From The Lifting Of Taboo To The Compulsory Requirement That Previous Taboos Be Embraced

The social – sexual revolution of the 60’s promised liberation but has, instead, delivered chaos. The 60’s sexual revolution that taught us, through song, that “if you can’t be with the one you love, honey love the one your with” yielded sexual chaos.

In the multitude of Rock -n- Roll songs, we were promised the liberated Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by bedding his wife)

Over the course of time sexual chaos begat family chaos as all that free sex led to mass confusion for families. Family chaos in turn begat social chaos as nobody was quite sure just what address they were supposed to be sleeping at every night. Social chaos begat economic chaos as incomes were halved as the income providing for one home was now required to support two homes thanks to divorce and support payments. Economic chaos in turn begat political chaos, and the result of all this chaos has been dysfunctional families, murdered and bereft children, and a soaring STD rate. Wasn’t the Sexual Revolution Grand?

Now that the chickens are coming home to their roost, and so the consequences are now being seen of the havoc from all these policies over the course of years, the pagan left, which gave us these policies, doesn’t want to be held uniquely responsible for these policies. So, they have gone from the policy of lifting the Taboos to the policy of making the previous Taboos now compulsorily accepted behavior by the citizenry. And so, for example, what started as lifting Taboo laws so that sodomy was approved (Lawrence vs. Texas) we have now gone to implementing laws where the Florist, the Baker, and Photograph taker are being compulsorily required to approve of heretofore deviant behavior upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. Likewise we have gone from Connecticut vs. Griswold (1965) where the pagan left Supreme court lifted the taboos of birth control to the Hobby Lobby case where we are on the cusp of of the pagan left Supreme court compulsorily requiring companies to provide birth control abortifacients upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. The attitude seems to be, “you’re going to be liberated whether you want it or not Damn’it.”

Of course one advantage of this newly required compulsory behavior is that the Left won’t be blamed for any of the abysmal policy that led to chaos but can say instead, “well, that is just the way things are. Everybody wants it.” By making the acceptance of the behavior compulsory the pagan left implicates everyone and everyone is to blame and not just uniquely the left. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to force everyone to share in your guilt?

And so we have come to a place where the new sacred canopy of paganism is one where we are all being forced to take shelter under. Anybody opting out of our new pagan sacred canopy will not be tolerated. Such people will need to go to re-education camps or psychiatry wards in order to get their mind right.

Answering A Push Poll

Recently, a friend of mine who is a Pastor in New England went to a weekly community Pastor’s meeting and he was polled as to some of his opinions regarding sodomy. He sent me a copy of the poll and I’ve answered only a few of the questions here. It was quickly clear that this poll is what is known in the political activist business as a “push poll.” A push poll is an opinion poll whose real purpose is to influence people’s opinions rather than to collect information about them. Push polls often rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on a subject. Push polls have as their purpose to confirm the desired opinion held by those conducting the poll and the questions are often either biased or indefinite by the way they are phrased, thus allowing their interpretation to be spun as favorable to the pollsters doing the polling. In this push poll questions were worded to make the position of acceptance of sodomy more rational and compassionate. The traditional position which opposes sodomy appeared unreasonable and rigorous. In push polls the phrasing of the language is everything.

Dear Pastor,

What practical dilemmas do you encounter related to homosexuality or same-sex marriage? (for example, situations at church, in your family, at work, or at school).

The largest practical dilemma I face is the necessity to repeatedly show from Scripture that sodomy is sin. However, because sodomy and sodomite marriage is being pushed on us in culture and in the Church in every quarter and because the Church is constantly being bombarded with the message that, “to oppose sodomy and speak against sodomy is hateful” it makes it difficult, as a Pastor, to give the Biblical message that it is the most loving thing in the world to speak out against sodomy and sodomite marriage.

So the chief dilemma I have, as a Pastor, is to help congregants hold on to the idea that sodomy and unrepentant sodomite “sex” and sodomite marriage is an offensive sin before God almighty and is a sure sign of God’s judgment against a people for their rebelling against Him. I have the dilemma that fewer and fewer people believe that sodomy and sodomite marriage is the consequence of God “turning them over (Romans 1).”

Another dilemma I have is how “God’s love” is used as a blanket phrase to somehow excuse all sins but no less the sin of sodomy and sodomite marriage. It’s as if the idea of God’s love is interpreted to be the equivalent of the love of a whore or a gigolo.

Finally, another dilemma that crops up frequently is the idea of how as Christians we are not to Judge therefore we can’t judge against sodomy and sodomite marriage.

Pastor,

What do you see as the most pressing questions for your congregation in regards to same-sex attracted people and/or same-sex marriage?

The congregation I serve, unknown possible exceptions notwithstanding, have no pressing questions. They pretty much uniformly realize that sodomy and sodomite marriage is sin and that God can forgive this sin and that the Church must be declaiming against this cultural sin du-jour, while tenderly shepherding former sodomites who repent and join themselves to Christ’s Church.

Pastor,

What are your greatest fears, if any, concerning same-sex marriage?

I have no fears.

Here are my concerns.

1.) I am concerned that the sodomite agenda is about destroying heterosexual marriage. See the links below that discuss this.

see — http://salvomag.com/blog/2013/03/five-gay-marriage-myths/
see — http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/12/07/gay-marriage-and-the-effect-on-heterosexual-marriage/

2.) People will begin to believe sodomite marriage is possible. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then being an accomplished rider of a two wheeled unicycle can be accomplished. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then the drawing of a square circle. Sodomite marriage is not possible given the very definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Are we forgetting the Scripture by even talking about the possibility that sane Christians can subscribe to “sodomite marriage?” Will we advocate next that Christians subscribe to the reality of Fairies and Goblins?

3.) I am greatly concerned that the Church is going to rebel against God on this matter by normalizing sodomy and sodomite marriage and so diminish His glory among men and incur His wrath.

4.) I am greatly concerned that the souls of sodomites, that are precious to God, will end up being confirmed in their sin and be told that God loves them “just the way they are,” in their unrepentant sodomite behavior. I am concerned over how hateful and cruel any action that “normalizes” sodomy or sodomite marriage would be, to yet unrepentant, practicing sodomites.

5.) I am greatly concerned that humanistic sociology and psychology will be used to reinterpret the clear teaching of Scripture that forbids sodomite behavior. I am concerned that passages like Romans 1, I Corinthians 9, and Galatians 5 will be reinterpreted via a LGBT sacred canopy.

What are your greatest hopes, if any, concerning same-sex marriage?

My greatest hope is that sodomite marriage will be seen as an absurdity and will be recognized as always characteristic of a social order about to flame out. My greatest hope includes that men and women will be set free by the Lord Christ to repent of their sins, whatever those sins might be.

Resources I recommend,

Homosexuality; A Biblical View — Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control — Dr. E. Michael Jones

Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior — Dr. E. Michael Jones

Redeeming the Rainbow — Scott Lively

From The Mailbag — Will We See Things Turned Around?

Dear Pastor,

Can Obama-care and the other grave social ills of this country be turned around?

Miesha

Dear Miesha,

I’d love to say “yes” all this can be turned around. But I honestly don’t believe that it will be in our lifetimes BECAUSE the problem isn’t socialized medicine or other social ills. Those are only symptoms of a far greater problem. The problem is that man and women have turned away from Christ and are raising their middle finger to the God over all.

You see, men and women who will not own their sin and turn to the Lord Christ, and so submit to Biblical thinking are men and women who will create new gods in order to replace the God of the bible and His Christ. Historically speaking, the new god ends up being the State. Men begin to think that “in the State, we live, and move, and have our being,” and so contrive womb to the tomb Marxist States. In doing so they believe that they can lock the God of the Bible out of His creation. However, paraphrasing Kipling here, when men seek to lock God out, “the God of the copybook Headings with Terror and Slaughter returns,” or as the Bible puts it, God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.”

No Christian looks to the State as God and further, Christians, find such Statist thinking to be blasphemous.

So … Obama-care and other social ills are horrid beyond naming but the removal of our social ills, at this point, will only happen as the men of the West quit with their Treason against the God of the Bible and His Lord Christ.

And as burdened as I am about it, I don’t see Reformation and Revival anytime in the near future in the West, though I remain imbued with great hope that all of this is serving the one day arrival of Reformation somewhere in the World.

And so we must live with Obama-care and the other current social ills as God’s just judgment against our sin against Him.

And yet as Christians we can never bow to the State gods of this age. To do so would be a violation of the #1 commandment.

If men will not bow to Christ and repent of their sins then men will build Marxist God States whereby the State becomes God. The cure for socialized Obama-care and all other social ills is ultimately only found in people looking for the forgiveness of their sin of attempted Deicide that can only come from Christ and then having been regenerated submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life.

The Cross would solve it all Miesha. Without the Cross nothing is solved.

With Obama-Care The State Is Making A Claim Of Ownership Over The Citizenry

There is a State
It is alive
In it we live
And we survive

The fiat State
Determines Man
It is our God
The great I AM
(The great I AM)

The New Version of the Old Hymn
Our God, He Is Alive

All insurance is a claim of ownership. People who own goods insure those owned goods to protect their investment.

For example, minimum car coverage is required to insure OTHERS against your negligence. But minimum insurance does not require you to cover the cost of fixing your own car in case of an accident. As the owner you can determine that yourself. This requirement of minimum car coverage is within the Constitutional bounds of government since it requires us to protect others from our own dangerous (read driving) actions. In the same way a person is responsible for visitors hurt on their property by negligence to safety. (Research Biblical law of building a parapet on your roof).

If you buy a car on a loan and so have to make payments, the true owner (the company you make payments to) requires you to have full coverage because they own the car, not you. They have a right to insure their investment and so in owning the car they have the right to force you to pay for Insurance. Their requiring you to have insurance is a proclamation that they own the vehicle.

Home owners insurance protects a persons investment in their home, property or personal belongings. Insurance on the home is a claim of ownership on the home by you as the individual who owns the home.

Similarly, Life insurance protects a person (specifically their posterity) from the loss of life. So when I have life insurance it is to protect my family or my business or my children’s future, etc.. Taking out a life insurance policy on myself reflects that I own my life.

Similarly, Mortgage insurance protects the mortgage company’s investment in case of your failure to pay a mortgage. The Mortgage company owns the house and their requirement that the loan-ee purchase mortgage insurance is a claim of ownership by the Mortgage company.

Health insurance protects you, your future health, and your future earnings potential. If you owned your own health you could determine yourself whether or not to purchase health insurance and the unforced private purchasing of health insurance would indicate that you do own yourself.

All these insurances protect the owner of the investment. The owner decides whether or not to have insurance. The cost of insurance is paid by the owner. And the owner is the one guaranteed payment in case of loss.

When anyone demands for us, upon pain of penalty, to have health insurance they are claiming a right of ownership over us and over our income. I am not opting to pay insurance – I am being forced to purchase insurance by the entity (The FEDS) who considers itself my owner or I pay a penalty. If I buy a vehicle with a loan and don’t purchase full coverage auto insurance I will be penalized by the owner of the vehicle by the vehicle being reclaimed. If I buy a house with a loan and don’t purchase mortgage insurance I will be penalized by the owner of the house, by the house being foreclosed on. And now, if I don’t purchase health insurance I am, in the same way, being penalized by having to pay a tax for not purchasing health insurance, by the entity who insists it is my owner, and this demand is being made by the entity (the State) who has made a claim to owning my health (and by extension myself) by demanding that I have health insurance to begin with.

Now this claim of ownership by the State over the citizenry, via the requirement of health insurance, is made doubly clear when we realize the State will be the one who determines who will and will not be allowed to have certain medical procedures. This is especially so when we consider the death panels that are written into the Obama-care legislation. The State, being the owner of the citizenry, will determine who live and who dies by means of determine who receives certain medical care and who does not.

The government is essentially playing the mobster enforcer who makes us pay to guarantee our safety. The State, by requiring health insurance, is communicating that they are the ones who own us.

In all this the State is claiming to be that entity in which we live, and move and have our being. In all this the State is taking up the prerogative of God and claiming to be God walking on the Earth. In all this we are being required to find our identity in the State.

Hat Tip — Jeramiah Townsend, Ed Waverly

From The Pastor’s Mailbag — Christian Economics?

Dear Pastor,

1.) ‘Why would you have a seminary teach macroeconomics?

2.) What makes Sowell’s theory reflective of a “Reformed Worldview” when he’s not even Reformed, as far as we know?

3.) Why do we even have to frame macroeconomics in those types of terms?

4.) What makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and who gets to decide that?’

Thanks,

Jillian

Dear Jillian,

Thank you for writing. Before turning to your questions, which we will take one at a time, let us consider some macro aspects to this.

First we need to understand that Economics is theology dependent. The ancients had a saying, that yet remains true, that “Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.” This truism teaches us that all other disciplines are derivative of some prior understanding of Theology. What that means is that Economics, History, Sociology, Psychology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Arts, Politics, Law etc. are all dependent on some Theology, and are what they are as they are informed by some theology. Theology is an inescapable category from which all the humanities are derivative. Because this is true Economics, like all those other disciplines listed, are but the incarnation and manifestation of some Theology into the various theories that comprise the discipline. Because this is true, it is never a case of whether or not we will have an Economics that is driven by theology, but it is only a question of which theology will drive our Economics. Since this is so, Christian have to think about what the implications of our Christian Theology have for Economics because if we don’t think in those terms what will happen is some pagan theology, representative of some false god or god concept, will be what drives our Economics. As such if we will not have Economics as derivative of explicitly Christian theology, we will have Economics as derivative of Humanist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Theology. Theologically speaking, there is no Economics from nowhere. Theologically speaking there is no Economics wherein Economics is not serving as a handmaiden for some God or god concept.

Having opened with that we turn to your questions.

1.) Seminaries might teach a macro Economics course because,

a.) Our abstract Theology also needs to be concrete. There is a necessity to reveal to seminarian students that as all Theology is totalistic in its claims, Christian theology needs to challenge the paradigms of false theologies as they incarnate and manifest themselves in the Public Square via Economic modalities and paradigms.

b.) The Scripture gives us themes for a Christian Economics. For example, Scripture forbids theft, therefore, a Christian Macro-Economics would require us to hold that the holding of property by individuals is a necessary aspect of a Christian Economics. This simple tenant immediately informs us that all Marxist type of Economic arrangements are unbiblical since Marxist theory denies the individual claim to property to the individual. We know that individual property claims are biblical by looking, as just one example, at the account of Naboth’s vineyard in the Scripture (I Kings 21). Other Biblical principles for Economics that we can derive from Scripture is the necessity of the keeping of contract (James 5), the idea of a just wage (Malachi 3:5), the prohibition against oppression of the worker by the Rich (Deut. 24:14-15), and that Government theft is a positive evil (I Samuel 8). Another key Economic theme of Scripture is the reality that God’s people are Stewards of all that God has given them and all that God has given them must be handled, not as absolute owners, but as stewards unto God. After all, I am in body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Any Christian Macro Economic theory must reflect these realities.

These themes alone go a long way towards informing a Christian Macro-economics.

Now, to be sure, the Marxists and the Progressives who call themselves “Christian” will come in and deny these aspects but at that point all we can do is to go to the Law and to the testimony to see if these things are so (Isaiah 8). Also, we need to realize that there are those who will claim that Economics, like all other disciplines are NOT theology dependent. As previously, all that can be done is to appeal to Scripture and trust that the Holy Spirit will open people’s eyes to see that there is no Neutrality, no not even in what is called the “common realm.”

c.) In the end Marco-economics is needed for those who would be ministers because they are to speak forth the whole counsel of God. Christianity does not end at the Church doors. Christianity is not merely about Jesus living in my heart. Christianity is not restricted to some zone beyond which it is forbidden to go. As Abraham Kuyper once said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’ That includes Economics Jillian.

2.) Dr. Thomas Sowell is not Reformed. Of that there can be little doubt. However, having said that, his theories, as existing in the context of a Reformed Christian worldview support many of the idea set forth immediately above. Sowell believes in individual property claims. He is against totalistic Economic claims of the God state. He supports individual right of contract. Sowell, of course, is not to be absolutized. Only the Scriptures are absolute. And of course there will be aspects of Sowell’s theory that need to be reinterpreted through a Biblical grid. For example, the Austrian school of Economics, that he is associated with, does have elements in it that are thoroughly unbiblical and would need to be purged from a Christian Economics.

3.) We have to frame Marco-Economics in these types of terms because these types of terms are inescapable concepts that can’t be escaped. Because all of reality is Theologically driven, all that composes reality will likewise be theologically driven. Further, without Macro-Economics being framed in such a way we lose the ability to distinguish some time of Economic activity as “wrong” as compared with other types of Economic activity we would say is “right.” If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say, “Marxist Economics is wrong,” because Marxist Economics presupposes an Economic determinism that doesn’t submit to the reality that God rules. If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say Wall Street Crony Capitalism is wrong because Wall Street Crony Capitalism (Corporatism) absolutizes wealthy in their oppression of the poor and the needy. If we fail to frame Macro-Economics in these type of terms then we are forced to live with whatever oppression the State, as God, determines as our lot.

4.) God and His Word makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and it is the Scriptures that get to decide that since all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I believe that Economics is a good work that the man of God can be equipped for by understanding Scripture.

In the end Jillian, I don’t want to be the one to tell God that Macro-Economics is none of his damn business and he should just butt out of the whole discipline.

Thank you for writing Jillian,