R2K Introduces New Lyrics To Old Children’s Sunday School Song

“[2K] also teaches that the nature of genuine religion is precisely private, personal, and not something for public display or consumption. . . .Which invites the question: If it is possible to keep such essential aspects of faith as prayer and almsgiving private, even within the privacy of one’s devotional life, why wouldn’t it be possible for a serious believer to keep that faith bracketed once entering the public square or the voting booth? The very essence of faith, at least the Christian variety, might be that it is private, personal, and something to keep distinct from expression in the public arena of politics.”

D. Gnostic Hart
A Secular Faith, pp. 176-177

This little light of mine
I’m gonna hide its shine
This little light of mine
I’m gonna hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine

Hide it under a Bushel?
Oh YEAH! I’m gonna hide its shine
Hide it under a Bushel?
Oh YEAH! I’m gonna hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine

I’ll help Satan blow it out
I’m gonna hide its shine
I’ll help Satan blow it out
I’m gonna hides its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine
Hide its shine

Hide its shine til Jesus comes.
I’m gonna hide its shine.
Hide its shine til Jesus comes.
I’m gonna hide its shine,
Hide its shine til Jesus comes.
I’m gonna hide its shine.
hide its shine, hides its shine, hide its shine.
This little light of mine, I’m gonna hide its shine.
This little light of mine, I’m gonna hide its shine.
This little light of mine, I’m gonna hide its shine.

hide its shine, hide its shine, hide its it shine.
hide its shine, hide its shine, hide its it shine.

________________________

Really, that is a great quote from Hart!

I have just one qualm. How dare he publish such wonderful (but necessarily private) insights in such public square fashion? He would do better telling God about these things from the cushy privacy of his prayer closet. Let us all now strike his comments from our memory so as to protect the libertarian sanctity of his individual faith.

Brian Lee on World Vision — An Examination of Lee’s Views

Referring to this article,

For World Vision, Is Sexuality More Important Than Theology?

Normally, I might fisk this article but as it is disconnected and barely coherent in terms of how the article flows I’ve decided to just make a few relevant comments.

1.) Rev. Lee opens with noting the “confusion between the universal good of humanitarian aid and the particular concern of the church’s gospel ministry.” Lee desires for the Church to have the “Gospel” while humanitarian aide can be taken up in the common square by Muslims, Hindus, and assorted faith systems all coming together. In such a way we would cease talking about Humanitarian aide as being “Christian,” opting instead to call it “common.” The problem with this is that Lee forgets that “Humanitarian aide” can only be defined by some standard and that standard is not common good feelings but God’s Word. If non-Christians were consistent with their own worldviews they would not feed the hungry and poor. (Has Lee read his Nietzsche?) As such this is one reason why theologically solid para-Church organizations should continue to exist, if the church as the church can’t do the work herself. Only in that way can we have a hope that the standard for “Humanitarian aide as a Universal good” will have the proper standard. I would submit that the real confusion would only begin if we gave up the relationship between Christianity and it’s Gospel (broadly considered) and humanitarian aid.

2.) Keep in mind that Rev. Lee as R2K does not believe any Institution or culture can be Christian. It is not possible. So, Lee’s problem with World-Vision is the same problem that he has with the idea of Christian Education, Christian Law, Christian families or Christian culture. R2K and their sycophants do not believe it is possible for anything to be Christian except the Church and individuals as abstracted from their communal realities.

3.) The problem with World Vision is that they never should have been considered either Christian or Evangelical to begin with, but not because it is not possible for other Institutions to be Christian but because they just were not Christian in their Theology. Of course, it was not possible for them to not have a Theology, and their Theology was and is modernist as seen in their hiring practices. Dr. Albert Mohler offered at this point,

No organization can serve on behalf of churches across the vast theological and moral spectrum that would include clearly evangelical denominations, on the one hand, and liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ, on the other. That might work if World Vision were selling church furniture, but not when the mission of the organization claims a biblical mandate.

This has been a problem with World Vision for decades.

So, our R2K aficionado the honorable Rev.Lee takes the worst possible example and tries to suggest that all Institutions have the same problem. Baloney. Institutions can be Christian without being Churches. To suggest that the Church is the only Christian Institution is just utter nonsense. We can concede readily and happily that the Church is a unique Christian Institution charged with Word and Sacrament but to suggest that no other Institution can be Christian because the Church is uniquely delegated to minister Grace is just not good Theology. R2K is full of not good theology. According to R2K Law, Education, Family life, culture, etc. can not be considered “Christian” because they do not hold the Keys as the Church does. This is a fatal flaw in R2K “theology.” The flaw is to insists that “Church” and “Kingdom” are exactly co-terminus. It’s just not so.

On this score Presbyterian A. A. Hodge offered,

“It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness … The Bible, the great statute-book of the Kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, “He that is not with me is against me.” If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.”

You see in Lee’s book, A. A. Hodge is confusing between the universal good of every human being in all their relations and the particular concern of the church’s gospel ministry. Lee practices a false dichotomy.

But allow us to add a Theologian from the Continental side of the Reformed expression,

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

Education, and Law (as only two examples) do not handle Word and Sacrament. Does this mean that Education and Law can’t be Christian? It means that to Lee and all R2K aficionados.

4.) Lee asks in his article, “Why should humanitarian aid be an exclusivist enterprise?” The question should be instead, “Why should anybody not Christian want to do humanitarian aid except that someplace in their Worldview they have some Christian capital that informs them that helping the poor and oppressed is a good idea. Lee believes humanitarian aid should not be exclusive to Christians but apart from the residue of a Christian Worldview why should anyone provide humanitarian aid?

5.) Lee spills electronic ink assuming that all because a Institution is Christian therefore it must be the same thing as God’s Church. This is a non-sequitur. Christian Institutions don’t handle the Keys and aren’t expected to proclaim the Word or handle the Sacraments. Only in Lee’s R2K world, where no Institution can be “Christian” unless it is also “Church” does Lee’s problems arise.

6.) Interestingly enough, along with Lee, I’m not a big fan of para-Church organizations, but I’m not a big fan for different reasons. The problem with para-Church organizations is that they are not accountable to a set body of believers. The recent World Vision fiasco would have been unlikely to have happened if World Vision had been under a Reformed Church that was thoroughly Biblical and Christians. That the Church, as the Church, should be involved in World Vision type ministries is seen in St. Paul’s work in collecting relief funds for the Jerusalem church for famine relief.

Rev. Lee’s R2K vision is not consistent with historic Reformed understanding of the relationship between Church and Kingdom. His is a completely innovative approach. Let the buyer beware.

Lyndon Baines Johnson On Civil Rights

Today the man who claims to be President gave a speech honoring Lyndon Baines Johnson for signing the Civil Rights act. It is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights legislation. Here is a quote from LBJ from a speech in 1948.

“The Civil Rights program, about which you have heard so much, is a farce and a sham… an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I fought it in Congress. It is the province of the State to run its own elections.”

In 1957 LBJ added this gem.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

These quotes kind of put all the LBJ worship going on in perspective.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/10/obama_lbj_knew_what_the_hell_the_presidency_was_for.html

Federal Elections Do Not Render Choices For The Voters

For a couple decades now I’ve believed that the political system, especially on the Federal level is rigged. Which is to say I believe that most candidates on each side of the ballot are going to implement much the same agenda. I believe this because the money behind the candidates is largely coming from the same sources. I believe this because of the consistent track record which finds candidates excoriating incumbents only to turn around, upon being elected, to pursue the exact same policies, at a factor of 10, which they previously excoriated with relish during the campaign.

To support this conviction I offer some quotes from an American Governor from 1930. This Governor was hammering away at the proto-Keynsian policies of President Hoover. This Governor eventually ran against Hoover as a Democrat and defeated Hoover in the 1932 Presidential election and turned around and made Hoover’s proto-Keynsian policies look like the kind of stuff that children might do with a Lemonade stand.

This 1930 Governor makes Ron Paul sound like a collectivist and a Statist.

I submit to you he knew when making these speeches he was going to pursue the very same Economic policies that Herbert Hoover was following. In point of fact he made Hoover look like a neo-phyte when it came to Government largess.

I provide a few of the quotes from his March, 1930 speech. If someone didn’t know in 1930 that the system was rigged even then they would have voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt for President thinking that they would be getting a small Government conservative.

“As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.”

“Thus, it was clear to the framers of our Constitution that the greatest possible liberty of self-government must be given to each State, and that any national administration attempting to make all laws for the whole Nation, such as was wholly practical in Great Britain, would inevitably result at some future time in a dissolution of the Union itself.”

“Now, what are the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution? First of all, the National Government is entrusted with the duty of protecting any or all States from the danger of invasion or conquest by foreign powers by sea or land, and in return the States surrender the right to engage in any private wars of their own. This involves, of course, the creation of the army and navy and the right to enroll citizens of any State in time of need. Next is given the treaty-making power and the sole right of all intercourse with foreign States, the issuing of money and its protection from counterfeiting. The regulation of weights and measures so as to be uniform, the entire control and regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, the protection of patents and copyrights, the erection of minor Federal tribunals throughout the country, and the establishment of post offices are specifically enumerated. The power to collect taxes, duties and imposts, to pay the debts for the common defense and general welfare of the country is also given to the United States Congress, as the law-making body of the Nation.”

“On such a small foundation have we erected the whole enormous fabric of Federal Government which costs us now $3,500,000,000 every year, and if we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple Constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more.”

“On such a small foundation have we erected the whole enormous fabric of Federal Government which costs us now $3,500,000,000 every year, and if we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple Constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more….”

“The doctrine of regulation and legislation by “master minds,” in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find “master minds” so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger.”

“But what are the underlying principles on which this Government is founded? There is, first and foremost, the new thought that every citizen is entitled to live his own life in his own way so long as his conduct does not injure any of his fellowmen.”

The point is folks, that the whole election process on the Federal level is a tissue of lies. These people are not going to overturn the general direction of the deification of the State. I could provide quotes from LBJ decrying Civil Rights which he later supported. I could provide quotes from Obama bashing Bush for Bush’s practice of Executive power and now Obama makes Bush look like milquetoast.

The election process is a ruse folks to make you think that you have some kind of authority.

You don’t.

Here is a link to the whole Governor FDR speech,

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/fdr_address.htm

Revolutionary Christianity or Anti-Revolutionary Christianity?


“The movement within which Bavinck rose to prominence, neo-Calvinism, found much of its initial momentum as a rebellion against the influence of the French Revolution across Europe. This struggle to counter this impact of the Revolution exerts a defining influence upon much of Bavinck’s thought on Christianity and culture….

The Revolution was an attempt to cast aside all the old distinctions of class and power: liberty, equality, and fraternity were the new values. Gone were concepts like monarchy, social class, and theism. The new de facto deity, reason, was set in direct opposition to divine revelation. The change attempted in Revolutionary France was highly ambitious: it was a movement of re-creation, an upheaval instigated to change every aspect of French life. The nineteenth-century Revolutionary intellectual Edgar Quinet recognized that such a sudden break with an entire social system could only happen if the preexisting sense of social inter connectedness between citizens was broken: those who have, until now, existed primarily in relationship to each other within a common culture must suddenly think of themselves primarily as individuals. Quinet recognized this has central not just to the French Revolution, but to all evolutionary movements. Thus, in order to change an entire society, all the old social connections had to disappear, and the ‘individual’ had to take their place.

The great irony perceived by the likes of Bavinck and Kuyper was that although revolutionaries were told of their new found individuality, in reality they became far more homogeneous than in the pre-Revolutionary world. Revolutionary France was a place where all were pressured to dress and speak alike, where human worth did not exist beyond one’s social standing (hence the drive for a homogenized society), and where institutions like Christian theism, as pro-social diversity were see as obstacles to those goals.

Having seen these ideals taking hold in France, Bavinck was motivated to combat their influence in Dutch culture. That context sets the scene for his thoughts on the family as a united social entity. His argument was that the family is not an arbitrary collection of individuals, who may or may not have much in common by way of belief. Rather, he argues in favor of the family as an organism made up of distinct but complementary people who together form the building blocks of society.

Introduction — The Christian Family
James Eglinton — pp. XIV – XV

1.) The success of the French Revolution was not limited to the fall of the Bastille. The success of the French Revolution was the beginning of the end for Christendom in the West, for the anti-Christ principles of the Revolution lived on in the turmoil in Europe in 1815, and 1848. The anti-Christ principles of the Revolution came to the states with the work on the Jacobins between 1861-1877. The anti-Christ principles of the Revolution found a permanent home in Russia for 70 years in 1918. The ideals and principles of the French Revolution continue to form and shape the world that we occupy today. The “Liberty” of the French Revolution remains today the attempt of fallen man to find Liberty from God. In point of fact Revolutionary “Liberty,” is lawlessness. The “Equality” of the French Revolution remains today as the ongoing attempt to level all distinctions by insisting that all hierarchy arrangements are merely social constructs to be deconstructed. The “Fraternity” of French Revolution remains today as the bumper sticker meme to “Co-Exist,” and the ongoing recitation of the the Fatherhood of God of all men and the Brotherhood of all men.

2.) For Bavinck the Revolutionary Worldview had to be opposed by all right minded Christians because Revolutionary ideology is part of the disordered sin sick reality that nature was poisoned with. Revolutionary ideology creates sick reality because it identifies sin w/ nature, and creation w/ the fall, and so in order to attack sin and the fall they attack nature and thus seek to pull down God’s institutional created social order that includes family, state, and society, preferring instead a sinful social order where God’s diversity is blended into a humanistic Unitarian sameness. This creates the sick reality that neo-Calvinism has always opposed.

3.) What Eglinton teaches us about Bavinck and the neo-Calvinist school is that they opposed this Revolutionary model that attempted to overthrow God’s ordained social order that was antithetical to Revolutionary “Liberty,” “Equality,” and “Fraternity.” This anti-Revolutionary Calvinism of men like Groen van Prinsterer, Bavinck, and Kuyper found later Calvinist Theologians like Dabney in 19th Century America and Rushdoony in 20th century carrying the anti-Revolutionary torch of the Neo-Calvinist founders.

This reminds us that there remains a thread of anti-Revolutionary fervor that has been characteristic of Biblical Calvinism. In this anti-Revolutionary Calvinism we find the insistence that any Christianity that makes peace with the desideratum of the continuing Revolutionary vision is a Calvinism that is no Calvinism.

4.) The press towards individualism that Eglinton mentions as the consequence of Revolutionary ideology, ironically enough, ends up in a vicious collectivism. When all mediating institutions, as created by the Christian social order, with its model of jurisdictionalism, are destroyed by Revolutionary “Equality” the consequence is a bland sameness where individualism is completely lost.

5.) The lack of this kind of basic understanding of how Biblical Calvinism, as the essence of Biblical Christianity, results in the consequence that modern Christianity reinterprets itself through the grid of Revolutionary ideology. When “Calvinists,” and all other “Christians,” refuse to understand what has occurred, with the success of Revolutionary ideology, is that Christianity is interpreted through the lens of “Liberty,” “Equality,” and “Fraternity.” What this means is that modern Christianity is, in the majority report, Revolutionary Christianity. Instead of challenging the continued onslaught of the Revolution, what happens is that Christianity seeks to make peace with Revolution. A modern Church, that is not self-aware that it must be anti-Revolutionary, ends up discipling its people into being “sanctified” subscribers of the Revolution. Christians who are not epistemologically self-conscious regarding the ongoing Revolution are Christians who stand in the way of Reformation.

6.) Indeed, it is not going to far to say that Christianity that is interpreted in the grid of Revolutionary thought is a different Christianity that is interpreted through the grid of anti-Revolution.

7.) Anti-Revolutionary Calvinism finds in the death of Christ the healing of the Cosmos and a deliverance from personal and individual Revolution that results in the healing of social order Revolution.

8.) There is a neo-Calvinism that is claimed by Leftist Christians. They do agree that all things must be interpreted through a biblical gird but their biblical grid has already itself been reinterpreted through a Revolutionary grid. Neo-Calvinist who advocate for a social order that is consistent with Revolutionary goals is not neo-Calvinism.