Marriage Homily

I.) Opening Prayer — Mr. Mark Chambers

Father we thank you that we’ve been invited to participate in this joyous occasion, the uniting of Andy and Bernice in Holy Matrimony. We’ve come to witness the ceremony, to celebrate with them, and to ask for your blessings on them. We pray that you would strengthen them for all that lies ahead, especially in this day and age when the forces of darkness are being brought to bear on your church. We ask that their love for and commitment to each other would grow as it remains grounded in their mutual love and commitment to you. That you would own their hearts and minds all their days and ensure their fidelity to you and your holy purpose. That within the confines of the roles of marriage that You have laid out in your holy word they would place the needs of the other above their own. And finally that you would bless them with an abundance of Godly seed, that the church might be filled with Christian warriors who from their youth are dedicated to godly dominion and conquering this apostate nation for our Lord and King Jesus Christ.

II.) Marriage Homily

When God said that Husbands were to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and when our Sovereign God went on to command that wives are to submit to their husbands at that point God confirmed a law order for Marriage that had already been in place for a millennium among God’s people. What this means is that Marriage is not based on schmaltzy notions of sentimentalism and Harlequin Romance. Nor is marriage anchored in effervescent and mercurial feelings. Marriage is structured and ordered by a law structure ordained by God wherein husband’s are to serve their wives by leading them as that service is consistent with God’s law and wherein wives are to submit to their husbands wherein that submission required is consistent with God’s law.

Note that neither the Husbands service, nor the wife’s submission are absolutized. Both must exist and move in terms of God’s overall law order. Husbands have no authority to be either Tyrants or Wimps and wives have no authority to be either Shrews or Doormats. If Husbands operate outside of God’s law order in relation to his wife, his wife is duty bound to oppose him. The same goes in the other direction.

For centuries the short hand label for this biblical marriage social order has been “patriarchy,” which means literally “rule of the Father.” That Scripture everywhere supports patriarchy is seen from Genesis to Revelation. God who rules over all is described as Father and entrusts covenantal  representations with fathers and husbands.

Now Patriarchy has fallen on some hard times, what with the advent of feminism and egalitarianism. Indeed the Church in the West, in many quarters, is all in a tizzy to find some other paradigm that is more “fair” and is more “wise” than what God has provided. The consequence of this search to replace the God of the Bible’s authority for structuring marriage with a different god’s authority for structuring marriage has resulted in the wreckage of the family in the West with the residual flotsam and jetsam of broken marriages,  single parent families, and confused children.

The cure for all this breakage is found in a return to biblical  patriarchy. In Patriarchy we find that the Christian faith gives us structure that is characterized by Love, Hierarchy, and Suitability

I.) Patriarchy is defined by love (Ephesians 5)

Interestingly it is Christ’s sacrificial love for His Church that is used as the model here for husbands. Here the Lord Christ is said to have gave Himself up for the Church.

Of course this is a shorthand reference to Christ’s death on the Cross for the sins of His people. Just as the Lord Christ served the Church in solving the Church’s sin problem by His death, so Husbands are to so love their wives that they sacrificially surrender themselves for their wives.

We should find it fascinating that the inspired Apostle would invoke the death of Christ for the Church as a model for a husband’s love and service for  and unto His wife. The crucifixion is the integrative point for all of Scripture. This love of God in Christ, taking upon Himself, on the Cross, the wrath of the Father, as deserved by the Church, becomes the model for patriarchy.  In His Cross work for the Church Christ did not consider His own needs but the needs of his Bride. In the Cross Christ provided for His bride the approval with God that she did not have. In the Cross Christ received the hostility of God that would have otherwise have fallen upon His bride. In the Cross Christ answered all the demands of God’s law that His bride could not meet. In the Cross Christ brought His bride underneath the safety of His wings and provided shelter from the storm of a loving God who provided Christ to be the Church’s husband. Christ did for His bride everything that His bride could not do. The Lord Christ loved His Church and gave Himself for it.

This selflessness, this obedience unto death, this compassion to do for others what they cannot to for themselves is the model set forth for Biblical patriarchy.  And yet, we are still told that patriarchy is arcane, oppressive, and so must be shelved in favor of other marriage models that are reflections of the bizarre and unseemly.

II.) Patriarchy is defined by Hierarchy (Ephesians 5)

The hierarchy is found in the explicitly stated requirement that, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.”

If modern man was not offended by what was already said he certainly has his knickers in a twist over this statement. Quit contrary to modernity’s lust for a Jacobin egalitarianism where everyone is equally the same thus assuring that each and all of us descend to a lowest common denominator sameness what  patriarchy teaches is that all of life, marriage included, has hierarchy. This hierarchy is not absolute but is governed by God’s law word. Husbands are to be the authority covering over the wife even as Christ is the authority covering over the Church.

That men have hierarchy authority over their wives and families is not based on the fact that men are innately superior to their wives. Such a view would be a sign of some kind of mental distemper. That men have authority over their wives is only based on the fact that men are better at being men then women are at being men and part of what it means to be a man is to serve one’s wife and family by exercising authority. This God ordained authority is wielded by the husband with a selflessness that is looking out for the best for wife and family.  It is to that authority that wives are to submit just as the Lord Christ submitted to the authority of the Father during the incarnation.

Notice the implied “harmony of interests” motif here. In patriarchy there is the presupposition of a harmony of interest. The husband and wife think not only of their own needs but of the needs of one another. As a minister for over 25 years now I can tell you that when marriages break down they most often break down when the “harmony of interests” is exchanged for a “conflict of interest” model where husband and / or wife begin to think the marriage is about themselves as opposed to being about the glory of God and the extension of the Kingdom of Christ.

III.) Patriarchy is defined by Suitability (Genesis 2)

This is what God said in Genesis
The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now, it stands to reason that this woman who was to be suitable for Adam found an Adam that in turn was suitable for her. This is just to say that Adam and Eve were a fit. They were quite literally made for each other. First of course they were a fit in the sense that they understood that they were God’s creatures and were beholden to Him. In our language today we might say that they shared a common faith. No marriage should be entered into where man and wife do not share a common understanding of their shared Christian faith. Indeed Scripture forbids it for Christians when it forbids unequal yoking.
But the correspondence, — or suitability if you prefer — between our first parents of course only began with Adam and Eve’s common faith — a common faith that found each of them trusting in God at each turn.

But beyond this common faith were other commonalities. They were related and yoked in other ways. After all this was a woman who was, in Adam’s own words, “Bone of my Bone, and Flesh of my Flesh.” Adam and Eve mirrored one another. I suspect that Adam and Eve corresponded to each other in the way that they looked and in their mannerisms, in their likes and dislikes. They not only shared a faith and a bed but they shared common delights, common palates, common speech patterns, and common characteristics.
Rudyard Kipling caught something of what I am getting at in terms of the need for commonalities in uniquely Christian marriage that is never less than a common faith but is always more than a common faith when he wrote,

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face,  the eyes, the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

If this is true of a stranger within the gate how much more true of a stranger within a marriage?

Dr. Clarence Macartney, a well known conservative Reformed Minister from my Grandparent’s generation put this time-tested concept, if also time-worn idea, in a sermon he preached on Marriage and family life. Macartney preached,

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

I know that Andy and Bernice share the kind of commonalities that the Lordship of Christ anticipates for a uniquely Christian marriage. They are not strangers to one another in terms of suitability. They share a common understanding of their common faith. They share a worldview.

They each are

Christian
Reformed
Covenantal
Confessional
Theonomic
Reconstructionist
Presuppositionalists
Familial-centric

They come from similar family cultures and backgrounds and they share a common people group. They are suitable for each other.

May God and His Christ favor us with a return again of Biblical patriarchy in order to heal the brokenness in our families and our people. The West will only be rebuilt, one marriage at a time, as those marriages turn to Christ and embrace God’s family order of patriarchy.

Hoover Chronicles FDR’s Failures Which Brought Us To War (VII)

The seventh gigantic error in Roosevelt’s statesmanship was the total economic sanctions on Japan one month later, at the end of July, 1941. The sanctions were war in every essence except shooting. Roosevelt had been warned time and again by his own officials that such provocation would sooner or later bring reprisals of war.

The eighth time statesmanship was wholly lost was Roosevelt’s contemptuous refusal of Prime Minister Konoye’s proposals for peace in the Pacific of September, 1941. The acceptance of these proposals was prayerfully urged by bot the American and British Ambassadors in Japan. The terms Konoye proposed would have accomplished  every American purpose except possibly the return of Manchuria — and even this was thrown open to discussion. The cynic will recall that Roosevelt was willing to provoke a great war on his flank over this remote question and then gave Manchuria to Communist Russia.

The ninth time that Roosevelt became lost in international statesmanship was his destruction of the 1933 World Economic Conference. This conference was arranged by British Prime Minister MacDonald and myself to take place in January, 1933. Owing to the election of Mr. Roosevelt it was postponed until June. At that time the world was  just beginning to recover from the world-wide depression but was engaged in bitter currency wars and multiplying trade barriers. The preliminary work had been done by experts. Roosevelt called ten Prime Ministers to Washington with whom he agreed to restore the gold standard in international transactions. Suddenly during the conference he repudiated (‘the bombshell’) these undertakings and the Conference cracked  and died without accomplishment. His own Secretary of State Hull explicitly denounced this action as the roots of WW II.

Herbert Hoover
Freedom Betrayed — pg. 876, 878-879

Dr. Brian Lee — Do As I Say, Not As I Do

It is possible that some of you may remember my interaction with R2K-phile Dr. Brian Lee from last November. Dr. Brian Lee, you will recall, informed us that he has a legit Ph.D and is a Reverend Doctor. Further he has read books (most of them in Latin) and he has had his dissertation published with Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, which is a legit German academic house. Anyway … Dr. Lee said in our interactions back then,

“The Good News of Jesus Christ is the sole focus of our Gospel ministry, because we have neither the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters…. Do forget the OT, please. Seriously. You must understand that Romans 12 – 13 and the rest of the NT is a radical departure from OT Israel. Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite. The prophets were calling the kings to account because it was in their portfolio, it was a theocracy, and the “King” was a type of Christ. NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people.”

Rev. Dr. Brian Lee, on R2k submission to Ceasar, Nov. 2014

But now it seems that Dr. Lee is whistling a new tune.  Just yesterday he was caught giving advice on the whole SCOTUS Sodomy affair.

“I encourage folks to read this roundup (Lee provides a link) of what the dissenting justices believe are the religious liberty implications of Friday’s SCOTUS decision on SSM (Same Sex Marriage). These aren’t partisan hacks raising baseless alarm bells. These are constitutional scholars pointing out the disastrous side-effects of having engineered this cultural transformation through the courts. A legislative enactment of SSM would have been far more orderly, peaceful, and constructive to our constitutional form of government.

The failure of Kennedy’s majority opinion to articulate or guarantee free exercise of religion for opponents of this decision is astounding, and gravely troubling. It’s not accidental.”

My question to the good Latin reading Doctor is based upon his words in November. Based on his words in November why should he or any member of the clergy care what SCOTUS does? All of what Lee published on this subject has taught us is that none of us have the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters. Yet here he is weighing in on civil matters. Perhaps what the man with the legit Ph.D meant is that none of us, except the star of Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, have the authority or expertise to weigh in on civil matters?

Is R2K really just a ruse to get everyone else in the Church to shut up about these civil matters so that the benighted R2K geniuses of the world have a clear field in order to instruct the cattle?  Or is it just the case, as I’ve argued before, that R2K is a miasma of contradiction and inconsistency that only someone with pretzel logic can understand?

Dr. Brian Lee (Nov. 2014) —  “NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people.”

Dr. Brian Lee (June 2015) — “A legislative enactment of SSM would have been far more orderly, peaceful, and constructive to our constitutional form of government. “

Has Dr. Brian Lee had a “Road to Damascus” conversion or, as I think it more likely the case, is he merely demonstrating the bi-polar tendency in all R2K “thinking?”

Now as to his actual words themselves, as typed in bold print, one wonders if Dr. Brian Lee is against SSM as a principle, or is he just against SSM as it is implemented  by judicial fiat?

R2K — A “theology” that keeps you guessing.

Sermon response to Obergefell vs. Hodges

When Thomas Jefferson heard about the compromise of 1820 he responded by saying,

“this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”

Knell — The sound of a bell, especially when rung solemnly for a death or funeral.

Jefferson, in 1820, realized the far reaching implications of the decision, and could already see, as now an old man, the trajectory to division and bloodshed that the compromise promised. Jefferson understood that the compromise of 1820 was a sewing of the wind that would lead to later a reaping of the whirlwind.

This morning what we want to do is spend just a few minutes tracing out the implications for the Church and Christians of what it means when the public square legalizes and codifies what God says is illegal and immoral.

We do this in keeping with what we’ve been doing in Sunday School where we have been noting that God’s word, as a guide to life, is not merely a private or personal Word but also is a Word for our public civil social institutions and for our culture. In Sunday School we’ve noted that when we allow the Word of other gods to be our guide to life in our civil social and cultural institutions the consequence is that we, as a people, end up being shaped and fashioned in our personal lives by that public law with the result that we find ourselves being conformed to the character of the gods who are dictating the arrangement for the public realm. In brief, if we, as Biblical Christians do not insist upon God’s Word in the public square and culture as a guide to life for our laws then the result will be that some other god’s word will shape our identity and provide the meaning and definition of who we are. No neutrality.

This inclination to realize that Christianity is not a faith that can be cordoned off into some private personal realm is consistent with Scriptures requirement that we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.

5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

When we examine matters like this it is for the purpose that we would,

not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Christianity, is a faith that does indeed provide the Spirit generated power for each of as individuals

Ephesians 4:22 to put off your old self,[a] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

But while a private and personal faith Christianity is also a public faith that has vast and profound implications for the public square. If these implications for the public square are amputated from the faith that consequence is the sure and certain threat of the dying off of the individual and personal faith that is so rightly cherished just as a species will diminish if you destroy the public habitat where it naturally flourishes.

The public square can never create Christianity. Only the Spirit of God can do that. However the public square can reinforce the normalcy of the Christ faith and ethos. Alternatively, the public square can work to make Christianity look to be a loathsome and vile thing.

What I’m saying here was captured by a couple of our Dutch Theologians,

“The Church is related to life as a whole. It is not a drop of oil on troubled waters. It has a mission in this world and *in the entire structure* of the world. This statement does not arise from cultural optimism. This is the confession of the kingship of Christ. For this reason, too, the Church is the Church of the Kingdom.”

~ Herman Ridderbos

“To be sure, the Kingdom of God is not of the world, but it is nevertheless in the world. The Kingdom does not exist within the narrow confines of the inner closet, restricted to church and monastery. The Kingdom is not entirely “other worldly” but has been established by Christ upon earth and stands in a most intimate—yet for us in many
respects inexplicable—relationship with this earthly life and is prepared by this life. Nevertheless, it is just as true that the Kingdom is not exhaustively present in this life, it is not merely “this worldly.” The Kingdom ‘is’ and ‘becomes.’ ”

~ Herman Bavinck, “The Kingdom of God, The Highest Good”,
The Bavinck Review (2011, v.2), p. 152, trans

So, having tried to lay some of the groundwork of what we will be looking at, allow me just a few more minutes to give the reason why we are looking at this, this morning.

And the answer is LOVE.

First Love for God. If God gives us a clear word about the rightness or wrongness of some aspect of human relationships then we are duty bound out of love to our Father in heaven to embrace His precepts both personally and individually but also to embrace that law Word of God for the public square. And God has given us that clear word for human relationships when it comes to Marriage, family, and human coupling.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 — Forbidding Sodomy

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:26-28 — Forbidding Sodomy

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

1 Timothy 1:10 — Sodomy as immoral

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Corinthians 7:2

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife & each woman her own husband. (Notice the cure to sexual immorality is not for each man to have his own husband & each woman her own wife.)

Jude 1:7

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Mark 10:6-9 — The Definition of Marriage

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

So, Love to God is why we are looking at this matter this morning.

But also love to neighbor.

No love is found in supporting a legal codification of behavior that supports and so encourages human misery.

A study done in Vancouver British Columbia observed that participation in the homosexual lifestyle knocks life expectancy for a Canadian male back to what it was in 1871. The Centers for Disease Control reports that homosexuals are 50 to 60 times more likely to become infected with AIDS than other groups. Love for people requires me, as a minister of Christ, to warn people against self inflicted damage against who and what God designed them to be.

Love to family.

And what of the generations that are to come behind. Does not love to my family require me to do all in my power to give them a landed legacy that looks more like the Kingdom of God then it looks like Sodom and Gomorrah? Out of love for my people who have gone before and for my family yet to be we are duty bound to break the mold of politically correct speech and behavior.

So it is love to God, neighbor love, and love to family that compels us to hate that which is evil while clinging to what is good.

Now having said all that as preparatory let us consider for just a few moments what the implications are for the legalization of un-natural Marriage.

1.) The Unraveling of the Christian faith

It is simply not possible to make an attack on Christian notions of Marriage and family without at the same time attacking the Christian faith. The Christian Marriage and family is where the Christian faith is passed on generationally. If the marriage and family can be redefined then the Christian faith will be redefined.  If words like morality and immorality can be redefined then the Christian faith will be redefined along with it.

We are seeing this happen already. Books like, “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships” are being written that inform us that the Church has been wrong for 2000 years on this issue.  The effect of this is to unravel and redefine the Christian faith.

If sin is not sin then what is the Lord Christ dying for? If sin is not sin then what need reconciliation, redemption, or sacrifice? If sin is redefined then the whole Christian faith is redefined and so unravels.

2.) The unraveling and destruction of Marriage

We have to understand that the consequence of what has happened is not the enlarging of the Marriage tent but the destruction of the Marriage tent. If marriage can mean anything then marriage means nothing. If the definitional boundaries are taken away from marriage then marriage as marriage is just a word that has no objective transcendent meaning.  The purpose in sodomite marriage, when clearly and rationally thought through, is not to make marriage more accessible to more people. The purpose is to destroy marriage.

Activist Massha Gessen was charitable enough to be explicit about this when she said on radio,

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.

3.) The unraveling and destruction of Christian family

In allowing unnatural coupling and marriage we have simultaneously allowed the State to regulate and re-define family in a non Christian direction. In doing so we have given the State more control over deciding family relationships. In Christian marriage the assumption is that a child is to be raised by his or her biological parents.  But if marriage can be redefined to mean any coupling then it stands to reason that family can be redefined to be any arrangement that State deems satisfactory.

Melissa Harris Perry quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

Gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.

With the destruction of family will come even more destruction of children. With the rise of the divorce culture Children of the past 60 years have not been the same as children of the years prior to that (see Barbara Whitehead’s work). With the rise of unnatural marriage Children will once again bear the brunt of the injury so that the Christ haters can make one more leap “forward” in social engineering the social order.

A missing parent from either gender leaves a child wounded. One could say that when it comes to family life that parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. Christian marriage and family, while ultimately is for God, is for the children more than it is for the parents. In unnatural marriage it is the children who are the crushed.

4.) The denial of God’s property rights in us in favor of the State as God’s property rights over us.

Scripture teaches that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” God is the one who has property rights over all of creation. As such God sets the parameters of reality. When the State operates to define reality vis-a-vis God the State is operating to seize God’s property rights and seeks to ascend to the most high to be God walking upon the earth.

When the State sets itself up as God then we also lose our property rights even in our own children and property. We exist for the State and are naught but agents of the State. In the state we love and move and have our being. With these kind of property rights over us the State begins to control all. What we now get is social justice in our courts, social gospel in our Churches, and even a social engineering that creates a kind of social predestination where the state assigns all from its suffocating web of diktats. In the States redefinition of marriage there is the work of god who, speaking by divine fiat, is speaking reality into existence.

Christians are to champion God’s reality and insist that they are to be ruled by God’s law,

“Then let us not think that this Law is a special Law for the Jews; but let us understand that God intended to deliver us a general rule, to which we must yield ourselves … Since, it is so, it is to be concluded, not only that it is lawful for all kings and magistrates, to punish heretics and such as have perverted the pure truth; but also that they be bound to do it, and that they misbehave themselves towards God, if they suffer errors to rest without redress, and employ not their whole power to shew greater zeal in their behalf than in all other things.”

John Calvin, Sermon on Deuteronomy, sermon 87 on Deuteronomy13:5

With this Hodges vs. Obergefell we have the testimony put starkly of the Fascist confession; “Everything (including marriage) inside the State and nothing is outside the State.” It is the owner. We, as God’s people, are its property.

The only answer for this is a wise and well thought out resistance by any and all menas. I’d rather die explicitly belonging to God then to live falsely belonging to the Idol State as a piece of property to do with as it deigns.

Conclusion

“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”

― Abraham Kuyper

Out of love for the Gospel — a Gospel that begins with the Holiness of God and His opposition to sin — we must resist. Out of love for Christ and His Work — a work that makes no sense if we are not allowed to label sin as sin — we must resist. Out of love for the Spirit who leads us in a sanctification that requires us to have nothing to do with the works of darkness we must resist.

 

HOOVER CHRONICLES FDR’S FAILURES WHICH BROUGHT US TO WAR (VI)

“Sixth, Indeed, the greatest loss of statesmanship in all American History was the tacit American alliance and support of  Communist Russia when Hitler made his attack in June 1941. Even in the false theory that American military strength was needed to save Britain had now visibly vanished. By diversion of Nazi furies into the swamps of Russia, no one could any longer doubt the safety of Britain and all the Western world. These monstrous dictators were bound to exhaust themselves no matter who won. Even if Hitler won military victory, he would be enmeshed for years trying to hold these people in subjection. And he was bound even in victory to exhaust his military strength  — and the Russians were bound to destroy any sources of supplies he might have hoped for. His own generals opposed this action.

American aid to Russia meant victory for Stalin and the spread of Communism over the world. Statesmanship again imperiously cried to keep out, be armed to the teeth and await their mutual exhaustion. When that day came there would have been an opportunity for the US and Britain to use their strength to bring a real peace and security to the free world. No greater opportunity for lasting peace ever came to a President and he (FDR) muffed it.”

Herbert Hoover
Freedom Betrayed — pg. 878