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.

They Just Don’t Get It

“I think it’s reasonable that we know where and if our children are being educated, whether it’s in a public school, private school, or at home,” said (Rep. Joan) Bauer (Dem. – Lansing), who co-sponsored the bill. Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, and Rep. Mike Simpson, D-Liberty Township, are also co-sponsors.”

Quote From The Lansing State Journal

Would someone mind telling Ms. Bauer that the children of clan McAtee are not her children. Please, can someone get through the heads of these people that the children in the state of Michigan to not belong to the state of Michigan and so should not be referenced by state representatives as ‘our children.’

Second, while you are speaking to this woman (Bauer) could you tell her that nobody in government schools are being educated. The purpose of government ‘schooling’ is not to educate but rather to make ‘good’ citizens and to create people with a slave mentality. Since Ms. Bauer desires to know if children are being educated, I can tell her authoritatively, that all children in the government schools, are not being educated.

Third, notice all the co-sponsors are Democrats. Keep in mind that the Democrats are in the pocket of the Michigan Educational Association teachers union.

Fourth, almost everyone across the political spectrum will tell you that government schools are disasters. In light of that reality, what difference does it make if children learn to be ignorant by going to government schools or if they learn to be ignorant by being truant between the ages of 5-18?

These people drive me nuts.

Airline Cancellations — More then meets the eye?

I worked 15 years for a major airline.

In the 15 years I worked in American Airports I never witnessed the large scale routine cancellations for ‘mechanical purposes’ that the Majors are currently undergoing. Keep in mind also that ‘mechanical problems’ is standard language in the industry for ‘the customer doesn’t know any better so just tell them it is a mechanical problem that is the reason for the delay or the cancellation even though the reason really lies elsewhere.’

My Spidey senses are tingling and they are telling me that these cancellations that the Majors have been experiencing aren’t about mechanical problems or inspection irregularities (though these do happen — though not with this kind of regularity) but are more likely about the Feds looking for something.

Go ahead….

Call me suspicious … but keep in mind that I worked in the industry for 15 years.

Theodore Beza On Faithfulness By Dissent

“(Beza) now made the traditional distinction between tyrants who usurped their office and legitimate authorities who became tyrannical. Usurpers were to be resisted fervently, ideally by the authorized lower magistrates. But if these magistrates failed, even private persons, following the example of the ancient McAtee’s (oops — make that Maccabees), could lead the resistance if God opened a way to them. Legitimate authorities who became tyrannical, however, could be resisted only by the lower magistrates, such as the electoral princes in the Holy Roman Empire or the Estates-General in the kingdom of France. Private persons could and should disobey unjust orders and laws, or flee the jurisdiction. But they could not fight or resist on their own. ‘[We] do not cease to beg our brothers to arm themselves only with patience, until God comes to their aid, either in another way, or by raising up a [new] prince.’

These early reflections were ‘an embryonic justification for democratic revolution’ writes Robert Kingdon. Bez’s argument in a nutshell was this: the political office was ‘ordained by God and represents God in the world.’ But the political officers who occupy that office depend for their authority upon ‘the public consent of the citizens.’ When the political officer no longer respect his office and no longer represents God in the world, ‘public consent’ can give way to ‘public dissent.’ When this dissent is expressed properly through the lower magistrates, the political officer loses his authority and must be resisted, and if necessary forcibly removed from office.

John Witte, Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights — pg. 104-105

Now the question that commands our attention is whether our current situation here in these United States is a situation where tyrants have usurped their office or whether it is a case of legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical. Actually, I think this could be argued both ways. The former argument would reason that we have tyrants who have usurped their office because they are in violation of their oath to the Constitution. This violation of their oath to the constitution would de-legitimize any claim they might have to being legitimate authorities. On the other hand one could argue that they are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical if only because they were lawfully elected to their positions. My instinct is to go with the former argumentation thus allowing more freedom for the individual to resist the tyranny but for the sake of discretion and prudence, I will, at this point, side with the latter argument that our current usurpers are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical and who can only be resisted in the context of lesser magistrates. I think when we are considering a topic such as ‘faithfulness by public dissent’ we should be err on the side of caution.

The implication of this is that, we as Christians, should be earnestly petitioning God that He would be gracious to raise up lesser magistrates in order to lead His people against the tyranny that we are currently under in these United States. The second implication of this is that if God should raise up lesser magistrates to oppose the current tyranny that we are under it would be disobedience to God to not support these lesser magistrates with oaths of fealty and deeds of valor. If God should be pleased to raise up what some would characterize as ‘lesser magistrates’ to lead against what some would characterize as ‘greater magistrates’ we would need to return to the motto that ‘obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.’

Until such a time as God changes the equation here we must give Him no rest in making known our desire of magistrates who would rule consistent with His Word. Also, we must be willing to bear all that is levied against us by wicked rulers as God’s just judgment against us for being complicit in arriving at this point where the foundations of righteousness are being decimated.

In the end though we must note this…

Given the right conditions Reformed doctrine requires faithfulness by dissent or to put it another way, should God provide the right conditions a lack of civil disobedience would be disobedience to God.

Concerning Michael Farris

“Make sure and contact your state legislator to register your opposition to this proposed legislation to require home school parents to register with the local school district. Be sure to be nice and respectful when you contact them.”

Michael ‘Augustine is in Hell’ Farris
Speaking at a Home school rally in Lansing Michigan

Now, given that Michael Farris has repeatedly disparaged Calvinist theology, I am not a big fan. Ironically enough, what Farris doesn’t likely know is that historically speaking Arminianism has always been prone to support big Government aspirations while Calvinists have historically been on the side of resisting governmental tyranny. If Mike ‘Augustine has to go’ Farris wants a history lesson in this regard he might want to google ‘Arch-Bishop William Laud’ and look at his theology (Arminian) and his politics (Statist).

Second, what reason, beyond sheer ignorance on the part of the fellow who founded Patrick Henry College, motivated a person, who apparently doesn’t like epistemologically self conscious Calvinists, to name his College after one of the fieriest Calvinist colonialist who ever lived?

Just imagine this scene,

Professor being interviewed for position at Patrick Henry College: “I am looking forward to lecturing at a school named after the premier Calvinist in Colonial America.”

President Farris: “We don’t approve of Calvinism at this school.”

Prospective Professor: “You don’t approve of Calvinism at Patrick Henry College? Isn’t that like not approving of pregnancy at a Lamaze class?”

Well, quite apart from that idiosyncrasy there is something else I want to delve into briefly as it pertains to the above Michael Farris quote.

Can anybody tell me why it is essential to go out of my way to be ‘nice and respectful’ to an enemy who is trying to kill me? I don’t get it.

In the movie ‘Saving Private Ryan’ Spielberg has a vicious scene of hand to hand combat between two soldiers who are intent on killing each other. Neither one takes the time to be nice or respectful to one another in the course of their deadly encounter. Both understand that this is about life and death and not about social niceties. Now granted, state legislators are not trying to literally kill anybody when they advance ‘kill home schooling’ legislation but with this anti-home school legislation their ultimate goal is to eliminate the home schoolers way of life, which in turn is an attempt to eliminate (kill) their faith. It’s probably just my personality, but I have no intent to be nice or respectful to somebody who is trying to do that to me. That doesn’t mean I am going to go out of my way to be rude or mean-spirited but it does mean that I am not going to mince words when articulating what I think of their fascistic tendencies to want to control what is none of their damn business to control. If Farris wants to be nice and respectful that is his business. Personally, I would rather these nanny state legislators fear me as opposed to thinking me nice and respectful. If they change their minds, I’ll be glad to be nice and respectful but until they quit trying to kill my influence in my children’s lives and until they quit trying to steal the little lambs I am pastorally responsible for they shouldn’t be surprised if I take their behavior personally and respond with my own shiver in the dark.

Witte on the difference between Calvin & Luther & Anabaptists

“Calvin charted a course between the Erastianism (the doctrine that the state is supreme over the church in ecclesiastical matters) of Lutherans that subordinated the church to the state, and the asceticism of Anabaptists that withdrew the Church from the State and society. Like Lutherans, Calvin and his followers insisted that each local polity be an overtly Christian commonwealth that adhered to the general principles of natural law and that translated them into detailed positive laws of religious worship, Sabbath observance, public morality, marriage and family life, social welfare, public education and more. Like Anabaptists, Calvin and his followers insisted on the basic separation of the offices and operations of church, and state, leaving the church to govern its own doctrine and liturgy, polity and property, without interference from the state. But, unlike both groups, Calvin insisted that both church and state officials were to play complementary legal roles in the creation of the local Christian commonwealth and in the cultivation of the Christian citizen.”

John Witte, Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights – pg. 78

A couple notes here.

First, Calvin’s expectation “that each local polity be an overtly Christian commonwealth that adhered to the general principles of natural law,” must be understood in the context that natural law can only yield Christian conclusions when interpreted in a Christian community. Natural law, when pursued in the context of a Christian people and a Christian Worldview, can be expected to fulfill Calvin’s expectations and is the only place where it can really work without the use of raw force to implement it. It is the height of foolishness to think that Natural law will translate “into detailed positive laws of religious worship, Sabbath observance, public morality, marriage and family life, social welfare, public education and more,” when it is considered apart from Christian people living in a Christian commonwealth. One problem with Natural law as the R2Kt people pursue it is the expectation that the Natural law, as promulgated by Christian Natural law theologians, will be embraced by people who do not share the Biblical starting point that the Christian Natural law theologians have. Indeed, what is interesting is that Calvin expected Natural law to translate into detailed positive laws in areas that the current R2Kt Natural theologians insist that Natural law does not speak to at all (i.e. — religious worship, and Sabbath observance).

Second, the appeal to public education must be take into account that public education in a Christian commonwealth will be doing the same thing that public education in Secular humanist pluralist commonwealth does, and that is to catechize children into the guiding dominant mindset. There is nothing wrong with public education when it is pursued in the context of a Christian commonwealth, which is the context for which Calvin and Luther were advocating its existence. (Though I still would never require it through legislation.)

Third, this quote does serious damage to R2Kt idea that pluralism is the ideal societal arrangement. Calvin does not agree with the innovative thinking that is without Reformed historical legs that is coming out of Westminster West.