Author: jetbrane

A few thoughts from Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Speech.
Governor Romney said,

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

Pastor McAtee responds,

This is a curious statement. There are a good number of countries that have religion and yet have no freedom. In those countries Freedom and religion most certainly do not endure together. Iran and Saudi Arabia come immediately to mind. Therefore it seems that it would be more accurate to say that Freedom requires a certain kind of religion. Now, as we look through History we might conclude the only religion that brings about true Freedom is Christianity and that doesn’t include Mormonism which is no more Christian then Shintoism is. Christianity alone brings true Freedom because only Christianity provides release from Spiritual bondage and without a multitude of individuals in a given culture being set free from their enslavement to sin the culture that is built can never be one characterized by Freedom. People enslaved to sin don’t build cultures of freedom.

Governor Romney should have said, “Freedom and Christianity endure together or Freedom is stillborn.”

FYI… if one wants to see the Mormon attitude towards Freedom one might want to look up the ‘Mountains Meadow Massacre’ or do a little investigation into their unique doctrine of blood atonement or spend some time researching their gestapo organization called the ‘Dannites.’ Mormonism, as a religion, can no more produce Freedom then the US government can produce efficiency.

Governor Romney said,

As Governor,… I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President.

And yet a couple paragraphs later he could say,

I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Pastor Bret inquires,

Ok, on one hand Mitt endeavors to live by his Mormon faith and has every intent of being true to his Mormon fathers and to his Mormon beliefs (does that mean he was wearing his required Mormon holy underwear during the speech?) and yet on the other hand those beliefs that he endeavors to live by and to which he will be true won’t confuse him with reference to his obligations of his office. It seems to me that there is a contradiction there and it is the same old contradiction that we hear all the time from candidates, and it goes something like this…

“Personally and privately I am against or for (fill in the blank) but in my capacity in public office I can not force my conviction on the general public.”

The simple response here is …

Given the fact that all public policy reflects somebody’s personal and private conviction could you tell us whose personal and private conviction will you be forcing on the general public since it will not be your own?

Another question might be …

How can you say that you are going to be true to your (in this case) Mormon faith when you won’t allow your Mormon faith to inform you on policy decisions?

Anyway, the whole notion that a man’s religion doesn’t guide whatever he does is a pure sophistry concocted by ambitious politicians, and itself is reflective of the true religion of most moderns. If Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t guide him in his policy decisions then Romney is not Mormon just as ‘Christian’ candidates are not Christian if their religion doesn’t inform them in their decision making process as a public official.

I suspect though that Mitt is probably like most ‘Christian’ politicians and that his Mormonism is just a label.

Governor Romney said,

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God.

Pastor Bret responds,

Mitt is not a Mormon but a Unitarian just as our current President. A vote for Mitt is not a vote for a Mormon but for a Unitarian. Mitt is a disciple for American civil religion where what is really important about God is that he can be mentioned in Inauguration addresses, invoked at football games, and enlisted in support of expanding Empire through War.

We are currently where the Romans were at in their Empire before they fell. All religions were to be tolerated as long as their adherents would pinch incense to Caesar. In America all religions draw one closer to God and are to be accepted except for those religions that insist that all religions except one leave men without God and without hope.

Governor Romney said,

It’s important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.

Pastor Bret responds,

I wish he would have elaborated a little bit on what this common creed certainly is. I seriously doubt that Americans share a common creed of moral convictions.

Governor Romney said,

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

Pastor Bret responds,

Actually, we don’t separate but rather we distinguish between church and state affairs in this country. The whole notion of separation the way it is currently understood today is relatively recent. Secondly, while we agree that no religions should dictate to the State we would say that the State’s actions always reveal that it is operating in submission to some god or god concept. A Biblical Christian would advocate that the since the State always operates in submission to some god or god concept that it submit to the Law-Word of the one true God.

Governor Romney said,

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: Does he share these American values — the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

Pastor Bret responds,

Note the Governors PC speak where he references human kind as opposed to mankind.

First, the equality of mankind is not a doctrine that Biblical Christians could support UNLESS one is talking about the equality of all men before the law. Currently, equality of mankind typically means that legislation works to make sure everyone is the same — a most unbiblical doctrine.

Second, if a steadfast commitment to liberty is an American value then why does America kill 1.3 million people annually?

Governor Romney said,

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed….We do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Bret responds,

There is a great deal in the Governor’s speech about religious diversity. One needs to keep in mind that when this country was founded that there most certainly was NOT a great deal of religious or ethnic diversity. Oh sure, there were different flavors of the Christian faith which created what we might call broad ideological common ground but what the founders in no way attempted was to create a civilization that could embrace competing Christian, Mormon, Islamic, Jewish or Hindu faiths. A culture’s strength lies in its homogeneity and begins to weaken when it becomes to diverse UNLESS the intent is to build a culture where the homogeneity is built upon the reality that nobody takes their confessed religion to seriously, thus allowing the common religion that unites the various religions to be a commitment to the God of the civil religion who instructs the adherents of the diverse faiths that their devotion to the God of the civil religion must outweigh their devotion to their respective lesser gods.

In the end I don’t see how Governor Romney’s milquetoast Mormonism should prevent the typical American Christian from voting for him anymore then it prevented them from voting for George W. Bush with his milquetoast Christianity. Both these men, like most religious Americans today, are adherents of the same faith, and whether one votes for Tweedle-dumb-Mormon or Tweedle-stupid-Christian in the end they both belong to clan Tweedle.

Americans who won’t vote for Romney who is Mormon, but will vote for Huckabee because he is Christian are shallow in the worst sort of way. Both Romney and Huckabee are going to give us more big government. Both Romney and Huckabee belong to their respective religions only after they belong to the civil religion.

The Biblical Christian on the other hand would take a long hard look at Ron Paul.

They belong to us. We also belong to them. They are divided out among us and mingled up with us, and we with them in a thousand ways. They live with us, eating from the same store-houses, drinking from the same fountains, dwelling in the same enclosures, forming parts of the same families. Our mothers confide us, when infants, to their arms, and sometimes to the very milk of their breasts. Their children [grow up with us] and then, either they stand weeping by our bedside, or we drop a tributary tear by theirs… There they are– behold them. See them all around you, in these streets, in all these dwellings; a race distinct from us, brought into God’s mysterious providence from a foreign land, and placed under our care, and made members of our households. They fill the humblest places in our state and society; they serve us, they give us their strength, yet they are not more truly ours than we are truly theirs.

~ quoted from James O. Farmer The Metaphysical Confederacy pg. 210

The history of the ante-bellum South is a complex matter that our history has simplified to the point of painfulness, and the reason it needs to be re-examined is that as long as we mindlessly excoriate the ante-bellum South in our thinking we end up missing that which was virtuous from the culture those Americans built.

“Because Salvation is a total concept, a savior has dominion and authority over every realm of life. If His Lordship is not total, his salvation is not effectual. Therefore, anyone who claims to be a savior must of necessity assert an overlordship over every realm of life and thought…. Churchmen, by withdrawing the idea of salvation to the soul, so that Jesus Christ is the Savior of men’s souls and not Lord of heaven and earth and the only Savior of all things, have thereby in effect denied that Jesus is savior. None can be savior who is not also Lord.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Christianity & The State — pg. 27

The Church in the West is in great peril. Indeed, the peril is so great and the problems so complex and varied and the hour so late in solving that peril that only my certainty of God’s sovereignty brings me peace. One of the chief problems in the Church today is the insistence by some of the Church’s best and brightest teachers and spokesmen, that there is no such thing as Christian Culture and that Christ is only Lord in a direct way over the Church while conceding that He is Lord over what they style the common realm in a indirect secret way. This Theology is what I will dub ‘radical Two Kingdom Theology,’ and it has possessed the thinking of many Reformed Churches and Seminaries.

The theory behind Two Kingdom Theology is that Christ has two Kingdoms. One Kingdom we commonly call the Church and there He rules by grace. The other Kingdom (The Kingdom of His left hand as it were) is what is commonly styled the ‘secular realm.’ Christ is clearly Lord over the former Kingdom while He is ‘Lord in a different way’ over the secular realm. The nearest I can translate this is that Christ has made His sovereign will as Lord known in the Church but His Lordship in the ‘secular realm’ is conducted by way of His secret eternal decrees. The implication of this doctrine is that the Church, through Christ’s spokesmen in the pulpit, is not to speak at all of Christ’s Kingly office over what is called the ‘secular realm,’ instead being content to Sunday by Sunday remind God’s people of Christ’s Priestly office.

Now, the radical two Kingdom Theology, freely admits that individuals in their ‘secular calling’ may seek to apply God’s Word to their callings but the Church is not to counsel them or pretend to give them God’s Word on their ‘secular callings’ because to do so would be to confuse the two Kingdoms, and besides, the Bible, so the theory goes, doesn’t speak to cultural issues.

Advocates of this position insist that there is no such thing as ‘Christian culture,’ insisting that only individuals can be Christian or not Christian. Radical Two Kingdom Theology teaches that to desire a Christian culture is to want to seize by storm the Eden that God has prohibited to us until the return of Christ. Radical Two Kingdomists insist that until Christ returns we must always live ‘East of Eden.’

Now, first it must be said that this Theology insures as a consequence what it teaches by way of theory. What I mean by that is that if we convince Christians that Christ and His Lordship doesn’t directly apply to the ‘secular realm’ then we can be certain that the result will be that we will always be living East of Eden and that we will never know what it means to live in a Christian culture. If the Church refuses to speak God’s Word to God’s people as to the claims of Christ over every area of life then the results will be that each Christian man will do what is right in His own eyes. If the Church will not speak Christ’s Kingly voice from Scripture making known His mind over the putatively secular realm, then individuals will be left to themselves to come up with their own theories which will lead to thousands of Christian voices hawking thousands of different ‘Christian’ positions.

Examples abound but let us restrain ourselves to just one realm. If the Church refuses to speak God’s Word as it pertains to what just Government looks like we will find ourselves with individuals insisting that there is such a thing as Christian Fascism or Christian Socialism or Christian Communism, or Christian Anarchy or Christian Tyranny, and the Church, having all these people in her bosom, must not speak to the issue or to God’s people since the Bible isn’t about these issues. The two Kingdoms must remain separate at all costs. Now multiply this example into the myriad of realms that exist and you will begin to see all the confusion this will sow among God’s people.

Now, having observed all this we must ask how is Jesus a savior in this doctrine? Ok, we grant that with this doctrine Jesus saves our souls in a very restricted sense (when we die our souls get to go to heaven) and He saves our Church lives but how does His salvation reveal itself in any of the rest of our institutions and the relationships that comprise those institutions? In short, as Rushdoony notes above, this Kingless Jesus is reduced to being a savior who really is no savior.

Also, we should realize that while Christians work hard at making sure that culture isn’t Christian or that it is kept secular the other gods are not so shy or withdrawing concerning their intent to be Lord over all. This is just a way of saying that if the Church refuses to speak the Kingly voice of Christ as it pertains to cultural issues the consequence will not be that the culture remains common but rather the result will be that the adherents of the false gods will bend and shape culture so that it reflects the will of their false gods. In their haste to avoid the notion of Christendom the radical two Kingdomists are insuring that the tide that will come rushing in is ‘Islamadom,’ or ‘Humanismdom,’ or ‘Multi-culturaldom,’ or some kind of culture that will be beholden to a false god. This is because every culture is a reflection of and instantiation of some god or gods.

Now, having raised the warning about Radical Two Kingdom theology we should admit immediately that Reformed people have historically embraced the notion of Two Kingdoms, but they have always recognized that these two Kingdoms are interdependent and not isolated and divorced from one another. For example many if not most of the 1st and 2nd generation of Reformers held that the Magistrate was to uphold BOTH tables of God’s law. Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Beza, Martyr, Knox, Wollebius, A’Brakel, Voetius, Turretin, Ussher, Durham, Perkins, Cartwright, Dickson, Rutherford, Gillespie, Nye, Palmer, Burroughs, Thornwell, et.al. all hold that the magistrate is God’s minister and as such should enforce God’s law – both tables. Try advocating the position of these Reformers at Westminster West today and see what kind of response you elicit. So, we freely concede that there are two Kingdoms and that God reigns differently in one than the other (use of the Keys vs. use of the sword) but what we do not agree on is that the use of the sword should not be self-consciously and explicitly Christian and neither do we agree that we should be satisfied with God’s muteness and secret sovereignty over the what is called the ‘secular realm,’ especially when God has made His mind known on many issues we find in this ‘secular realm.’

A few more loose ends here and then we shall finish. Radical Two Kingdomists insist that the kingdom of Christ is concerned with spiritual and eternal affairs and advances by Word and sacrament. First, we will be glad to agree that the Church advances by Word and Sacrament but where we do not agree is the notion of the idea of ‘spiritual’ here. It is true that the Kingdom of Christ is concerned about spiritual and eternal affairs but does this mean that Godly economic policy (as one example) is not a spiritual or eternal affair all because it lies in the Radical Two Kingdomist ‘secular realm’? What does ‘spiritual’ mean for the Radical Two Kingdomists? Does it mean ethereal? Abstract? Non-Concrete? Gnostic? Is the only spiritual part of me my soul or is all of me, both body and soul spiritual? And if all of me, body and soul is spiritual then why can’t it be that all that I do for the glory of God, under the unction of the Spirit, by the authority of the King’s Word is likewise spiritual? I do not believe that the Christian can do any of his actions as less than a pneumatikos being (Spiritual one).

To answer a final objection the Radical Two Kingdomists believe that by applying the Bible to all of life we dilute its effectiveness in its Gospel proclaiming and saving capacity. The thinking goes if you apply the Bible to everything it will not be seen to be good for anything. So, by these lights, if God has a word that applies to the family realm or the educational realm that automatically lessens the authoritativeness of God’s Word in the salvation realm, after all men can’t take serious God’s Word about their souls if they also have to listen to God’s Word about Biblical Education. First, we would say such thinking reveals, again, constricted thinking in terms of what salvation means. It is true that God’s Word is about salvation but it is not a Word that deals only with personal and individual salvation. The salvation Christ brought with him is cosmic and so when you find a word in the Scripture that applies to family life it has the intent of bringing the effects of His salvation that He brings personally to men to their larger corporate lives. There is not bifurcation here between a saving word to the individual in one place and a word that isn’t saving to a particular sphere or realm in another place. All of God’s Words are saving Words and when we live those Words out we experience the fullness of the Salvation that God came to bring.

In the words of Rushdoony, ‘None can be savior who is not also Lord.’

Welcome to the new home of AcidInk. I didn’t really have a great deal of intent to revisit this kind of format but due to the insistence of several people that I needed to do this I decided to go ahead and resurrect AcidInk into a needed new format.

First, allow me to explain my hesitancy in pursuing this. First and perhaps most important, I was hesitant to pick up the electronic quill again because the time it takes me to write takes me away from time I use to learn. There is so much out there to master and I have so many books lining my shelves just begging me to get to them. This brings me to my second reason for hesitancy in writing and that is that is seems improper that a person who has so much to learn should be so presumptuous as to offer his writing so others can learn. A third reason for reluctance in this matter is related as well. You see, I have spent now 30 years reading and studying in a rather determined fashion and as such I have some idea of all the great material that is out there that people could access if they would. Given the wisdom of the ages that lies at our fingertips, I struggle with the idea that anybody would use up their limited amount of time to read me when they could be reading somebody that really knew what they were talking about. One of the best pieces of advice that I received early on in my ministry is that I didn’t have time to read good books, since so many great books existed that I needed to read. When people read me they are burning time that might be spent in reading those who are great. For all these reasons I have been hesitant to resurrect AcidInk again. Yet despite my previous hesitancy, I am determined to now be committed to this format since I have had more then a few people tell me that my writing was helpful to them.

There is another reason why I am picking this up now and that is a sense of obligation to my children. In other words I am writing for posterity. I want my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and generations beyond me to have a place to go to in order to find a clear witness to Christ that defies the current ecclesiastical and cultural smog as well as the smog that no doubt will obtain even in their lifetimes. I want all that come behind me to realize that it in confused times it is proper and even necessary, out of loyalty to Christ to say, “I dissent.” If in their times they are alone in their dissenting, they will at least be able to return to what is created here and find a sense of companionship with a lonely voice who dissented before them. Because my audience is the Lord Christ and my posterity you won’t find me playing to the crowd here, in the sense of trying to say what some group of people want to hear. I have given up the idea long ago that I am ever going to be swept away by popular acclaim. There will thus be plenty here that will tick off all kinds of large segments of people.

Here readers will find what one might expect to find in a Pastors study. They will find Christian Theology in its proper sense. Here I will speak of Theology proper (Biblical, Systematic, Exegetical and Historical), Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, eschatology, ecclesiology, anthropology, bibliology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, teleology, and any number of other ‘ologies.’ Here we will examine Hermeneutics and Literary Theory. People here may learn about the distinctions between infra and supra lapsarianism and other matters that most people find arcane.

However this site will be not be merely for armchair theologians. Here folks will also find Christian Theology in its most expansive sense. Theology as it is mirrored in Literature, Music, Movies, Economics, Politics, Education, Law, family life, and a host of other areas in which Theology ends up incarnating itself. Life is about one thing and one thing only and that is the Triune God of the Bible. Some people live their lives in flight from this God and so their lives are about the attempt to develop a life Theology that denies Him with the consequence that their God denying Theology incarnates itself in their culture and their culture ‘work.’ Hosts of other people live their lives seeking to submit to the Triune True God with the consequence that their obedient Theology incarnates itself in everything they touch. Since the God they serve is good, true and beautiful beyond speaking, all that they touch ends up sharing in that goodness, truthfulness and beauty.

For those to whom labels matter, you will find here one who writes from a position that holds that Jesus in all of His saving offices must be cherished. Pursuant to, and consistent with that I am Reformed. It is my desire that all men would be as I am in that manner. In other regards I am am the most pessimistic post-millennialist that you will ever read. I call that optimistic realism. I am also strongly covenantal, moderately Theonomic (at least when compared to the rabid crowd), unashamedly presuppositional in my epistemology, and consistently paleo-orthodox in my politics (which is one part Libertarian and one part Communitarian and completely Biblical).

Now, just a brief word on why I have gone from ‘AcidInk’ to ‘IronInk.’ First, I changed formats because the previous format was getting some pretty disgusting spam in the comments, and this format gives me control over that. Second, I changed the name because ‘AcidInk’ is to ‘in your face’ for some people. Consequently, being the sensitive guy that I am to other people’s sensibilities, I have changed the name while, I hope, still retaining the sense of intent in the name. I always liked the words of C. S. Lewis in endorsing the works of his friend J. R. R. Tolkien. Lewis wrote of Tolkien’s works, “Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron.” I can only hope that my words will, like the greats before, be beauties which piece like swords or burn like cold IronInk.

Welcome to IronInk.