Piper’s Chicken

http://online.worldmag.com/2012/07/31/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-a-bold-mistake/

“I do not question the motives of Mike Huckabee (in calling to eat at Chick – Fil – A in protest over actions against Chick-Fil-A for their words opposing Sodomy) or those thousands joining him, but what about the wider effects? How is the Kingdom of God served by this? Is Jesus represented well to the gay community and the politicians pandering to them? Marching on Chick-fil-A tomorrow like an army will produce nothing more than defined battle lines, and the result will be greater contention and fewer softened hearts. On both sides.”

Barnabas Piper
World Blog Magazine

How is the Kingdom of God served by this? Uh, maybe the Kingdom of God is served by not acquiescing to being shoved into the closet when Christian truths are uttered that pagans don’t like. Please keep in mind that the reason Chick-Fil-A is being targeted as a business is because they give millions of dollars to pro-family organizations. If Chick-Fil-A is allowed a very public voice against sodomy then it might be the case that other businesses might find the courage to stand up against the plague of sodomy that covers our land. An army descending on Chick-Fil-A in order to show support for both freedom of speech as well as support for Chick-Fil-A in its opposition to sodomy serves the cause of the Kingdom of God.

And as to Piper’s concern about the wider effects. The wider effect is to make clear that Christians oppose sin and sinners and that we won’t go silently into the night despite the agenda of LGBT. Does this idiot Piper really think that people get saved because Christian’s surrender their convictions and retreat before evil?

Oh horror of horror that the consequence would be defined battle lines, or that more contention would result. Doesn’t Piper realize that the LGBT agenda is in control of our schools, our courts, our political parties, and our families? After 50 years of losing our children to the sodomite community and fighting back with the sentimental pietistic nonsense that Piper puts on display isn’t it about time that we start acting like these people are the enemies of Christ and of Christianity? I want more contention. God grant contention in root, branch, and twig with these people. Maybe if the LGBT types clearly see that our love for them is expressed best by opposing their Christ hating agenda they will see that Christ is opposed to them lest they repent. Christ is not wringing His hands in heaven hoping against hope that they will repent. Christ is in full battle garb commanding them to repent or die.

Elsewhere in the same piece Piper says,

Homosexuality is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church. We cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions but neither can we sacrifice the church’s ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles. The 452,000 people supporting Chick-fil-A are delivering more than one message, and the message the homosexual community and its supporters see is “us versus you.” The event also sends a message of separatism and territorialism in the “reclaiming” of those restaurants that are being boycotted, a collective action easily seen as a shaking of the fist or a wagging of the finger.

Do antichrists desire to be served by Christians? Oh, sure, when they are dying from the eventual flaming out of their lives because of their pursuit of sodomy, we must be there to give them the Gospel on their death beds but the best way the Church can serve the sodomite who is gnashing his teeth at God is by opposing their belief system and those zealots who embrace it from stem to stern.

Also, Piper seems to have lost the century long Reformed staple of the “antithesis.” Of course it is “us against them.” The same “us against them” you find in the blessing of Psalm 1 when we refuse to walk, stand, or sit with the wicked. What Bible is Piper reading? To be sure, we must be as charitable as we can be towards sodomites but part of charity is denouncing their belief system and lifestyle.

And Piper complains against “separatism?” Somebody better remind Piper of the necessity to not be conformed to the world per Romans 12. Was St. Paul being a separatist when he said, “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Eph. 5:11)

Piper’s implicit course of action is a denunciation of every Christian in Church History from Charles Martel being territorial at the Battle of Tours, to John Knox calling for separatism from Queen Mary’s belief system.

And again he writes,

‎”So I stand with Dan Cathy in his biblical affirmation of family but I cannot stand with those making a movement out of his beliefs.”

Barnabas Piper
World Magazine Blog

Does that sound anything like this?

So I stand with Jesus Christ in his biblical affirmation of family but I cannot stand with those making a movement out of his beliefs.

Piper’s whole piece is stupidity standing on its head shouting “Look at me.” To follow his counsel is to embrace the self destruction of the Christian faith.

The Clergy & The Destruction Of Christianity

This from,

The Decline of Christianity: How the Clergy Brought Down the Faith

Writing in the 19th century, Henry Buckle put together a three-volume History of Civilization in England (1869).

Buckle was no friend of Christianity, and was happy to witness its demise in his time. But his observation as to the cause of the decline of the influence of Christianity is rather revealing. Speaking of the decline of ecclesiastical power and the emergence of what he called “religious liberty”, he made these comments:

“Among the innumerable symptoms of this great movement, there were two of peculiar importance. These were the separation of theology, first form morals, and second from politics. The separation from morals was effected late in the seventeenth century; the separation from politics before the the middle of the eighteenth century. And it is a striking instance of the decline of the old ecclesiastical spirit, that both of these great changes were begun by the clergy themselves. . . . Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, was the first who laid down that the state must consider religion in reference, not to revelation, but to expediency; and that it should favour any particular creed, not in proportion to its truth, but solely with a view to its general utility. . . .

Thus it was that, in England, theology was finally severed from the two great departments of ethics and of government.”

Volume 1, pp.424-427

Dr. Hodge then goes on to say,

This is the legacy of the Enlightenment that is with us today. It’s religious manifestation was in Moravian pietism the faith system that influenced Wesley and the Great Awakening. Now if you want to understand why kids are turning up at college with the ideas of Nietzsche firmly planted in their psyche and in their lifestyle and departing the Christian faith in droves, you have to look backward to the 16th and 17th centuries to find not only the root ideas, but who introduced them.

And it was the Christians who effectively laid the foundations for their own demise over the next four centuries.

And now with the advent and growing popularity of R2K we are seeing the work of Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester flower here in the States in the Reformed community of all places. R2K does not believe that Christianity can create a distinct social order. There is no such thing as a Christian social order and so there can be no such thing as “Christendom.” As such, a social order vacuum is created for other false religions to fill. As Christianity can not form a social order or culture, therefore, Christ hating Judaism, Islam, Marxism, and other variant forms of religious humanism will form the social order and culture.

The last sentence from Buckle above must be corrected. Theology was never severed from England’s ethics and government. Certainly it was the case that Christian theology was severed from England’s ethics and government but some other theology then filled the vacuum to inform England’s ethics and government. No neutrality.

Drought & God’s Providence

Many scriptures speak of God being in control of the presence and absence of rain and withholding rain as a sign of His displeasure.

Dt. 28:15 “ But it shall come about, if you do not [a]obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

23 [a]The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. 24 The Lord will change the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed. (cmp. Lev. 26:19).

The metaphors of heaven as bronze and earth as iron spoke of a rainless sky and a barren land. Such realities would be frightful to any people.

Zech. 14:17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them.

Acts 14:17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, [a]satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

James 5:17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed [a]earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months.

Amos 4:7 “Furthermore, I withheld the rain from you
While there were still three months until harvest.
Then I would send rain on one city
And on another city I would not send rain;
One part would be rained on,
While the part not rained on would dry up.

Jer.5:24 Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest.

When I shut up heaven and there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if My People who are called by my Name will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive there sin and heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7: 13-14)

God created the world as a good environment which would normally provide ample water and food for mankind (Genesis 1:1).

0lder Calvinists saw an interruption of rain as God’s just judgment, Thomas Watson in 1670,

“It is God who brings droughts and rain, and who opens and stops the clouds, the bottles of heaven, at his pleasure:

Watson then cites Jer. 14:2-4,

“Judah mourns, her cities languish; they wail for the land, and a cry goes up from Jerusalem. The nobles send their servants for water; they go to the cisterns but find no water. They return with their jars unfilled; dismayed and despairing, they cover their heads (as a token of great grief and sorrow, as mourners do.) The ground is cracked because there is no rain in the land; the farmers are dismayed and cover their heads.”

Watson, like many of the older Calvinists saw the productiveness of the earth as related to people’s obedience to God.

They could look at the sins of Adam, Eve, and Cain as those sins resulted in unfruitfulness of the earth (Genesis 3:17-18; Genesis 4:12).

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [a]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the [b]plants of the field;

As a result of Cain’s sin,

12 When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.”

The Older Calvinists could look at Israel’s relationship with God and how the sins of Israel also directly affecting the fertility of the Promised Land.

When the people obeyed God, the land was productive (Deuteronomy 11:11-14). However, when they disobeyed, judgment came on the land by drought and famine (Leviticus 26:23-26; Deuteronomy 11:16-17; 1 Kings 8:35).

I Kings 8:35 “ When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain, because they have sinned against You, and they pray toward this place and confess Your name and turn from their sin when You afflict them,

At the same time the Old Testament contains promises that God will protect His faithful ones in times of famine (Job 5:20, 22; Psalms 33:18-19; Psalms 37:18-19; Proverbs 10:3)

Ps. 33:18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him,
On those who [a] hope for His lovingkindness,
19 To deliver their soul from death
And to keep them alive in famine

Ps. 18 The Lord knows the days of the [a]blameless,
And their inheritance will be forever.
19 They will not be ashamed in the time of evil,
And in the days of famine they will have abundance.

While the Bible states that some famines and droughts are the judgment of God (2 Samuel 21:1; 1 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 8:1; Jeremiah 14:12; Ezekiel 5:12; Amos 4:6), not all such disasters are explicitly connected to divine punishment (Genesis 12:10; Genesis 26:1; Ruth 1:1; Acts 11:28). However, when God did send drought and famine on His people, it was for the purpose of bringing them to repentance (1 Kings 8:35-36; Hosea 2:8-23; Amos 4:6-8).

So older Calvinists used to read visitations upon the land as God communicating to His people by Divine providence. Those negative visitations could be lack of rain, they could be fire that raged through a city, or they could be capture by one’s enemies. The point is that older Calvinists, in difficulties or in blessings and abundance saw the hand of God.

For example,

Thomas Watson on the great fire that decimated London in 1670,

“That the burning of London is a national judgment, is evident enough to every man who has but half an eye.”

“O sirs, you are to see and observe and acknowledge the hand of the Lord in every personal judgment, and in every domestic judgment. Oh how much more then in every national judgment that is inflicted upon us! And thus I have done with those ten considerations, that should not only provoke us—but also prevail with us, to see and acknowledge the hand of the Lord in that recent dreadful fire, which has laid our city desolate!”

When other Puritans in the New World experienced starvation and Indian attacks, they reasoned it was God’s will and possibly also His punishment for their materialism and other sins. When they were victorious in battle with the Indians or reaped a bountiful harvest, they gave thanks to God.

Mary Rowlandinson, a Calvinist preacher’s wife in the New World was captured by Indians in a raid on their town.

Rowlandson believed that God was punishing his people for breaking their special covenant as his chosen people. She described the relationship between the Indians and the colonists as one orchestrated by God. As she surveyed her home after the attack bv the Indians, she credited the destruction not to the Indians, but to God, when she quoted “Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations He has made in the earth-“[10] When pondering the escape of the Indians, weighed down with the burden of their wounded captives, from the English army, Rowlandson concluded that “God strengthened [the Indians] to be a scourge to His people.” Rowlandson believed that “our perverse and evil carriages in the sight of the Lord have so offended Him that, instead of turning his hand against [the Indians], the Lord feeds and nourishes them.” She reinforced her conviction that God punished her people through the Indians by quoting the scriptural voice of God saying “Oh, that my people had harkened to me, and Israel had walked in my ways; I should soon have subdued their enemies and turned my hand against their adversaries.”[11] The Indians’ success over the Puritans was a result of the failure of the Puritans to uphold their covenant with God. The warning that John Cotton preached over forty years earlier, that if the colonist, “degenerate, to take loose courses, God will surely plucke you up,” had become prophetic to Mary Rowlandson

Remember, the point that I’m trying to make here, is that whether it was drought, or some other hardship, Older Calvinists believed that God’s sovereign providential hand was in the matter. Whatever they were dealing with it did not come to them by chance or happenstance. And generally they believed if what came to them was hardship, then they had need to repent.

Maybe they drew too tight a connection between the hardship and the specific sin in their lives they were being chastened for, but at least they understood that the world was Governed directly by God whatever concrete event may come into their lives.

I think there is danger in drawing to tight a connection between hardship that comes into our lives and some specific exact sin, though Scripture clearly teaches God chastens those He loves. If we draw to tight a connection between hardship and some exact sin we could fall prey to the thinking that success always equal righteousness while hardship always equals some wickedness. Scripture gives us plenty of examples that counter that so that we will not fall into that thinking.

Having said that, I also think that we have fallen into the greater danger of not seeing the world alive with God’s providential superintendence like the older Calvinists. We too often fail to see God’s providence in all the affairs around us. We too typically forget that all that happens, happens by divine ordination and with the concurrence of Divine providence.

For the older Calvinists God’s hand was seen in everything. To often for us, God is a spectator, along with us, in the
vicissitudes of life. And because we don’t seen God’s providence in all that comes our way we are slow to turn to Him in every situation, casting our all upon Him.

Now we ask why did the older Calvinists view life with this high sense of God intimate providence?

Because they saw it taught everywhere in Scripture,

Amos 3:6, “When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?”

Whatever the judgment is which falls upon a city—God is the author of it; he acts in it and orders it according to his own good pleasure. There is no judgment that accidentally falls upon any person, city, or country. Every judgment is inflicted by a divine power and providence… including drought.

“The Lord said to him—Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” Exodus 4:11.

“See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand!” Deuteronomy 32:39.

“The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up. The Lord sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts. 1 Samuel 2:6-7.

“When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other.” Ecclesiastes 7:14.

“This is what the Lord says: As I have brought all this great calamity on this people, so I will give them all the prosperity I have promised them.” Jeremiah 32:42.

“Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” Lamentations 3:38.

“When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?” Amos 3:6.

“For he wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal.” Job 5:18.

“I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.” Job 42:2.

“Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.” Psalm 115:3.

“I know that the Lord is great, that our Lord is greater than all gods. The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.” Psalm 135:5-6.

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7.

“The Lord has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me!” Ruth 1:21.

“I was silent; I would not open my mouth, for you are the one who has done this.” Psalm 39:9. “He is the Lord; let him do what is good in his eyes.” 1 Samuel 3:18.

“The Lord brought all this disaster on them.” 1 Kings 9:9.

“‘I am going to bring disaster on you.” 1 Kings 21:21.

“The Lord has decreed disaster for you.” 1 Kings 22:23.

“Therefore this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: I am going to bring such disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle!” 2 Kings 21:12.

“The Lord works out everything for his own ends– even the wicked for a day of disaster!” Proverbs 16:4.

“Therefore this is what the Lord says: I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them!” Jeremiah 11:11.

We see, by the witness of Scripture, that the older Calvinists had good reason to have a strong belief in God’s providence. It was part and parcel of that which makes Calvinism, Calvinism, and that is the belief in the Sovereignty of God.

So what is our attitude to be in the face of natural disasters?

1.) We would do well, in every natural occurrence, to see the hand of the Lord, and to look through the instrument that God uses to effect His end to the invisible God who wielded that instrument. Winds do not blow, floods do not come, rain is not with-held, unless God be in it. (“Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?” Is. 10:15).

2.) We don’t blame God as if He is guilty of our demands. Could any of us say that we are as Holy in our walk as our righteous Father Job was, and yet, God in His providence laid Job low and Job learned not to put God in the dock. When hardship comes our way we must remember that God’s dealings with us are altogether just, and that none of us, if honest with ourselves, can indict God for His dealings with us, as if we deserve better than whatever God brings.

3.) Repent. Repentance means a change in our thinking and then our lifestyle. We have to abandon our humanistic fantasies and return to taking the entire Word of God seriously. Why should we find it so difficult to call for repentance in the time of drought? Our whole life should be characterized as a life style of repentance and if that is so hardship should doubly call us to examine ourselves unto repentance, amending of thinking and acting where needs be and trust in Christ alone.

4.) Understand the truth of God’s “Severe Mercy.” Providentially, God sends hardship into our lives, often to put us into the refiners fire of sanctification. God’s severe mercy, often painfully, yet exactingly conforms us to Christ. We should pray that we might be able to say,

“I thank thee Lord for the Rod, the file, and the refiners fire, for grace tried and proven is better than grace left untried.”

(Paul’s thorn in the Flesh — God’s grace is sufficient.)

5.) We reach out with compassion to those who are suffering from natural disasters. We demonstrate the Love of God. We show the love of God in ministering to the needs and hurts of those immediately affected. It is an opportunity to show the love of Christ. It is an opportunity to relieve physical suffering [as Jesus did when He walked the earth], and point people to the only way to relieve spiritual suffering and know Peace w/ God.

Gary DeMar Once Again Reveals His Neo-con Stripes

Response to,

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6338/why-im-voting-for-mitt-romney-and-why-you-should-too/#ixzz21vQaHfzN

When it comes to voting, I am not a messianic. I do not believe that any one politician is going to come riding in on a white steed to make all wrongs right. When it comes to voting, neither am I a perfectionist. I wouldn’t be supporting Ron Paul’s candidacy were I a perfectionist. There are many matters about Dr. Paul I would like to correct but I am willing to hold my nose and vote for him. When it comes to voting I am a principled pragmatist, which is why I will never vote for Mormon Mitt Romney. Gary DeMar, apparently believing in Messianic candidates and in wrong headed notions concerning pragmatism is going to vote for Mitt and further Dr. DeMar desires to influence his readers to do the same.

I see a messianic streak in Gary’s reasoning. No, Gary does not think that Mitt is the Messiah who will right all wrongs but Gary does believe that Mitt is enough of a Messiah to thwart the work of the evil king Barack. That is a huge assumption on Gary’s part. For years conservative voters have been told that they need to vote for Republican X because he will stop the evil machinations of Democrat Y, and for years Republican X only serves to consolidate the gains made by evil Democrat Y. Remember, we were told that we had to support Bush lest the evil John Kerry be allowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices. The Bush turns around and gives us John Roberts, who voted to uphold the anti-Christ Death care legislation. Bush (and Mitt is nothing but the second coming of “W”) gave us socialist prescription medicine entitlement. Bush joined with Teddy Kennedy to give us “no child left behind” legislation. Bush gave us Empire mongering in the Middle East. We were told in 2000 and 2004 exactly what we are being told now by the Gary DeMars of the world, and that is, “We must support Romney because he is enough of a Messiah to thwart the work of the evil Democrat nominee. How many times before people learn that the reasoning, “The Republican is enough of a Messiah to give us time,” before they learn what a fatuous argument that is?

Gary admits that John McCain wasn’t much of an alternative to Obama in the last Presidential election cycle and yet in 2008 Gary supported McCain. Now in 2012 the Stupid party has a candidate that is only marginally different that McCain and Dr. DeMar is all breathless regarding the virtues of Mitt Romney?

In his article supporting Mitt, Dr. DeMar then goes on a tear defending himself from the charge of “Racism,” because he is not supporting Obama. In this tear DeMar even tells us that it is really the white part of Obama that he doesn’t like, saying, “In fact, it’s the white half of Obama that I don’t like.” This is where white Christians have descended in order to protect themselves from being called “racist.” We have bowed so deeply to the political correctness of this age that in order to oppose a mixed race man for President we have to inveigh against the white in him in order to be seen as credible in our opposition. Gary then spends a few paragraphs explaining why the black community is being dis-serviced by Obama but he spills no cyber ink explaining why the Christian white community is being dis-serviced by Obama. This is yet more evidence that Gary had drank deeply from the waters of political correctness as they issue forth from the stream of Cultural Marxism.

Dr. DeMar inveighs against the white half of Obama and his socialism and Marxism but he fails to understand that Romney is afflicted with the same disease. Romeny showed his Marxist stripe when he implemented Obama-care in Massachusetts before Obama-care was Obama-care. Romney would have us believe that Marxism is good for one of the individual states while it is not good for the nation, yet, his staff members urged Washington to consider Commonwealth Care as a model solution for the U.S. healthcare system. Romney attacked private wealth, just as any good Marxist, when in his four years in office, as Governor of Massachusetts, he raised taxes by $309 million, mostly on job-creating corporations, selling the wealth grab as “closing loopholes.” Romney is also a statist when it comes to education, and this is especially important to note given Dr. DeMar’s closing emphasis on education in his article.

Romney’s actual record on education is one of expanding bureaucracy a la NCLB. As Governor of Massachusetts, he created a new government department called the Early Education and Care Department. Its mission: provide government-managed preschool and childcare to youngsters.

So, who do you suppose he picked to help lead the new bureaucracy? None other than Linda Mason, co-founder of Bright Horizons Family Solutions, a preschool and childcare company that later was accused of child abuse (oh, and it was bankrolled by Bain Capital portfolio, too). But that’s not the important thing to remember about Bright Horizons.

Remember how Romney likes to talk about the importance of “traditional families” because, as he put it, “every child needs a Mom and Dad”? Well, not so much at Bright Horizons, which is proud of its 100-percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign (just like Bain Capital).

To earn a 100-percent rating from HRC, you must operate your business as a homosexual and transgender indoctrination center. That’s particularly terrifying when the business in question is supposed to be helping craft the minds of young children — so doing with storybooks like “Daddy’s Roommate,” “Heather Has Two Mommies,” and “My Princess Boy.”

Source

http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/common-sense-voting-lesser-of-two-evils-obama-appreciates-your-support/

Given Romney’s record on abortion, education, family values, and job creation while Governor of Massachusetts there is very little reason to think, along with the neo-con Dr. DeMar that there is any significant difference between Romney and Obama. There is a reason that the tag Obamney exists. Dr. DeMar writes concerning Marxism, “The facts are there for anyone to see.” Well, Dr. DeMar, that is also true regarding Romeny’s record. Dr. DeMar you are supporting a man of the left whose only virtue is that he hasn’t let his mask slip quite as badly as the other man of the left.

Dr. DeMar complains how neither major party takes the black vote seriously because the Democrats have no need to worry about losing it and the Republicans have not need to worry about gaining it. Yet, Dr. DeMar’s reasoning hold the same for conservative Christians like DeMar. Republicans don’t take these voters seriously because they can’t lose them and Democrats don’t take them seriously because they can’t win them. It seems then, a wise choice would be for genuinely conservative Christians to prove to the Republicans that they can lose their vote by voting third party or by staying home on the first Tuesday in November.

Then there is the whole issue of Romney’s lifelong flip flopping. Romney flops better than NBA star Dennis Rodman used to flop. Who is Mitt Romney? He has been all over the map on issues. Which Mitt Romney will show up once in the White House? Does not this constant flip flopping, etch-a-sketch character call into serious question important issues like integrity?

Dr. DeMar next waves the scare flag. In essence he says, “if we don’t support Romney the bad guys will gain power.” When will Dr. DeMar learn that the system is rigged and that it will never correct itself from within itself? Republicans, and Democrats are together responsible for the debt we are in. They are together responsible for the entitlement programs we have. They are together responsible for Supreme Court justices who enslave us. They are together responsible for the education mess that we have. Republicans will not save us. Only a guy afflicted with Messianic thinking would ever think they could. This is why we must become principled voters and refuse to vote either for the Girondists (Republicans) or for the Jacobins (Democrats).

Dr. DeMar seems to think that Romney could give us time to “right the ship of state.” My inclination is to think that Romney will drain the Tea Party of any zing it has left by putting them to sleep because he is “their guy.” I believe it might be better to have to play the strong opposition to a Marxist President than being lulled into sleep because our Marxist is President. A Romney Presidency is more likely to convince (wrongly) the frogs in the kettle that all is well once again.

Dr. DeMar’s counsel sounds a great deal like the counsel in the Old Testament to Kings to turn to Egypt or Babylon for support instead of trusting in God. We have no business leaguing ourselves with either the “in your face” left nor with the “smooth and subtle” left. Dr. DeMar’s “messianic and pragmatic” politics is largely what has gotten us to this place and if his counsel is followed we will perish slowly and incrementally as opposed to perishing while fighting with our boots on.

Finally, Dr. DeMar is correct when he says that as we did not lose this country in one election, neither will we gain it back in one election. This is absolutely accurate. The problem is, that a vote for Romney is another vote for losing the country. It is not a vote for gaining it back.

Dr. DeMar, after all your wise counsel in the past, why depart from those in the Christian community who need your wisdom now? Please, reverse yourself before you lose all credibility.

Correcting Dr. Bradley On His War Against Christendom Of The Past

Over here

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2012/07/adventures-in-m.html

Dr. Anthony Bradley continues with his complaint against Rev. Doug Wilson concerning Rev. Wilson’s lack of historgraphy skills in relation to the antebellum South.

In the piece above Dr. Bradley is offended at the instances where the antebellum South is embraced in an idolatrous fashion. And of course, where ever there exists Christians that have made an idol out of the Old South, all Christians would agree that such idolatry is a wicked evil sin that should be abjured. However, Dr. Bradley goes a step further by saying that this idolatry occurs in “many Reformed circles in America.” Many Reformed circles? Many Reformed circles? This seems to be a rather sweeping indictment against Reformed Christians. How does Dr. Bradley substantiate his charge? Has he taken a poll? Has he gotten on the mailing lists of enough Reformed circles wherein he might be able to make an reasonable guess?

Further Dr. Bradley goes on to say that this Idolatry has existed without much resistance. Really? I can only speak from my own reading but in much of my reading I see a great deal of resistance. For example several years ago the Reformed circle that is the PCA issued an apology for and expression of repentance from the alleged racist past of Presbyterians they see as their direct forbears. If a Reformed circle is offering this kind of apology, I don’t know how it could be said that they were at the same time making an idol out of the antebellum South. In point of fact if people would read all the heat in way of comments that Dr. Bradley’s observations have created they would see all kinds of resistance to this putative confederate idolatry.

None of this is to say that I agree with Dr. Bradley’s contention. It is merely to say that Dr. Bradley has made some sweeping charges here that he can not, in any objective manner, substantiate as being true. It’s just his opinion — an assertion without any grounding.

Dr. Bradley then opines that it would be best to consider the era of the antebellum South a “rubbish” for the sake of gaining Christ (Phil. 3:8) and his Kingdom. Well, sure, this would be true even for the person who could imagine belonging to the most perfect social order that ever existed. Would not that person count that as rubbish in order to gain Christ? Why I can even imagine that Dr. Bradley would count as “rubbish” his association with “Reformed Blacks of America,” for the sake of gaining Christ.

So what point is Dr. Bradley making with his “rubbish” comment? Is he suggesting that in order to have Christ Southerners must give up their Southern heritage? Is Dr. Bradley saying that the antebellum South of R. L. Dabney, James Henley Thornwell, John Lafayette Girardeau, and Benjamin Morgan Palmer was anti-Christ? No one is suggesting that the antebellum South was without fault or that the men just mentioned didn’t have blind spots, but to suggest that it was not a Christian culture worthy of respect and esteem is to damn God’s work among His people. The truth be known, the antebellum South, with all its warts, was the last muscular expression of Christian culture on a civilizational level the world has ever known. And yet even R. L. Dabney said, “A righteous God, for our sins towards Him, has permitted us to be overthrown by our enemies and His.” So, just exactly why should Christians with a Southern heritage count their birthright “rubbish?”

Fortunately, one can at the same time, Dr. Bradley’s opinions notwithstanding, hold on to their God given Southern heritage, without making it an idol, while at the same time gaining Christ.

Dr. Bradley seems to think that the fact that the antebellum South is to be seen as “rubbish” because it did not allow all blacks to be fully human. Yet many many of these enslaved blacks were Christian by confession. Now, certainly Dr. Bradley is not suggesting that blacks, ontologically speaking were sub-human. I think what Dr. Bradley is saying here is that blacks were not as human as they otherwise might have been if they had not been enslaved. Since blacks did not have the rights they were supposed to have, I think Dr. Bradley is saying that enslaved blacks in the antebellum South had less opportunity to experience all of what it means to be human than they otherwise would have had. In other words, their opportunity to experience the fullness of humanity was thwarted due to their enslavement. However, I do not believe that all because a person is a slave that means that, existentially speaking, they missed out on experiencing the fullness of being human. In the New Testament Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gives instruction to both slaves and masters in order to regulate the institution along Christian lines. This inspired New Testament regulation of slaves and slavery proves that slavery is not ipso facto a denial of the rights of “full humanity” to blacks and at this point Dr. Bradley’s criticism against the Old South is really a criticism of the biblical view of slavery. As difficult as it is for moderns to hear, the fact that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament regulated the institution of slavery indicates that there is nothing inherently wrong with the master-slave relation. Thanks to the Gospel witness of many fine Southerners countless enslaved blacks, now part of the Church at rest, knew, while alive, all the fullness of being human. In point of fact, because they were in Christ, they recovered a full humanness that they would not have otherwise known had they never come to know Christ.

Dr. Bradley tells us that he is not accusing Rev. Wilson of racism but rather he is accusing him of insufficient historiography. One wonders though why Dr. Bradley even notices Rev. Wilson’s historiography except for the fact that said historiography gives aid and support to alleged racists. So, Rev. Wilson isn’t racist, but his historiography leads to putative racism? Curious reasoning there on Dr. Bradley’s part. (Note, we are not even pursuing whether there is an agreed meaning of the word “racist.”)

Dr. Bradley then speaks of the links that he provided for his preferred historiography. Dr. Bradley seems to suggest that Rev. Wilson’s historiography is suspect simply because it is controversial. But in the spirit of providing historiography might I recommend that those YRR / new Calvinist types who want to get up to speed also get a hold of a copy of “Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers’ Project, 1936-1938.” In these exit interviews by former slaves you will read many voices giving a different view of slavery then is commonly portrayed. In point of fact you will read many former slaves who, “make a case for such a thing as “virtuous” Southern Confederate values.” I would also recommend, “Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made,” by Eugene D. Genovese, or, “The Tragic Era – The Revolution After Lincoln,” by Claude G. Bowers, or, “North against South; The American Illiad, 1848-1877, by Ludwell Johnson, or, “The Coming of the Civil War, by Avery Craven, or, “Lincoln, The Man,” by Edgar Lee Masters, or, “A youth’s history of the great Civil War in the United States from 1861 to 1865,” by R.G.B. Horton. Look, this era and the history surrounding this era is incredibly complex subject (the destruction of a great civilization usually is) and Dr. Bradley, by throwing out a few book suggestions from assorted Liberals, progressives, and non-Southerners, is being more than a bit simplistic by suggesting that Rev. Wilson’s historiography is simplistic all because Wilson’s reading isn’t the same as Dr. Bradley’s.

Dr. Bradley asks, “Why is there such interest in defending the South?” Perhaps the answer to that is found not in a longing for a return to slavery. Perhaps the answer to that question is found in the South’s insistence on limited government. In our current era, where Centralized government is running roughshod over state duties, family duties, and individual duties why wouldn’t people long for a time when, in principle, decentralized and diffused government is advocated. Perhaps the answer to why there is such interest in defending the South is found in the fact that the South was characterized by respect for families, the presence of chivalry, the last culture of honor, and the presence of a distinctly Christian church that had real influence for good among the population, both black and white. Despite Dr. Bradley’s suggestion that the defense of the South is about regret for loss of power and privilege perhaps it is explained by a longing for 5th commandment proper hierarchies and distinctions.

Dr. Bradley says that such a longing is insulting to blacks. Why? Can Dr. Bradley name one person in Reformed circles who wants to bring back the virtues of the southern social order along with black slavery? If we could find our way to a social order without black slavery and also without all the vices of cultural Marxism that we currently have what would be so terrible about that? What would be so terrible about a social order where civil government power was decentralized and diffuse? What would be so terrible about a social order that took seriously again the 9th and 10th amendment? What would be so terrible about a social order where family is healthy once again? What would be so terrible about a social order that once again found the Christian Church having a vibrant voice in the community? What would be so terrible about a social order that was once again agrarian? What would be so terrible about a social order uninfluenced by Jacobins, cultural Marxists, Corporatists, Fascists and other assorted collectivists? These virtues are hardly “rubbish.” Some might even say these virtues are Christian.

It is true that it is possible to make an idol out of the antebellum South. It is likewise possible to make an idol out of destroying all lingering memory of the antebellum South. Both tendencies should be avoided.