one where the peoplehold the government to account than one in which they blindly follow. I may notbe on the streets with them...but I might be thankful that Providence has seenfit to motivate people in that way. In the meantime I'll keep living my quietlife, being salt and light, speaking whenever I can, redeeming the time andbeing a witness.

I'mafraid our work doesn't make it on to CNN or BBC. That doesn't mean that it'snot important. In fact, I could argue the discussion I was having that day in aspiritual sense might have been the most important 'event' in a fifty mileradius. I don't know that, but it may have been. The discussion, its fallout inhis life and circles and mine... these articles I'm writing may affect morepeople and more of the world than anything the local newspaper printed the nextday. The world won't see it that way, but we should. So while the Dominionistwould say I wasn't doing much, I strongly beg to differ. I was doing exactly whatI should have been doing...contending for the truth on a shopping mall benchoutside of Joann Fabrics. I don't mean to sound grandiose but it may have beeneven more important than an election or the appointment of a judge. Who cansay? What if thousands of Christians across this country challenged theSacralist status quo, the Sacralist Ecclesiastical Establishment? They mightaccomplish far more than some ridiculous Values Voters Summit. The Church needsto re-think this whole idea of victory, success, and power.

Look atJesus, Paul, and the other Apostles. Look at the prophets. Were their liveswasted? They didn't seem to be doing much in the way of taking back the cultureor transforming it. They spoke the truth and lived as witnesses. Sometimes theygot in trouble for it, but they never put their confidence in princes nordepended on man for help.

What Iwon't do is just go along with whatever mass hysteria has gripped the culture.I won't chase after the American Dream and pretend it's somehow Christian, andI won't sacrifice my children to the Sacral State.

I don'tequate Patriotism with willingness to wear a uniform and carry a gun. I methordes of people in the military who baffled me. I couldn't understand why theywere there? Many seemed to be there because they needed a job or a way to getinto university. Many were career minded, or trying to stay out of trouble.There were some who really cared about America and felt they were 'serving',but many seemed to know better and realize that what we were often doing, hadlittle or nothing to do with making Americans safe or their lives better. Thiswas before 11 September. I 'm sure that single event changed much within themilitary cultural mindset.

Iremember very strongly feeling like a pawn in a large game...which is what Iwas. Largely the military is just its own subculture, a self-contained worldwith its own values, lingo, and caste system. I think a lot of people found acomfort there. You never have to worry about your housing, your food, or beingunemployed. You're privileged, especially overseas where your part of an elitegroup that looks down on the local population. Domestically you command respectand have access to benefits like socialized medicine, pension, travel, andother things the regular public is excluded from.

As aChristian I have a real problem with Patriotism in any form, but even then itmust be defined. Do Christo-Americans root their Patriotism in ideals? Whatideals? Sometimes they're heretical ideals based on misapplied Scripture. Theideals of Freedom, Democracy...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

If so, Icould argue strongly that the Patriotic position in the post 2001 world ...wouldhave been to strongly oppose the wars as being contrary to these ideals.

Is beingPatriotic about serving my fellow Americans that I share the nation with? Idon't think too many Evangelicals would put it this way, as they seem to allbut despise a good percentage of the people who inhabit the nation. But again,if that's patriotism, then I could argue that the war is harmful to myneighbour, not just Iraqis (who are also neighbours and fellow men), but peoplethat live around me. Americans will be maimed and killed, we will generatefuture enemies and spend billions of dollars we don't have.

Is beingPatriotic following orders, picking up a gun and killing when told to do so? Ifso, then it would be my Christian duty to be as anti-Patriotic as possible,

Nomatter how I look at it, having a large segment of the population that willinglyand blindly subjects itself to propaganda and is willing to kill and be killedfor these causes is not good for the nation in any way shape or form. Power,dangerous tyrannical power will not be held in check or to account by such apopulation.

That'sthe nation, but what about the Church?

Responding to a member of the McIntire Faction

2012-02-04T09:00:00.002-05:00

I came across this post the other day and I felt itprovided a good opportunity for some interaction. The author means well, Idon’t think that can be disputed. His guiding principles on the surface seemsound and to his mind quite obvious.

However, the author holds certain theologicalassumptions which drive his whole understanding of not only how to look atthese issues, but what questions to ask.

Consequently, we end up with some serious problemsin how these issues are approached, the dilemmas created and the solutionssuggested or provided. I talk about this quite often and this article provides yet another good demonstration of what this looks like.

For longtime readers this will be nothing new, butas there’s a constant stream of people coming and going, I want to make sure Irevisit these points. Sometimes a change in context or just putting it all in adifferent way will help someone to see things in a new light. What wasn’t clearbefore might suddenly jump off the page.

The McIntire Faction refers to the fact that theauthor is a pastor in the Bible Presbyterian Church started by Carl McIntireamong others. He played a large role in shaping the theology and ideology ofmodern American political Evangelicalism.

The GOP, Personal Integrity, and South Carolina

January 20, 2012 by Tim Prussic

Now that the field has narrowed forthe GOP, my interest has increased (a little bit). I watched some of thelatest GOP debate, the so-called “Southern RepublicanPresidential Debate.” This post will contain some reactions to a single aspectof that debate.

Afore my color commentary, allow meto set down a few guiding principles. The first two are general, and the thirdapplies to my observation of the debate. 1) Jesus Christ IS King of the UnitedStates of America, for he is the Ruler of the Kings of Earth (Rev. 1:5). Thismeans that the only cosmic government is an absolute monarchy. Christiansshould simply admit this and quit trying to be sons of the Enlightenment,acting as if Jesus were merely a private King or the King only of his church.He’s certainly both of those things, but he’s more than that, too. He is thehead of *all things* and is given to the church, which is the fullness of himwho fills all in all (Eph 1:23). Okay… so far so good? No? Sorry. Moving on,then:

Proto:

Christ is of course the Ruler of theKings of the Earth, and in that sense yes, it is the duty of every person onthis planet to bow the knee, repent and believe. The means which we seek tobring this about is the gospel. This gospel includes an eschatological promiseand warning. Jesus is coming; this will be life and the completion of salvationfor those that belong to Him, and death and Judgment for those who do not.

Christ is also the Head and King ofthe Church. He is King of a Holy Kingdom that one must be Born Again toparticipate in. Only those who are renewed by the Holy Spirit can see thisKingdom which comes without observation, this Kingdom that is righteousness,peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, this Kingdom that is not of this world andnot fought for with carnal weapons.

The author’s way of framing this ismisguided and quite harmful. One, it does not make the distinction betweenChrist’s universal Reign...hissovereign Providential rule over the universe as both Creator and Preserver,and Christ’s particular Holy Realmwherein he reigns as the Saviour we are in Union with, the Resurrected King whoreturned from the dead for our Justification, the sender of the Holy Spirit tocomfort and aid His people, and the object of our Blessed Hope.

Christ is none of these things forthe nations of the world which are mere human constructs all aspiring to beBeasts and make a name for themselves. He is not Life to the unrepentant butthe coming Judge wielding a sword. He is not a Blessed Hope to those who haverejected him, but a promise of Holy Terror which will ask them to account fortheir lives.

This is not Enlightenment thinking,this is Scriptural. The fact that Enlightenment thinkers developed metaphysicaland political theories which rejected Sacralistic thought can be looked at asboth irrelevant to our discussion and practically speaking as fallen man at hisbest...creating a political cultural sphere which will function (for a time) asa venue in which both Christian and non-Christian can live in relative socialpeace...an excellent setting for the Church to both promote the gospel and growinternally.

The United States in no way can beidentified as the Kingdom of Christ.

Prussic:

2) The law of God is not just forprivate use, family use, or church use, but is for the whole world, for all menand governments. There are plenty of qualifications to be made, but I want tostress that God’s law REALLY DOES apply to the President of the United Statesof America. For example, when God says, “You shall not murder,” that applies toindividuals, families, the church, and the state. That’s right, the civil magistratemay not take human life, except as God has commanded him to do so. Anotherexample: when God says, ” You shall not steal,” this applies to the government.This shouldn’t be contorted to mean that all taxation is illegitimate theft,but it should at very least, factor into our thinking about taxes and wealthredistribution.

Proto:

God’s law applies to the Presidentin this way...Behold the holiness of God. Behold the state of man, the curse ofsin, and the way of reconciliation provided through the cross of Christ. Repentor perish.

The Old Testament or Old Covenant isjust that...covenantal, bound to the people in covenant with the covenant-giver(God) who provided it. Its presence on the earth is both salt and light, atestimony to truth and hope and a warning.

The laws concerning holiness,judgment, and reconciliation all pointed to Jesus Christ. They were in no waymeant for the nations around Israel and to say they apply to the United Statesor any other nation today displays a gross misunderstanding of Holy Scriptureand Redemptive History. If all the nations were to embrace the Torah, theIsrael would cease to be. Individuals from the nations were invited to becomeCovenant people…Jews.

Today we go unto all nations andmake disciples, bringing people into the Kingdom, but the nations themselvesare not transformed into Holy Realms or expressions of the Kingdom. The Kingdomis God’s people at work in all lands and among all peoples and tongues.

The Old Testament nations werejudged by an unexpressed standard...a general morality which historically hasbeen called Natural Law. They were expected to grasp basic moral conceptsregarding murder, theft, justice and so forth. Prophetically we can speak tothe nations...meaning the people of the world. What are they to do? Repent andjoin with the covenant people, the Commonwealth of Israel Paul describes inEphesians 2, the Jews and Gentiles participating in the Covenants (plural) ofPromise...which of course is Jesus Christ the affirmation and confirmation, theyes and amen of all the promises…2 Corinthians 1.20

To treat the Law this way is tode-canonize it and to make it non-Testamental, non-Covenantal.

If Law is meant in a Lutheran sense,in that it is merely the ‘commands’ of God which may or may not include the OldTestament laws...then again, I would say that Romans 8 teaches us theunregenerate man cannot be subjected to the Law of God...he rails against it.He needs to be renewed by the Spirit. The Law has one command to the unbeliever...Repentand Believe.

The author is assuming that somehowthe United States is supposed to operate in a covenantal fashion. The UnitedStates is just another nation that will come and go. As far as nations go it’sa pretty wicked one and that has been in no small part due to its Sacralisticimpulses, the attempt to force Christianity on unbelievers and the hybrid whichresults from it. The ideas the author suggests will not help in this regard.

I’m pleased that he has not entirelyfallen for the very misguided and erroneous concept advocated by manyChristians that taxation is theft. This is used as a theological-politicalpoint and part of an attempt to delegitimize the present powers that be. I’msorry, but as much as we all may be irritated by taxes, as much as they aremisused by the American war machine and flushed down the bureaucratictoilet...we have no theological basis to call it theft. That’s calling taxationa sin and thus encourages the Church to protest it. Nowhere are we encouragedto protest the taxes of Rome or Babylon. In fact we’re told to pay them andwe’re given reasons why. The Church’s political posturing is in directopposition to the exhortations of the epistles. Sacralists are making itimpossible for us to live the quiet lives we are supposed to seek. This quietis social, in terms of our hope for society. Our Christian lives are filledwith both joy and sorrow, and all who are in Christ will not gain power, butsuffer persecution. That’s our calling and in fact our means of victory. Thisis both basic to the Christian life but also quite profound and rarely graspedtoday.

We will have plenty of difficultiesno matter what society we live in. We are exhorted to pray for a quiet andpeaceful one, but there’s no promise that our prayers will be answered. TheAmerican Church is doing the exact opposite, buying into the power struggle andengaging the Church in a cultural war in which the gospel has been all butlost. And though the words, the grammatical formula is still present, it has nounction, no power behind it. The Church has sacrificed its witness and bringsno love or holiness, no hope or warning…but instead wields a sword ofhypocrisy, threat, violence, lies and deceit.

If the pagans rise up and overthrowthe other pagans who are imposing the tax, hey that’s fine. If they don’t, that’salso fine. Either way we’re called to live as pilgrims in Babylon and pay ourtaxes. When this Babylon dies, it will be replaced by another hydra-headedBabylon…but for us, nothing changes.

This is so foreign to the American Church.There have been people all throughout Church History that have taught this andwarned the Church against the power-temptation. Rarely have they been heard andall too often the ‘Church’ has turned on these people and persecuted them.

Of course it’s not the Churchpersecuting them, but agents of another religion, one that looks like Christianitybut is in reality a syncretization, a hybrid, a mixing of Christianity withpaganism. We used to call it Christendom, though today many prefer theJudeo-Christian West. Don’t confuse this Sacral and Imperial construct withBiblical Christianity.

Prussic:

Finally, 3) past sins do notnecessarily disqualify a candidate for office. We all stumble in many ways(James 3:2). By God’s grace in Christ, we repent, trusting in the Savior alone,and we’re forgiven. What’s more, we move on, having learned from our sin.

Proto:

This is all question begging ofcourse. He’s assuming his premise which in no way is proven. Of course pastsins can be forgiven, in fact on a personal level they have to be. If anemployee steals from me, I have to forgive him, but that does not mean I haveto re-instate him in his former position with the same responsibilities and theimplied trust those responsibilities rest on.

In terms of a national leader, Ineed to consider his understanding of the law of the land and his vision forsociety and nation. The nation is not holy...that removes a huge burden ofexpectation, but also limits my expectations and certainly my allegiance. As aChristian my only real allegiance is to the Kingdom of Christ.

These other questions are secondaryat best. They’re quite interesting and certainly affect my daily life, but theymust be kept in perspective. I can vote, I can write letters to the newspaper,I can participate at a council meeting. I do so as a Christian and that shapeshow I treat others and to what extent I can or cannot participate in whatothers are doing. But I’m doing it as a citizen of Babylon who is a Christian,not as a Christian who’s trying to transform Babylon into Zion, the commonnation into the Holy Realm of God.

We’re never told to this. It cannot happen, and we’re given no expectation inthe New Testament that it ever will happen. Our road is narrow, we are aRemnant people, there are few which be saved and when Christ comes…will he findfaith on the earth?

Prussic:

Character... what a funny concept!

Alright, now to the debate: itstarted with a question to Speaker Gingrich about his deplorable treatment of oneof his ex-wives. I’ve heard people talk about Newt’s response and how good itwas. Having listened to his response, I can appreciate one aspect of it. Therewere falsehoods in the story, as it was told, and Newt addressed himself tothose to set them straight. So far, so good… we have (at least) to get ourfacts straight. From there, however, his response was lame. Newt’s response wasdismissive and antagonistic. He didn’t speak a word about repentance. There wasnot even a note of remorse. What’s more, he let on that this sort of stuff wassimply a sideshow, distracting from the *real* issues. Romney piped up,basically saying: “Umm… can we move on to something important?” What amazes me isthat Newt (a Roman catholic) and Mitt (a Mormon elder) want to act as if theirpersonal lives, past sins, and repentance DON’T MATTER! Do you think that’strue? Personally, I think it’s crazy. Somehow, it appears that both Gingrichand Romney think that personal integrity and character just are not animportant aspect to the presidency.

Seriously. Not. Impressive. …ormaybe it’s very impressive, but in a negative way. What do you think?

Proto:

I wouldn’t expect to find a wholelot of repentance among political candidates. Any man, who aspires to be thePresident of the United States has hardly been humbled, is hardly someone thatis used to being brought low by godly sorrow. These are some of the mostprideful and power hungry creatures on the face of the earth.

Character does matter, and for thatreason if I were a Sacralist…I wouldn’t be able to support ANY of these men, foreven a moment. The only one in the crowd that has even an ounce of integrity isRon Paul.

Ultimately when looking at those whowould rule Babylon, I am looking for those who are most likely to aid us inleading our quiet and peaceable lives…isn’t that what we’re supposed to prayfor? Isn’t God telling us this is the means by which His Kingdom advances…ahealthy setting in which the Church is able to do its work in a peacefulcontext?

Of course the Kingdom advances evenwhen we’re being slaughtered. The Kingdom grows either way, the differentcontexts simply provide for different types of growth.

The wicked Roman Empire providedsuch a context…that in no way validated Rome. Providence empowered it, but italso fell at a later date, did it not? It was an imperfect but convenientcontext.

America has proved similar in manyways, except most of American history has been Constantinian and thusunhealthy. We would actually do better under a Commodus, Caracalla, or Vespasian.Let’s just hope we never end up with a Theodosius like Rick Santorum.

So for me in terms of theology andcharacter I am most hostile to and suspicious of candidates who flout theirChristianity and use it as a political and campaigning tool. Alarm bells go offand since they’ve introduced Kingdom and thus theological issues into theequation my only response to them can be…to oppose them. I don’t support anycandidate, but there are some I specifically oppose.

First, those espousing any kind ofDominionistic theology or promote ideas tying America in with some kind of holyidentity or mission. I cannot vote for them and must oppose them at all times.

Second, I will oppose those whopromote Empire and war regardless of religious affiliation.

What does that leave us with? Notmuch I’m afraid.

What if a Hindu Lesbian was running?…Iwould probably prefer that to any of our present options. Please understand inno way does that mean I endorse Hindus or Lesbians. But we’re talking Babylonhere. If the Hindu Lesbian doesn’t bomb other countries and is willing toembrace social libertarianism which benefits both her and me…then fine. I’llpreach the gospel to the Hindu Lesbian too, but she wouldn’t need to worry thatI’m trying to topple her throne.

Hopefully she’ll repent and believeand instead of transforming the American Empire into a Holy Empire…perhaps she’ll dismantle it, break it apartand end the unholy dream. In the end such a candidate may prove ill forimperial dreams, but cannot harm the Church. False Christians promoting falseChristian empires are on the other hand quite dangerous to the people of God.

That last couple of paragraphs may seemstrange, but please understand I’m trying to make a point. I hope that’sunderstood.

I appreciate the author’s zeal toapply the Bible to all these questions but I think he’s misread it. Does itreally matter? Considering he’s pastoring a church…absolutely. He may be a goodman who means well and loves the Lord, but what he stands for on these issuesis not in accord with the Kingdom of Christ as revealed to us in the HolyScriptures. I don’t mean to attack him personally. I don’t know him, but sincehe leads a congregation and has posted this publicly… his writings like mineare fair game.

A Strange Encounter Part 6

2012-02-02T21:42:00.001-05:00

The Terrible Price of Sacralism...Ignoranceby Design

Historicallythe Sacralist impulse has led to the confusion of common nation with theKingdom of God. The nation's agenda and policy are cast in theological andredemptive terms. Conflicts with other nations are not understood as two fallennations in a fallen world fighting over control of the City of Man, they're notunderstood as rival evils, competing Beast-powers. Instead it's good vs. evil,one side is white and pure while the other side is corrupted, black, and thusevil.

Oneside, in this case the United States becomes a manifestation of Christ'sKingdom, or at least its proxy, and thus by extension the soldiers in its armybecome something akin to Holy Crusaders.

Speculativetheology wedded to Sacralism can generate an argument or position for anyoccasion. Justification for war and violence is easy enough to come up withusing twisted hermeneutics applied to Old Testament Israel.

When thepopulation is uninformed, ignorant and highly subject to propaganda then it isno great task to manufacture consent. Our world has grown very complex and wehave access to information like never before, but with that access comes adouble edged sword. The powers that be can be called out much easier, it'sharder for them to hide things. But on the other hand, medieval kings and Romanemperors would have salivated at the prospects of using something liketelevision to promote and sell policy. More than enough information isavailable for us to discern what is happening in the world, but if no one knowshow to think or work it out, then it does little good.

Generallyspeaking it's pretty easy to take a non-aggressive impotent country and paintthem as a fire-breathing aggressor, an imminent threat to the very existence ofthe nation wishing to start a fight. The Establishment Media (wittingly orunwittingly) in 2002-2003 helped the Bush Administration convince the publicthat America's existence was at stake. Iraq was going to attack any moment andso by attacking them, we were actually defending ourselves, and preventing amushroom cloud from appearing over an American city.

Anabsurd argument, but it proved an easy sell in the face of not justgeo-political ignorance, but hysterical fear combined with ignorance. Andthough few in the media actually suggested or verified the extreme scenariosproffered by the administration, the imagery worked, the fear was at work amongthe masses.

Thepowers that be even recruited some leaders of the False Church to draft andsign a letter to President Bush assuring him that attacking Iraq would bedefensive and in accord with "Christian" Just War Theory. The LandLetter represented a low point for the American Church as the Southern Baptistlobbyist Richard Land, former special counsel to Nixon and unrepentant felonChuck Colson, Dominionist D James Kennedy, and perhaps one of the worstoffenders of promoting the false gospel of Cheap Grace and Easy Believism,Campus Crusade founder Bill Bright, signed a letter that twisted history,promoted heresy and encouraged a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousandsdead. Pope Urban II would have been proud.

Theeffects of the American invasion of Iraq have not ended. It has affected thewhole region and will continue to do so for at least a generation.

Ratherthan understand America's imperial mission over the past century and itsworldwide aggression, especially ramped up since 1991... rather than workthrough the theological implications of what was happening, most Christians wentalong with it all. I wonder how far it could have gone before some of themwould have really started to question what was happening? What would havehappened if there had been another attack and Bush had been granted unlimitedpolitical capital for several more years?

Ratherthan Churches teaching Christians to have a Biblical Worldview, these samesynagogues of Satan lauded and praised American 'Servicemen' as they 'servedand defended our freedom' by militarily occupying dozens of countries around theworld and in March of 2003, by bombing a country that had already been betrayedand ravaged by the United States for over a decade... a country that manyworkers within the NGO community claimed had been subject to a genocide on thepart of the United States with over 1.5 million dead between 1991-2003.

Weweren't liberating the Iraqis. We'd been systematically destroying theircountry for over a decade. The illegal no-fly zones and the sanctions had onlystrengthened Saddam Hussein. Few were sorry to see him go in 2003, but you'rehard pressed to find any Iraqis outside of Kurdistan happy with the results ofthe American invasion, few that would say life is better, or that they've beenliberated. The Kurds are happy to have him gone but their feelings towardAmerican can only be mixed at best. American ally and up until recentlyAmerican proxy Turkey has slaughtered the Kurds in the tens of thousands.American policy calls the Kurds in Iraq freedom fighters, but just a few milesaway in Southeast Turkey, they're terrorists.

TheIraqis have not been liberated, they're the victims of Imperial policy. The6000 American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tens of thousandsof wounded and maimed are not 'serving' the people of the United States, theyare pawns in a great game, an Imperial strategy dictated by American political,military and business interests.

Ratherthan teach the commandments of Christ, these 'churches' encouraged and stillencourage their young men to shave their heads, be brainwashed, put on theuniform of death, and wage war on other nations.

And whenthey kill, it is justified...the dead are either guilty parties or unfortunatevictims of collateral damage. There's no sin, no crime. Invading anothercountry and killing its people is not murder, it's service. Manipulating andconquering other countries isn't theft, it's defending our freedom.

Ironically,George Bush did more than any other president in recent memory to destabilizethe world order. He generated a whole generation of new enemies who wish forrevenge and an opportunity to strike back at the Empire which has spread a darkcloud over much of the world. America has been at this for a long time, andwhen the Soviet Union fell, the lust for power only increased.

ForAmericans the so-called and very misnamed War on Terror has only created moreterror. As a result of Imperial policy both at home and abroad we've lostfreedoms and are sliding toward a police state. Despite the hopes of many verygullible people, Obama has done nothing to pull America from this path. Thiswould not be possible if the military was not 'serving' as the muscular arm ofEmpire. Are these men and women in uniform serving us? Are these pawns notactually doing us harm?

They'renot 'serving' us in the least, nor are they making us more free...actuallytheir willingness to participate in evil policy, or in many cases theirignorance of what they do...is actually diminishing our freedom.

Some ina previous generation understood this when instead of cheering returningsoldiers from Vietnam they jeered them. I'm not going to spit on soldiers atthe airport, but I will not under any circumstance stand on applaud returningstorm troopers who are destroying this nation and the world and making me lessfree.

Whyaren't the terrorists gunning for Sweden or Switzerland? Why aren't theysetting off bombs in Cambodia, Uruguay, or Botswana? Because these countriesaren't out trying to conquer the world. It's funny when you leave other peoplealone and don't steal their land and resources, kill their children, andcorrupt their culture...they don't want to fly hijacked airplanes into yourbuildings, which itself was an act of desperation...a guerilla attack...a fleabiting an elephant, trying to get its attention, scare it off.

Americais brilliant at couching its agenda in terms of benevolence, justice, andaltruism. It only takes a little bit of knowledge to see what's reallyhappening. The Bosnians needed rescuing in 1995 and the Kosovo Albanians in1999. Look how good the Americans are. Look how caring. It couldn't be that inpost-Soviet Europe America was doing everything it could to gobble up theremnants of the Soviet bloc? It couldn't be that NATO and the EU were bothseeking to ensure hegemony over as much of Europe as possible while Russia wason its knees in the 1990's? It couldn't be that the United States didn't wantto see Orthodox-Muslim strife spread and begin to affect other areas of EasternEurope and reignite tensions surrounded their ally Turkey? No, it was purealtruism, because America is good and noble.

Butapparently, that goodness and selflessness didn't extend to the people ofRwanda, Sudan, the Congo, Turkish Kurdistan, or North Korea? Or were thereother factors, other interests or lack thereof?

Whyweren't our soldiers 'serving' us there? In 1995 why was I 'serving' while Iwas moving bombs and missiles around to kill Serbs...but not North Koreans, orSudanese?

I justfail to understand why the public falls for this whole line about serving and defendingour freedom. Fine I understand, people weren't happy with how American soldierswere treated during the Vietnam era, but they weren't serving us or defendingus there either. Was Vietnam going to attack America? The United States failedin its objectives and what happened? Aside from destabilizing the wholeIndochinese region, the Americanseventually learned Communism wasn't a monolith...nationalism never went away,and from the standpoint of the Vietnamese it wasn't about InternationalCommunism, but more a case of Civil War, a people resisting an occupier.Communism in so many cases was but a vehicle for the lower classes to expressnationalistic sentiment.

Here weare 37 years after Saigon was abandoned, and now Starbucks and Kentucky FriedChicken have accomplished far more than Agent Orange.

How werethe American soldiers in Vietnam serving the country?

And whenthey die, both then and now, they are not only heroes but martyrs. The languageused is often redemptive...our life and salvation is tied to their sacrifice,they died in order that we might live. It ends up sounding blasphemous.