The New Egalitarian World Order

One thing that must not be missed in the current “contraceptive wars,” is that these wars are as much about equality as they are about sex and collectivism in service of the State. It is true that these wars communicate almost the “divine right of untethered and indiscriminate promiscuous sex,” and it is also true that these contraceptive wars are centralizing power again into the hands of the god-state but it is also just as significant — and perhaps even more significant to the Egalitarian Fascists that the “contraceptive wars” have the end of serving the New World Egalitarian Order.

One must keep in mind that with the fact that women can get pregnant that a dreaded distinction is manifested between men and women. This distinction is a horror to those who are pursuing the Egalitarian social order of the ages. So, in order to mute this distinction into a hopeful oblivion contraception must be spread to the four corners of the earth. Only by doing so will women be able to be the same as men.

Now couple this push towards egalitarianism with the idea fairness it becomes self-evident to those of the Cultural Marxist mindset that contraceptives must be provided by the god-state in order that women may not be more at risk for the non-same condition of pregnancy then men are. You can bet the farm that if the Cultural Marxists could find a way by which men could get pregnant men would be forced to get pregnant and would not be given the choice of aborting since pregnant men would serve the end of the egalitarian order.

Another dynamic that should be noted that is being played out in our current “contraceptive wars,” is that in all of this we are seeing a mindset towards pregnancy (the woman’s privilege) that communicates that pregnancy is a disease to be both abhorred and avoided. Pregnancy is the disease and contraceptives are the aspirin for the womb and abortifacients are to the disease of pregnancy what Dr. Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was to polio.

In this New World Egalitarian order women who refuse to take contraceptives or have abortions can be referred to as “breeders,” who are to be looked down upon as being second class entities and are to be pitied. So, from a generation of women who were the keepers of the home and who were clearly distinct and distinguishable from men we went to a generation of women who seized the right to vote claiming a social equality with men, and from the generation who seized the right to vote we went to a generation of women who discovered the pill finding a reproductive equality with men, and from the generation of women who discovered the pill we have gone to a generation of women who insist on being the same as men claiming that men and women are indistinguishable and indistinct from one another.

You’ve come a long way baby.

Now in addition to the contraceptive wars which are serving the end of the New Egalitarian Order we have the current push in the medical community, as influenced by this worldview mindset, to attempt to turn sundry confused little boys into girls and confused little girls into boys. A market is burgeoning that provides “answers,” by way of surgical mutilation and / or pharmaceutical chemical warfare for the problem of little boys and little girls unhappy with their sexuality. Mommy and Daddy, themselves perfect reflections of the insanity of New Egalitarian man, “serve” little Joanne’s confusion by having her breasts lopped off so that she can become little Johnny. Similarly, little William will be proscribed testosterone blocking medicine so that he might remain little Wilhelmina. In the story linked below two Butch Dykes, having adopted a little boy, are showing their hatred of men by parenting their 8 year old boy into a sex change.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html

And in this news story it is a little girl who is switching to a little boy,

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120220/D9T13HO02.html

Of course all of this serves the Egalitarian order of the ages. If sexuality is not biologically determined then we are left with sexuality being nothing but a social construct and if social construct are only what people make of them then one social construct is as good as another and innate distinctions are all a matter of the troglodyte minds that have not yet caught up to the egalitarian times.

But as reality is what it is these attempts to reconstruct God’s construction are going to end badly.

Succinct Description On The Difference Between The Conservative & Progressive Mind

“Edmund Burke believed that, since human beings are born into a functioning world populated by others, society is—to use a large word he wouldn’t—metaphysically prior to the individuals in it. The unit of political life is society, not individuals, who need to be seen as instances of the societies they inhabit.

What makes conservatives conservative are the implications they have drawn from Burke’s view of society. Conservatives have always seen society as a kind of inheritance we receive and are responsible for; we have obligations toward those who came before and to those who will come after, and these obligations take priority over our rights. Conservatives have also been inclined to assume, along with Burke, that this inheritance is best passed on implicitly through slow changes in custom and tradition, not through explicit political action. Conservatives loyal to Burke are not hostile to change, only to doctrines and principles that do violence to preexisting opinions and institutions, and open the door to despotism. This was the deepest basis of Burke’s critique of the French Revolution; it was not simply a defense of privilege.

Though philosophical liberalism traces its roots back to the Wars of Religion, the term “liberal” was not used as a partisan label until the Spanish constitutionalists took it over in the early nineteenth century. And it was only later, in its confrontation with conservatism, that liberalism achieved ideological clarity. Classical liberals like John Stuart Mill, in contrast to conservatives, give individuals priority over society, on anthropological as well as moral grounds. They assume that societies are genuinely constructs of human freedom, that whatever we inherit from them, they can always be unmade or remade through free human action. This assumption, more than any other, shapes the liberal temperament. It is what makes liberals suspicious of appeals to custom or tradition, given that they have so often been used to justify privilege and injustice. Liberals, like conservatives, recognize the need for constraints, but believe they must come from principles that transcend particular societies and customs. Principles are the only legitimate constraints on our freedom.

The quarrel between liberals and conservatives is essentially a quarrel over the nature of human beings and their relation to society.”

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jan/12/republicans-revolution/?page=2

1.) Because of their belief in Covenant Theology Reformed people have always inclined towards being Conservative. Covenant theology teaches us that all of God’s people through time are one organic people. We see this in our Baptism services when the Generations assemble at the Baptismal font in order that a member of their family may be ratified in their place in the covenant of grace. This covenant into which they are being announced is a covenant in which their forebears were placed through the centuries and it is a place where Baptized’s generations to follow will also be announced. Also, the very nature of Federal Theology with its idea of Federal Headship pushes Reformed people in a conservative direction. The teaching of Scripture where we find man created as incomplete apart from woman suggests that the individual is not the primary building block of society but rather the community is apriori to the individual. Likewise the idea of the fifth commandment pushes Christians towards being conservative in their disposition. Family is to be honored. Even the very idea of the God as Triune having Eternal community pushes the Biblical Christian towards conservative commitments. The Reformed have always believed that change comes incrementally and organically as is seen by their watch words of doing things, “Decent and in order.”

It is not as if, however, there are not understandings of proper individualism in the Reformed mindset and ethos. The Reformed emphasis on personal and individual responsibility in sanctification bespeaks a proper individualism. The Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone puts the individual as individual before God alone.

However, the Reformed faith favors a conservative dynamic as the individual finds his identity in a community of communities which are prior to him and will long outlive him. Yes, it is true that there will come times when, for the good of the community, the individual flavor will have to exercise itself (as when a community is together going over a cliff) but on the whole the Reformed instinct is conservative because the Bible teaches us this conservative disposition.

2.) On the other hand it has always been variant flavors of Anabaptist “Christianity” which has given us the Liberal Christian. The Anabaptist, like the Liberal, sees the sovereign self abstracted from any context as being the central integer in all that God does. Even when Anabaptist communities arise they are communities that are created by a shared conviction of the priority of the individual over the community. When we look at the Anabaptist doctrine of Baptism which emphasizes the choice of the individual we see the Liberal spirit coming to the fore. When we we see the Anabaptist doctrine (implicit or explicit) of justification by works we see the individual cast upon himself.

Ironically, in contradiction to the quote above Liberals do appeal to a long standing custom and tradition and that is the the time honored custom and tradition that we ought to ignore custom and tradition. Whenever we find a person seeking to overthrow the past whole sale only on the whim that we are sovereign enough to do that we find the Liberal. We have seen massive doses of Liberalism since the Enlightenment. Everything from the breakdown of the community and family through the creation of government schools to separate children from their family, to the giving of women the vote, to the attack on the family with the advent of abortion. All of these changes have come to us from those who believe that society can be reorganized according to the sovereign individual self who is prior to community. Any place you see people working to instantaneously overthrow long set community patterns you find the liberal.

And of course, being a conservative, I would note that Satan was the Liberal par excellent. Satan himself arose to defy the Almighty. Satan, as the Liberal individualist tempted or first parents to seize the Liberal position of the sovereign self in order to overthrow the community order that God has established. Satan, in the temptation of Jesus tempted Jesus to become the Liberal individual by seizing for Himself self aggrandizement.

Rage Against The Machine — Reflecting on the Belhar Document

We will return eventually to the theme of Unity that the Belhar opens with and insists upon after we have examined the affirmations which the Belhar sets forth. Obviously, as unity is pinioned upon shared truth we can not know, concretely speaking, if we agree with Belhar’s call to unity until we know if we share Belhar’s truth affirmations.

So, with that in mind we will, with the next few entries, look at the truth affirmations and then we will return to the clarion call for unity issued by the Belhar.

Now as we head into this examination of the Belhar affirmations we must keep in mind that the burden of proof is upon the Belhar to be unambiguous about its statements and what those statements mean. Since the Belhar has aspirations for confessional status and since the Belhar is not worldview neutral in its affirmations it should be approached with a Hermeneutic of suspicion in order to expose any dangerous ambiguities that may lie sleeping in its text.

To that end we note this statement of the Belhar that follows its opening touting unity,

“Therefore, we reject any doctrine which absolutises either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutisation hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation;

Now the ambiguity that enters with this statement is found in the four italicized words above.

In this context what does “natural diversity,” mean?

Folks who subscribe to the Belhar will be rejecting any doctrine which absolutizes natural diversity. Who defines what “Natural diversity,” means and by what standard? According to some neo-Christians “natural diversity,” could very well mean the “natural diversity” that we find among the various sexes. We now have Social Scientists insisting that, biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male; and the Social Scientists are telling us that depending on how one calls the shots, one can argue that along that spectrum lie at least five sexes– and perhaps even more. Are all these sexes an example of “natural diversity,” the existence of which we are not break the visible and active unity of the Church over per the Belhar?

To think that this lies in the realm of possibility is by recognizing that one of the key framers of the Belhar, Dr. Allan Boesak, in 2008, while Moderator of the Uniting Reformed Church (formerly the DRC Mission Churches) used the Belhar Declaration to justify homosexuality in Church. Now it is true that Dr. Boesak was voted down, in his attempt but it seems that if anybody was familiar with the original intent of the Belhar document it would be one who was an instrumental framer of the Belhar. If one of the framers of the Belhar insists that the original intent of the Belhar was to prohibit disunity over the Church officially embracing the putative “natural diversity” of homosexuality then why would a Church, such as the Christian Reformed Church, which does not justify homosexuality in the Church want to embrace that document as a confession? Certainly in light of this no one can argue with the fact that this phraseology is “ambiguous.”

Now, that this reading of Boesak’s should be of import to CRC people is found in the continual push within the denomination to normalize homosexuality in the Church. In point of fact, the March 2012 issue of the Banner finds a news clip on page 10 that opens with this paragraph,

“A group of members and pastors from several West Michigan Christian Reformed churches have organized to provide educational opportunities for congregations about the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals in their churches.”

Now, in light of the push of a significant interest group within the denomination (I say it is “significant” because I cannot imagine the Banner running such a news piece on some obscure group) to normalize homosexuality, and in light of the fact that one of the key framers of the Belhar insisted that the original intent of the Belhar justified homosexuality in the Church then can we really believe that the Belhar, if adopted as a Confession, won’t eventually be used as leverage in the push to bring homosexuality and sexual perversion into the Church and as proof that confessionally we are compelled to unite with homosexuals who call themselves “Christian.”

Our concern with the Belhar does not end on this point, for elsewhere in the Belhar we get other language that allows for a interpretation that would sanction sodomy and sexual perversion.

“Therefore, we reject any doctrine which explicitly or implicitly maintains that descent or any other human or social factor should be a consideration in determining membership of the Church.”

With this sentence we have moved from the ambiguity of the previous statement from the Belhar, as cited above, to a unambiguous statement which a Mack truck could drive through, interpretatively speaking. Those 7 words which are italicized in the above quote section clearly teaches that sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, or any other human or social factor should not be a consideration in determining membership of the Church. What is sodomy, or lesbianism, or bestiality, or any number of sexual perversions but “human or social factors”?

When we begin to deal with the slippery way the Belhar uses the word “injustice” we will have questions once again about this matter, but for this post it is enough to see that the Belhar should not be adopted as a document because it’s language is not merely ambiguous as to what is being communicated, the language invites and begs those who want to advance a sodomite agenda to read the document as supporting their cause.

It is my belief that the document does support their cause and that is why I am raging against the machine.

Temple Prostitution in These united States of America

1 Kings 14:21-24 Solomon’s son Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he became king of Judah, and he ruled seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord had chosen from all the territory of Israel as the place where he was to be worshiped. Rehoboam’s mother was Naamah from Ammon. The people of Judah sinned against the Lord and did more to arouse his anger against them than all their ancestors had done. They built places of worship for false gods and put up stone pillars and symbols of Asherah to worship on the hills and under shady trees. Worst of all, there were men and women who served as prostitutes at those pagan places of worship. The people of Judah practiced all the shameful things done by the people whom the Lord had driven out of the land as the Israelites advanced into the country.

This problem with Prostitution in connected with the Temple Idols has been found in many cultures throughout the centuries. Not only do we find it in the Old Testament, but we find it as a issue in the New Testament. In Corinth for example, rising 1,500 feet above the city and to the south of the acropolis was a fortified hill upon which loomed the infamous Temple of Aphrodite or Venus. This pagan temple and its 1,000 temple prostitutes greatly influenced the city’s culture and morals. In the book of Corinthians Paul has to deal with the issue of Christians and joining themselves with idols and how that is inconsistent with being joined with Christ. Some scholars believe that Christians in Corinth were not only joining in Temple Feasts but they were also joining with Temple Prostitutes.

All this as introduction to my conviction that in the current news on the US Federal Government and free contraceptives for women we are returning to a culture characterized by Temple Idol worship that includes the perk of Temple prostitution.

If we agree that the State has become the Idol then the idea that the idol State is subsidizing single women’s sexual habits by providing or requiring the free provision of contraceptives it is not a leap to see the women who take advantage of the free contraceptives in order to have copious amounts of sex are in essence Prostitutes for the Temple God of the State. Now, it is true that we are missing a centralized location where all this Temple sex occurs but as we are far more Democratic than the ancients one might argue that we have decentralized our Temple sex so that our Temple Prostitutes lavish their whorings on any passerby in any place of convenience. So, the whoredom of America is connected to Temple Prostitution as required by and provided for by the Idol State.

The Idol state, in our modern expression of Temple Prostitution, plays the role of the Pimp by providing contraceptives for their temple Prostitutes for free AND by providing the required blood atonement sacrifice to themselves as the Idol State by paying for the abortions that occur among their stable of fillies, and this keeps agents of the Idol state (Planned Parenthood) profiting from the selling of whoredom. By providing free abortions along with free contraceptives the Idol State does a lucrative business that keeps their temple prostitutes turning more tricks.

So, Temple Prostitution is not a thing of the past and should not only be identified with ancient cultures. Modern man has his own version of Temple Prostitution and the current “contraceptives for free,” story that is all over the news is proof of that for those with eyes to see — for those who have not so identified with their culture that they can no longer see the culture for what it is.

Rage Against The Machine — Reflection On The Belhar

The Belhar says,

“We believe that unity is, therefore both a gift and an obligation for the Church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God’s Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain.”

1.) The unity of the Church can never never be isolated from the truths to which Christ has called his people to witness.

2.) This is why the Belgic Confession of Faith does not list “Unity” as one of the marks of the Church. The Belgic confession lists the marks of the Church by which it can be recognized to be,

“The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.”

The Belhar concentrates on unity but forgets that unity is only a consequence of a shared understanding of the Christian faith. Unity is the residual effect of the marks of the Church being pursued. If unity is an obligation for the the Church of Jesus Christ it is an obligation that is attained only indirectly as the Church directly embraces a common understanding of our undoubted catholic Christian faith as that faith is revealed in Scripture. Unity is not biblical unity when it is pursued only for the sake of unity. Unity that is pursued apart from the consideration of the pure preaching of the gospel, pure administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline is a empty set unity.

So everyone can agree with the Belhar as it calls for unity but only as that unity is a reflection of all of God’s peoples embracing the intolerance of Christianity to whatever teaching stands in opposition to it. So the question becomes, does the Belhar, with its call for unity, reflect the pure preaching of the Gospel? If it does it should be accepted. If it does not, then it should be rejected. If it is unclear then it should be rejected until clarity is achieved.

I do believe the Belhar document is at best ambiguous and so the responsibility should lie on those who want to accept the Belhar document to clean up its language so that those of us who have grave concerns about the Belhar can be satisfied.