Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Responding To Sproul — the younger — On The Mosque Issue

R. C. Sproul, the younger, has written a piece on the building of the Mosques at ground Zero. I do not share his reasoning. First I offer Jr.’s article and then I offer my response.

With Liberty and Justice for All

“It’s never easy to think clearly and dispassionately on issues that we are passionate about. September 11, 2001 is indeed a day that will live in infamy. Nearly a decade later the wounds remain raw, and understandably so. A wise man, however, is one who submits to the Word of God even when his emotions or desires lead in another direction. Let’s take, then, a careful look at our question.

First, what do we mean by “right?” One simple way to answer the question is, “No. It is never right for any group promoting a false religion to build houses of worship anywhere.” Islam is false, a pack of lies, and was so before September 11. Mosques are not centers of worship for the true and living God. They should not exist. It’s not right for Muslims to build mosques anywhere.

But that’s not really the issue here. Many of those opposed to this particular mosque in this particular spot are quite content with mosques being built in other places. They have no interest in forbidding all false houses of worship from being built. The actual question of the day seems to be something more like this- should the state forbid Muslims from building a mosque on this particular site? Suddenly the issue isn’t so easy. I appreciate the pain such a building might cause. I understand the uproar. But I have to ask, which is the greater evil? A mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero, or a state determining which religions can built what buildings on what pieces of land?

In terms of the use of force by the state, they have no business keeping any landowner from putting any building on his or her property. If the Muslims own this piece of land, and wish to build a mosque there, it is not just wrong but wicked for anyone to use the power of the state to stop them. It is in fact a violation ofthe 8th commandment. It is a form of theft to limit by force of law how someone might use his or her own property. It is also a violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

I believe that Allah is not God, and that Mohammed was a liar. I believe Muslims are dead in their trespasses and sins, and cannot even see the kingdom of heaven. I believe their religion is demonic from top to bottom. And I believe every Muslim bears the image of God. As a Christian that must mean that Muslims are due justice from the state. Their property rights should be protected by the state, and affirmed by all right thinking people.

The greatest thing we can do to slow the building of mosques in this spot, and everywhere is by proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ who is Lord over all. Let them build their mosques, and we will build disciples. Let them build their mosques and we will serve Him as He builds His church. Let us love our enemies and love liberty, and justice, for all.”

I think the overall difference between R. C. Sproul and I on this issue is the role of the State. He obviously thinks that it is more wicked for a State to decide which religious institutions are built than it is for a pagan institution to be built. I, on the other hand, would contend that the State, under the authority of Christ, is duty bound not to let pagan houses of idolatry to flourish where they rule. Freedom is not defined by the State allowing all forms of idolatry to flourish and justice is not defined by the State allowing religions of injustice to gain a foothold where they hold their charge under sovereign God.

Now, R. C., using a Libertarian argument, suggests that if the Muslims own the land then they can do with it what they please and we ought not to expect the State to impinge upon their freedom to do with the land what they please.

However, I do not think R. C.’s premise is correct. It is often the case that the State should not allow people who own land to do immoral things with that land. For example, should a god-fearing State have the right / duty to keep an Abortionist who owns the land from building an abortuary? The answer is clearly yes. Ownership of land does not give the right to perpetuate murder on that private property.

So, the State certainly does have that duty/right to deny owners of land from doing God forbidden things on that land. All because a person owns a piece of land that does not give them the right to do wicked things with that land. A righteous state, in keeping with its responsibilities to the first table would not allow pagans to build houses of worship on the land the pagan owns simply because they own that land.

Now, some will howl that the State doesn’t prevent Muslims from building in other places so why should the State stop them from building here.

That is a fair question.

The fault however is not in the State not allowing Muslims to build their pagan shrine at ground zero. The fault is in the State allowing other pagan shrines to be built elsewhere. All because they get it wrong elsewhere in forbidding idolatry that does not make it wrong for them to get it right here in forbidding idolatry.

In my humble estimation the argument offered here is an example of Libertarianism run amok.

Most people are not aware that it is Muslim belief that when they build a Mosque that Land upon which the Mosque is built is theirs for perpetuity. Thus the building of a Mosque is an act of Dominion by Muslims. The West is committing civilization-cide by allowing Muslims or Jews to build Mosques or Temples. And R. C. suggests that disciples of Christ shouldn’t oppose this?

There is no liberty pursued in embracing any Muslim action. There is no justice in supporting the building of this Mosque. Indeed, quite to the contrary all support for the building of this Mosque is support for slavery and injustice as that is what Islam brings everywhere it spreads.

By all means … make disciples and part of what it means to be a disciple of Christ is to stand against the advance of both Islam and the pagan State.

Winston & Education

Dear Winston,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my thread on titled, “And You are Being Taxed To The Hilt For This.”

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&cat=29

It is so seldom that a government school teacher responds to these types of quotes that I find it delightful to engage them when they do. I do wish, however, that you would have engaged more with the substance of the quotes, perhaps even explaining how it is that you viewed them as being deficient.

However, as your methodology was just to give a general repudiation of the quotes, I will answer your “insights” in a conversational manner below.

Once again I thank you for your willingness to converse.

Winston Fox writes,

Sure, a large part of the educational system is geared towards getting children to jump through hoops or conform, but let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Public education could indeed be used as a method of endoctrination, so it is always important to be vigilant and suppliment a child’s education with parental guidance, but current educational systems in Canada and the United States are a far cry away from brainwashing. Schools can’t get students to stop drinking, having sex or doing drugs, let alone walking in lockstep with each other.

Our educational system is socialistic and it explicitly and implicitly teaches humanism in various ways. Many of the quotes I provided sweep up against that truth and yet your only response is that let’s not the baby out with the bathwater.” I guess the question that I return to you is; ‘Where is the baby (that which is good) in the bathwater that is your government schools? =

Certainly all can agree on the necessity of parental guidance but were parents taking seriously the necessity of parental guidance they wouldn’t put their children in government schools to begin with. Parental guidance would see that government schools aim at deconstructing children from the best of parents belief system and reconstructing them in the direction of a materialistic, atheistic, globalist world and life view.

Second, I would ask why is it the case when God has given a child to the parents that the parents are only to “supplement” the education the child is receiving from the government? I think we have to be honest and admit that teachers are (realizing there are always exceptions to the general rule) some of the most under-educated ill qualified people which staff a particular profession and calling. (See Thomas Sowell’s “Inside Public Education” for the hard statistics on this.) Now, no one doubts the good intentions of teachers but in terms of skill, intelligence and ability there is no way that they should be the ones with the primary input into the life of the child.

And in terms of brainwashing, well the results of the PEERS testing done by such organizations as “Wall-builders” indicates that you are just wrong on this matter. Students that graduate from government schools do, philosophically speaking, walk in lockstep.

Winston wrote,

There is a need for some order in schools and in society, unless you are for complete anarchy, but in some cases policy makers, the PTA and/or the schoolboards, go overboard with things like Zero Tolerance because they are unwilling to leave things like the use of utensils or tylenol up to a person’s individual judgement.

One way to bring order to government schools is by simply getting rid of them. In my estimation there is no need for order in our current government schools because there is no need for the government schools themselves. In my estimation order in society should come from the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the instruction by parents of their children in what it means to think as Christians. The public schools are a albatross around the neck of the intelligence of the American citizenry.

However, I must say, that I do not think that the disorder that would result in closing government schools could be any worse than the societal disorder that we currently have.

Really Winston, the things you mention in the above paragraph as problems are really the smallest of problems that the schools have. The real problems are not “zero tolerance” or the use of utensils or Tylenol. The problems are the pagan ideological pre-commitments of the teachers and administrators and the dynamics that arise when you congregate large numbers of adolescents in one place thus creating a “Lord of the flies” youth culture.

Winston, you simply are not seeing the whole picture. There are many books I might recommend to you on this subject but perhaps you could start with John Taylor Gatto’s “Underground History of American Education.”

“I can see where it is easy to lose faith in an education system where, after 12 years, they still do not think that a child is qualified to make a judgement about when to use a steak knife or take something for a headache. Even before “No Child Left Behind” forced teachers to teach to the (pardon the term) dumbest of the class (in order to improve test scores and get enough funding to hopefully keep their jobs), children who struggled were the main focus while those who grasped the subject easily were left to their own devices. I’m not opposed to the squeaky wheel getting the grease, raising the overall number of educated people is a good thing; even if it is inadequate, it is better than nothing. There does need to be more done for the children at the other end of the spectrum however, perhaps the one teacher per classroom model should be reexamined.”

I have not lost faith in the education system Winston. I have not lost faith because I never had any faith to begin with. Even if No Child Left Behind” had never been implemented the problems with the schools would remain. The primary problem is not holding the more intelligent back in order to accommodate the less intelligent. The primary problem is the schools teach from a pagan world and life view. They say that they are religiously neutral, but as religious neutrality is not possible they are teaching all of what they teach upon the foundation of humanism. Because they teach from this foundation they teach irrationality. In short, it is not the facts that are the problem in government schools so much as it is the philosophy of fact that they embrace.

I would go so far as to say Winston, that were I trying to devise a educational system that would most effectively lobotomize our citizenry, I would invent the precise government educational system that we have.

I pray, that it might be the case that the government schools continue to ignore our best and brightest in hopes that the best and brightest won’t be completely ruined by the time they graduate from school.

Winston wrote,

“If your gripe is with public over private, universities and colleges are more apt to turn out drones than an elementary school. If you believe that disseminating an idea is equivalent to endoctination, you should know that not everyone who learns their ABCs becomes a writer, or Newton’s laws a physicist. If your concern is that children may develop different beliefs or opinions than their parents, do not be such a hypocrite. The only way for children to grow into independent, autonomous people is to allow them to take what they have heard and make their own judgements about it. If children were completely dependent on their parents for every important decision, once the parents grew old and died, their children would be lost and unable to operate.”

You’ll be glad to know that I have no more use for our colleges and universities than I do the secondary schools.

Next you imply I’m a hypocrite for wanting my children to believe what their Father believed. My problem with what I generously call “your reasoning” is that government schools force feed ideological fecal matter to children and then turn around and insist that these same children must be allowed to make their own judgments. You can not draw out of children, in terms of judgments, what has not been first poured into children in terms of training. So, my concern, is that my children do not become idiot clones of their intellectually arid teachers.

Quite the contrary to your “wisdom” Winston, I would say that the only way for children to grow into independent, autonomous people is to train them in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. Once instructed and trained, only then can children make their own autonomous decisions about that which comes before them in life. Really, Winston, on this score it really comes down to your desire for the state to train the children so that the children can be little clones of the state and my desire for Christian parents to train the children so that the children can be little clones of Christ.

Winston wrote,

“Oh, and John Stuart Mill was a strong advocat of educating all women, despite the aforementioned perils of public education having the potential to be used as a tool for brainwashing. If you read the rest of On Liberty, I think you will find that Mill is in favor of an educated populace being able to hold its leaders in check.
If governments really wanted to endoctrinate us, they would stop wasting all that money on schools and just make proclamations to an uneducated and gullible public.”

You can’t be serious Winston.

Propaganda doesn’t work by just making pronouncements Winston. Propaganda, in order for it to work, as to be constant exposure beginning at the youngest of ages. I suggest that you give B. K. Eakman’s “The Cloning of the American Mind” a spin.

Why do you think the American citizenry keeps voting Republican and Democratic socialists into office? Because they are indoctrinated. Why do you think that the American citizenry has lost all interest in their civic responsibilities? Because they are brainwashed. Why do you think the average American almost never reads a book once graduating from High School? Because they are brainwashed. And the fact that you said what you said in this whole response suggests to me that you desperately need to take the red pill that Morpheus is offering you.

Winston,

“I have been a teacher, and I was educated in public schools, as I’m willing to bet you were too, as were millions of others who are not mere sheep. There is always going to be some level of cultural or political bias in everything because none of us has grown up in a vaccuum, but there are general things like civics, math, spelling, grammar, geography and other subjects that we can all form some general consensus about failing complete educational neutrality.”

No, I was not educated in state run schools. I spent 13 years in government schools but I can assure you that I was not educated. I daily thank God that I did not learn a blessed thing in government schools, because in not learning anything I had little need to unlearn later. I also lament that the first 18 years of my life were such a intellectual barren wasteland. I’ve tried to make up for those years since, but in the end one can never retrieve the years that the locust have eaten.

You say that there are millions of others who are not mere sheep. I would dearly love to meet these millions. In 50 years of life I think I’ve come across, at most, scores of people who are not sheep.

All of those subject matters that you mention could be just as easily mastered by a child being given a reading regimen starting at 5 and some Math tutorials. There is no need at all to take a child from their home at the tenderest of ages and throw him or her into the wolf pits that are government schools.

I have a great deal of commentary on Iron Ink Winston on government schooling. You can access more information that you desperately need just by clicking on the right on the topic titled “government schools.”

Regaining Speech Liberty

Roman historian Tacitus dated the beginning of the Roman end of Liberty with the end of free speech. America and the West has come to that same historical pivot point where, through the deadening effect of political correctness on our speech, we are nearing the end of liberty. We no longer have liberty to speak plainly about any number of subjects, and the inability to speak plainly about these subjects serves to further the religious and political ends of those who would disembowel the theological, ideological, and cultural underpinnings of the West.

Because of the corrosive affect of Political correctness upon our speech — and so upon our thought — we are in danger of no longer having the liberty to speak against inferior sexuality, against inferior ideologies, against inferior pagan religions, against inferior cultures, or against inferior political philosophies. The campaign of political correctness against liberty of speech has managed, through the craft of subterfuge, to convince or cow people into thinking that superior thought and speech is that thought and speech that doesn’t see anything as being inferior except the belief that some truths, or cultural arrangement are superior to other truths or cultural arrangements.

We have to restore our language. To restore our language is to, at the same time, restore our ability to think critically. In order to get back our liberty we are going to have to begin again to say what we think irrespective of those who don’t like it and regardless of how people howl at ideas they don’t like. With that beginning we can proceed to speak plainly to the West again and wrench it’s thinking away from the PC cultural Marxist thought police.

Go Figure

A few days ago the NAACP (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) accused the Tea Parties of being racist. Now, think with me a moment. Here we have an organization, whose very name communicates its reason for existence as the explicit goal of advancing, through affirmative action, law suits, quotas, protests, and contract set-asides unique advantages for blacks over non-blacks — accusing another organization of being motivated by race.

Sometimes it just hurts to think about irony.

Discussing Trueman Discussing Homosexuality

Tim Phillips

“The article by Trueman

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/gay-marriage.php

is spot-on. He is not defending homosexuality, only stating that evangelicals need to be better equipped to explain why the practice is wrong — they can no longer argue from a cultural perspective, since the perspect…ive of the culture has been changing over the last few decades. When sinful practices like no-fault divorce and adultery are often tolerated in evangelicalism, a simple “ick-factor” argument is not going to be very persuasive. To use an analogous argument that James White once made, if you ask the average evangelical why he or she isn’t Roman Catholic, most cannot give a biblical/theological answer, only that they consider RC “strange” or something of the like. That’s just not a good response.”

Bret L. McAtee

If Trueman’s article is spot on he needs to learn how to write with more clarity so as to identify the spot he wants to be on. I found the article, because of its it’s ill written structure in the first couple paragraphs to be thoroughly confusing.

Tim Phillips

“What exactly was confusing about the first couple of paragraphs? All he says is that the decision wasn’t a surprise, a significant comment on a morning talk show, and the fact that there is a generational gap on the issue. One factor that you may not be accounting for — he is British. There’s a certain subtle rhetoric that can be somewhat more difficult to grasp. My point was that the substance of his argument (in the latter part of the article) was spot on.”

Bret L. McAtee

I would prefer to understand it as a certain subtle confusion that is more difficult to grasp precisely because it lacks clarity.

What was confusing is his search for a sociological answer to why there is a difference between the under 35 crowd and the over 35 crowd quite apart from the realization that the problem is theological.

What was confusing was his invoking the idea of culture w/o a corresponding understanding that culture is merely theology externalized. He writes about our culture informing us on the issue without seeming to realize that culture is theology a couple steps removed.

What was confusing is that the man made gross generalizations. Not everyone over 35 was clueless on the biblical reasons as to why homosexuality is wrong. Indeed, a person only need be conversant with Romans 1:16f.

Also, I found his use of the word “Bigoted” to be confusing. While, technically it is acceptable to speak of being bigoted against things like “Apple Juice,” or “GM products” most commonly the word is used to designate an antagonistic attitude towards something that is otherwise perfectly acceptable.

In terms of his bullet points … those weren’t confusing so much as they were “Captain Obvious” statements.

Tim Phillips

“Actually, that is not a very good definition of “bigoted” — it indicates utter intolerance for a belief or opinion that differs from one’s own. Acceptability is not the determining factor.

I agree with your first and second points in that the problem is ultimately theological, and culture ultimately reflects theology (whether good or bad). But I don’t think he would deny that either (the man teach historical theology at a major seminary). In fact, that seems to be precisely what he is saying. The culture has opposed homosexuality, but not necessarily for biblical/theological reasons. While that may not be true for everyone over the age of 35, he was reacting to a statement from a morning talk show; I’m over 35 and did not think for a moment he was including me in that demographic.

Obviously, if the last points were “Captain Obvious” statements, that would seem to mean you found them very clear.”

Bret L. McAtee

I found the latter points clear. It is the first couple paragraphs that remain thoroughly confusing.

If the culture has opposed homosexuality it has opposed it for theological reasons. Now, all of those theological reasons might not be Christian but they were nevertheless theological.

And in terms of teaching at a Reformed Seminary?

That and 50 cents might get a cup of coffee from me. I think the best thing that could happen to the ministry is to decentralize the training away from the Seminaries.

Tim Phillips

He teaches at Westminster Seminary. I did not make the comment to laud seminaries, only to point out that he understands theology. And culture. Read his _Minority Report_ or _The Wages of Spin_ as examples. I won’t dispute your last point about seminaries, except to be careful not to make a gross generalization there. Not all seminaries are bad. Actually, I’m of the opinion that one solution would be to have pastoral training done by pastors, which I think is similar to the point you are making.

I think it would be helpful to make a distinction between being “theological” and being “biblical.” The two should be — but are not necessarily — the same thing (i.e., cults have bad theology, but it is not biblical theology — at least not well-informed biblical theology). Not everyone opposes homosexuality for specifically biblical reasons. They oppose it because their parents told them to, Ozzie and Harriet society told them it was wrong, secular psychology told them it was deviant behavior. Or, they found it personally odd. His point was that this might coincide with biblical teaching, but the person did not arrive at that conclusion or necessarily biblical reasons.”

Bret L. McAtee

Tim,

Yes, but in a culture, such as ours, that has historically such deep roots in Biblical categories and Christian theology, even the culture holding people in place is a result of Biblical influence. Ozzie and Harriet, on this issue, were who they were, because deep deep down the culture had been shaped by Christian categories.

Now, I quite agree that perhaps people should have been more epistemologically self conscious regarding their belief systems but you know not everyone is called to examine the contours of a culture. Some people — indeed most people, including Christians — just swim in the culture w/o questioning the nature of the water. I don’t fault the over 35 crowd to much if it was the case that the remnants of a Christian culture was holding them in place and I certainly don’t refer to them as “Bigoted.”

Now that our culture has changed in the direction of pagan homosexuality people who are both under and over 35 need to work on understanding Biblically the most self evident of realities as to why men and women are exclusive fits.

Personally, I long for the a time when culture is so influenced by Christian categories I don’t need to spend my time proving from Scripture that men should only marry women.See

Tim Phillips

“Yes, I would agree with most of what you say (if not all with the last post). I suppose much of my reaction is can be summarized in a discussion I had with one gentleman, a congregant at a church in Mississippi. Let’s just say he was well over the 35 line. During a pastoral visit, he raised the question of homosexuality, and asked, quite honestly, if the Bible did indeed teach against it. I assured him it did, and I later preached a sermon on that very subject. The point is that he believed the right thing, even thought it to be biblical, but because the prevailing culture was changing, he was confused. Some were telling him the Bible taught something else. Some were telling him not to look at the Bible at all. That is one reason I recommended the book by White and Neill above. It addresses many of these issues and the objections that folks raise at the biblical teaching (the ol’ shellfish argument for instance). Plus, it’s much less confusing than Trueman.”

Bret L. McAtee

Rapprochement! You’ll remember that my point at the outset is that Trueman’s article in question was confusing.

Thanks for the discussion Tim. I am always for clarity.