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.

A Very Succinct Look At Matthew 22:21 & Romans 13

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Matthew 22:21

The question that begs being asked here is, “what exactly belongs to God?”

Clearly the answer is everything, including the State.

The next question then becomes, “what exactly belongs to Caesar?”

Clearly the answer is only one thing and that is the authority to enforce God’s law, for His glory and the good of His church.

Romans 13 causes us to lean in this direction as it calls Caesar ‘God’s minister’ to do us good. As long as they ACT like God’s minister, by doing us good we are to obey them. When they begin to act like Satan’s minister, by doing us evil, then we must obey God rather then men.

Anything less then this view is impotent gnostic pietism. The Presbyterians of 1776 would not recognize the Presbyterians of today.

Hat Tip — Randall Gerard for so succinctly stating this.
I’ve only marginally modified how he originally put this.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan & Christian Military Service

The following excerpts are pulled from this link,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33807907/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

The shooter in the Fort Hood incident, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s exchanged e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Maj. Hasan worshipped. Those e-mails indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but left him in his post.

Mr. Awlaki, an American citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, wrote on Monday on his English-language website that Mr. Hasan was “a hero.” The cleric said, “He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

He added, “The only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. Army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

At another site we learn,

Several former colleagues have come forward to say Nidal would tell them: “I am a Muslim first and an American second”.

The reason I note these snippets are as follows,

1.) Mr. Awlaki, Major Nidal’s former cleric insists that the inconsistency of a Muslim fighting against Muslims is what pushed Major Nidal to resolve the contradiction in the direction of killing Americans at Ft. Hood instead of killing Muslims in Afghanistan.

Major Nidal understood there was a contradiction between being a Muslim and being an American soldier in a war killing Muslims. Now, what Major Nidal did was reprehensible and justice will only be served if he gets the death penalty but it does cause one to ask why American Christians in military can not see about themselves what Nidal saw about himself, and that is that they proclaim to be adherents to a faith but they are in an organization dedicated to snuffing out the faith they say they adhere to. Christians by being in the US military are supporting an institution (US government) that is committed to snuffing out the Christian faith. I’m saddened that Christians can serve in an army that is a instrument of a government that is at war with the individual Military Personnel’s own Christian people, without the slightest pangs to their Christian consciences.

The truth of the matter is that most American Christians don’t feel the contradictions that Nidal felt because they have compartmentalized their faith. For example, did any Christian serviceman feel the contradictions between being a Christian and bombing into oblivion Christian Serbia? For example, did any Christian servicemen feel the contradiction between their involvement in Iraq and the reality that that involvement led to the necessity of the indigenous Iraqi Christian community having to flee from Iraq for their safety due to the oppression they were suffering — an oppression that had official US government sanction? For example, did any Christian servicemen feel the contradiction between serving in Afghanistan and knowing that their Chaplain corps were destroying Bibles so that their usage wouldn’t be offensive to their host Muslim country? Instead the American mindset is, “Jesus saves my soul and that being so it doesn’t matter that I am one of those that the State uses to implement its humanist agenda in order to build an anti-Christ globalistic tower of Babel.”

2.) Is it really so surprising that Major Nidal would say, “I am a Muslim first and an American second?” What would we expect any true son of Allah to say? I would hope that Christians in the military would say, “I am a Christian first and an American second.” The difference is, is that Nidal saw the contradiction between being an American and being a Muslim while most Christians, being imbued with a kind of “Civil religion Christianity,” never pause to consider the things that Nidal considered.

I shouldn’t have to write next what I’m going to write, but just so as to ward off the kooks, I’m not saying that Christians in the military should start shooting up the place like Maj. Nidal did. I am saying that Christians should think long and hard about joining the US military as it is the enforcement arm of a government that is four square in favor of building up a anti-Christ globalist humanist Kingdom.

It’s just a shame that Maj. Nidal didn’t have a Muslim version of R2Kt that he could have used to resolve the contradictions between being a Muslim and being an American. A Muslim version of R2Kt would have allowed to be at peace with being Muslim while acting in a non Muslim fashion as he followed the magistrates orders.

Calvin College BOT Get’s It Right

The news in this post is already way past old, but as it is tangentially concerned with the CRC and as I am ordained in the CRC I thought I would put my fork in on this item.

The following links give the skinny on the progression of the controversy between the Calvin College faculty and the Calvin College Board of Trustees (BOT).

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/08/calvin_college_has_had_to_conf.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/08/calvin_college_professors_call.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/10/calvin_college_agrees_to_furth.html

The short version is that the Calvin BOT sent out a letter to the faculty impressing upon them that they were not to teach anything that could be construed as gay advocacy. One can only presume that the BOT sent out such a letter because they had reason to believe that such a letter was necessary. Upon receipt of the letter the faculty took exception to what they believed was a heavy handed draconian squelching of their academic freedom. As such the official faculty organization squealed loudly under such oppression. As a result the BOT, while not rescinding their original dicta, did agree to examine how CRC church teachings relate to academic freedom.

Just a few observations,

1.) Three Cheers for the BOT for doing the right thing.

2.) The cry for Academic freedom is a smoke screen. Would the faculty senate have squealed about Academic freedom if the BOT had sent a memo to the faculty impressing upon them that they were not to teach anything that could be construed as polygamy advocacy? Necrophilia advocacy? Bestiality advocacy? The squealing sound one hears from the faculty is indicative that the letter hit its mark. No doubt certain faculty members were pushing gay advocacy. So, this has very little to do with academic freedom and a great deal to do with code pink making inroads at Calvin.

3.) The gay advocacy thing is not limited to Calvin College in the CRC. CRC publications like “The Banner” is forever subtly engaging in gay advocacy. Maybe someone ought to send a letter to them.

4.) This is the way that change always happens in a denomination. Whatever change that is desired to be pursued is first brought up in some official format. That official format is then officially censored. After being censored people who are sympathetic to those who first brought it up start screaming that, “We need to have a conversation about this.” The ensuing conversation then becomes the thin wedge that is used to eventually pry the desired change into place. This sometimes takes years to happen. In my estimation elements within the CRC, having established Women in office, are now on the next campaign to legitimize “Christian” homosexuality.

5.) In my estimation, were the BOT really serious about this they would summarily fire any faculty member who, privately or publicly, was engaged in gay advocacy. Shoot, being fired for such a reason would be a badge of honor in the current academic climate and would assure the fired person of another job within days.

6.)Former Calvin academic and well known historian George Marsden felt he had to weigh into the Calvin imbroglio cautioning “against making lists of positions faculty may not advocate. Militarism and abortion could also be considered confessional issues.” Marsden went on to say,

“There are too many possible issues. You’re stirring up controversy you don’t have to have.”

People need to realize that all because Marsden speaks the world need not listen. Marsden has been significantly wrong at times in his academic career (see Gary North’s Political Polytheism) and there is no reason to think that he is not wrong once again.

I would note though that abortion certainly is a confessional issue. Would Dr. Marsden contend that it is acceptable for faculty members to be abortion advocates?

7.) In a cautionary word to parents who care what I think, I would strongly advise against sending your children to Calvin college. First, their economics department, philosophy department, and their sciences are all messed over, shot through with non Christian presuppositions. Second, the campus life leaves much to be desired. If you’re going to send your children to Calvin you might as well spend that money by sending them to a top flight “secular” school.

The issue of homosexuality and the CRC is one that I suspect we will be seeing more of in years to come in the CRC.

For all you Bayly blog readers that are coming over here

This is exactly what I said to Tim Bayly,

“I don’t care if your best friend is a minister in the first church of Satan. That comment was out of line, and I do take umbrage for myself and a good number of other faithful ministers and laymen who are trying to fight the good fight.

I’ll chill out when you learn how to write about matters you’re apparently clueless about.”

As you can see there is no profanity here which Bayly’s deletion strongly implies.

You’ll also notice I didn’t say his friend was a minister at the first church of Satan. I put the comment the way I put because Tim Bayly had suggested that all because his best friend is a minister in the CRC therefore I shouldn’t be put off by his denigrating comments. That observation was completely irrelevant to anything I said and I put the phraseology the way I did to draw attention to its irrelevancy.

And yes … I am ticked off. It’s hard enough laboring in the CRC without the hyperbole sloshing Tim Bayly taking potshots from the sidelines. As I told him, there remain many faithful ministers and laymen in the CRC and for him to suggest that the CRC is completely bereft of faithful ministers is just stupid on steroids.

The Tale Of Two Quotes

Let me get this straight … A President with a Muslim name, who bowed to the Muslim Sheik of Saudi Arabia, is on the record as saying, regarding this Ft. Hood shooting, “I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts,” but on the Cambridge break-in the President who has consistently vilified white people could instantly say without a shred of evidence, “It’s fair to say that the Cambridge police acted stupidly.”

These two quotes speak volumes. The first quote fits into the multicultural politically correct narrative that pagan America is telling. The second quote fits into the oppressive white people narrative that reparations America is telling.