Category: Culture

1.) Natural law exists but it can’t be appealed to as a mechanism to build societal harmony or social order by, since men suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

2.) Natural law, according to Natural law theory, is that aspect of reality that is dependent upon the reality of God and is inescapable and because of its inescapable revelatory nature can be appealed to in order to build a common realm existence and social order. The problem here though, is that man Himself is part of Natural law — which is to say that man himself is dependent upon the reality of God and is Himself part of God’s inescapable revelatory work. Yet, because man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness he denies that he denies both that he is dependent upon God and that he himself is part of God’s inescapable revelatory work. Now, if man suppresses the truth about Natural law that is closest to himself (i.e. — his very own existence) how is it that man is going to accept the tenants of some Natural law theory that that would require far less suppression then the suppression used to deny that he himself is part of God’s Natural law?

3.)For Natural law to work it has to exist within a overarching agreed upon theological matrix / paradigm. You can have Christian Natural law work as a organizing mechanism for a social order but it is not working because of the Natural law component but because of the Christian framework that is informing Natural law and in which the natural law expression is resting. Some faith system is always prior to some Natural law expression.

4.) Natural law worked within Christendom for centuries precisely because the objective social order was Christian. Take away that objective social order and Natural law is just one mans or group of men’s opinion.

5.) This is why Natural Law can never work in a social order context that exists within overarching theological matrix of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism’s (pluralistic modernity) very definition requires as many Natural Laws as there are variant cultures comprising the “multi-cultural” project. To appeal to one Natural law in a multicultural society is in direct contradiction to the whole multicultural project. Multiculturalism demands multi-Natural-law theories.

6.) The one exception to #5 is when multiculturalism realizes that its project is not really about chaotic diversity but unitarian unity. What is really be pursued in multiculturalims is the mono-culture that is called multiculturalism. Natural law could work in a putative multicultural setting where it is realized, at least by the ruling elites, that multiculturalism is not about absolute cultural diversity but rather absolute cultural unity. However, the Natural law that will arise if this day ever comes will not be a Natural law that any Christian could ever accept.

However, in the scenario put forth in #6 once again Natural law is existing in a overarching a-priori theological matrix-paradigm.

7.) You can not invoke the matter upon which one will be thinking (Natural law) without first considering the thinker themselves. Since they will be thinking upon the matter delivered to them by natural law their cogitation is based on something prior to the matter they are receiving that Natural law is sending. In other words their thinking about what they are receiving in Natural law is already religiously conditioned, since they as the thinker are religiously conditioned. As man thinks about whatever he thinks about he thinks about it from a religiously conditioned viewpoint.

The whole “LIGHT” in the “light of nature” is only light as general revelation is read through the prism of special revelation.

8.) If you define the natural light as merely intuitive then we’d agree that natural light is perspicuous, necessary and sufficient. However, the minute you go from intuitive to discursive at that minute the process is poisoned by sin. Ontologically we can’t get away from what we know to be the truth and that ontological knowing seems to be grasped intuitively. However, it seems to be the case that we use our epistemological apparatus in discursive reasoning to deny what we can’t escape knowing ontologically.

Wheaton college is a place that produces enemies of the Cross and of Biblical Christianity (Witness Michael Gerson). But then why should they be an exception to Evangelical Colleges that are anti-Christ?

Recently, Wheaton came out with a study exploring the, “Intersection of Government, Foreign Assistance, and God’s Mission in the World.” In a preliminary statement that still has to go through the revision stage they affirmed,

The extraordinary power of the United States and the daily impact of the United States on the world’s poor requires special vigilance on the part of American Christian citizens as to the effects of the US role and policies and assistance programs. Our goal should be to bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor”

And in a press release they offered a series of Affirmations,

1.) We affirm that active concern for the poor is a non-negotiable aspect of Christian discipleship.

2.) We affirm that Christians need to become more competent in addressing the full range of government policy as it relates to the poor in the United States and globally.

3.) We affirm that Christians should advocate for just, generous, and fair government foreign assistance and related policies.

Now the fact that these statements are just so much “social justice” window dressing to disguise a Marxist agenda is seen by the reality that one of their speakers was one Ron Sider whose position was totally decimated by David Chilton’s, “Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulation: A Biblical Response to Ronald J. Sider,” in 1990.\

Now, on the surface there isn’t much to disagree with in these statements. However, if one scratches the surface of these statements one begins to smell the sulfur of Marxism. There is no absolute affirmation that wealth should be redistributed from the US to the world in order to pursue equity but the idea seems to lie just below the surface. For example, in that #3 above we find ourselves asking what standard they are using to define “just,” “generous,” and “fair.” I would be willing to bet the farm that the standard is a Marxist standard.

If we really wanted to “bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor” we would first realize that poverty often (not always) is a result of the death that always follows pagan religions. What impoverished countries need more than anything else (what this country needs more than anything else) is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Worldview that that Gospel creates. Countries that are institutionally and politically impoverished will never escape their impoverishment no matter how many resources we send their way, as long as they, as a culture, are haters of Christ. Concern for the poor demands that we cure their poverty with the totalistic impact of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, if we really wanted to “bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor” we would advocate destroying the IMF and Centralized Banking as it exists throughout the world. These Central Banks exist in order to impoverish nations by placing them in huge debt that can never be overcome. If Christians really desired to put a dent in global poverty they would end our own Federal Reserve and then demand that these united States pull out of every international banking cartel. Concern for the poor requires us to oppose the depredations of Global banking which always works to keep the poor, poor for the sake of the wealthy.

Thirdly, if we really wanted to “bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world’s poor” we would criminalize Marxism and social justice theories that are spun from Marxism. Marxism, insures poverty whenever it is pursued. People like Ron Sider and those who support Marxist inspired social justice theories should be deported or put in hospitals for the criminally insane. Concern for the poor requires us to marginalize those people who advocate policy that will create poverty.

Luke 17:20-21

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

‘The Kingdom of God is within you,’ some one once quoted to Fredrick Maurice. ‘Yes,’ he replied,’ and so is the Kingdom of England.'”

Christianity and the American Commonwealth
Charles B. Galloway

Typically when Luke 17:20-21 is taught what is emphasized is that the Kingdom of God is not a real corporeal Kingdom that exists but rather the Kingdom of God is Spiritual — and so invisible. This teaching comes from the idea that if the Kingdom of God is within one then it must be the case that Jesus is speaking of a non-corporeal Spiritual reality.

But what if the point of Luke 17 is not that the Kingdom is Spiritual, invisible and so doesn’t manifest itself corporeally, but rather what if the point is that the Kingdom of God doesn’t come from the outside in — i.e. “Lo here or, Lo there”? (Which is after all what the Pharisees were looking for.) What if the Kingdom of God cometh not with observation precisely because nobody observes the Kingdom of God coming from the outside in (like some attacking army) when the Kingdom is coming from the inside out as people live out the Kingdom that is within them?

The Kingdom of every potentate is always within the individual and the people who pledge allegiance to that Kingdom. Kingdoms couldn’t exist if that were not true. So when Jesus says, “The Kingdom of God is w/i you,” that doesn’t mean that God’s Spiritual Kingdom is non-corporeal or invisible. What Jesus seems to be getting at in Luke 17 is that the Kingdom of God doesn’t descend upon a people top down and outside in like the Mongol Kingdom descending upon poor hapless Asiatics.

It is precisely because the Kingdom of God is w/i God’s people that God’s Kingdom manifests itself corporeally. Just as it is true that it is precisely because the Kingdom of Satan is w/i the Devil’s people that the Devil’s Kingdom manifests itself corporeally. Those who belong either to God or to the Devil carry within them their respective anti-thesis Kingdoms and because that is so the respective peoples will incarnate those Kingdoms into the cultures they build.

Yes, the Kingdom of God is Spiritual. Yes the Kingdom of God is within. But precisely because it is within God’s people we should expect that Kingdom to manifest itself corporeally among God’s people in the cultures and institutions that they build.

Just as Western Missionaries took the Gospel to Africa in the 19th century, having their respective homeland Kingdoms within them, would often set up little “English” or “American” compounds in the heart of Africa — thus expressing that they had taken their English or American Kingdoms with them (and often confusing those City of Man Kingdoms w/ the Gospel Kingdom itself) — so Christians bearing within themselves the Kingdom of God will always set up Kingdom of God compounds wherever they live out their lives. The Kingdom of God, within God’s people, will always express itself corporeally in the lives they live. If that Kingdom of God does not express itself in the lives of God’s people, in everything they build and touch then the Kingdom of God does not reside within them.

By their fruits you shall know them. If the Kingdom of God is within us, then the fruit of that Kingdom presence within us will be the corporeal manifestation of that Kingdom in the every day lives of God’s people.

Just as political multiculturalism cannot accept absolute religious liberty or absolute religious pluralism (it always excludes those religions that have a standard that measures and excludes political multiculturalism) so political Theonomy cannot accept a absolute religious liberty or absolute religious pluralism. In any culture it is always only a question of which religious expression will be excluded. Every culture excludes faiths and cultures derived from those faiths which cannot abide with their version of cultures pluralism.

When the call for religious, cultural, and behavioral tolerance arises in a culture it is often a smoke screen attempting to mask the rise of different religions, cultures and behaviors that the current predominant culture does not tolerate for a reason. If those calling for what they style as increased tolerance are successful in gaining more tolerance they will eventually, once these promoters of tolerance have gained power, themselves refuse to tolerate the religion, culture and behavior of those that they demanded the right of tolerance to begin with.

Any culture that extends tolerance, as defined by their enemies, to those who are ideologically and theologically opposed to their religion, culture, and commonly accepted patterns of behavior, is a culture that no longer understands its meaning or who it is, and so is a culture destined for defeat by those who are forever whining about tolerance.

This is what has happened in the West. The West lost its cultural self understanding and as such did not teach why it was good, healthy, and vibrant to be Western to its children. No longer having a grip on why Western civilization was superior, the children who were not taught the superiority of Western religion, culture and behavior, were swallowed alive by those who were epistemologically self-conscious regarding their hatred of the West and its civilization. As such the demand for several generations now has been for more tolerance as those who are seeking to destroy the West are using the West’s historic sense of equity to seek and overthrow Western civilization.

Major media outlets and news shows are going hari kari about Arizona’s new immigration law. Once again, as we heard with the Tea-party rallies so we are hearing again now how racist Americans are.

Now understand that Arizona passed this legislation because they have serious problems. The Crime along the border and up to 100 miles inland has skyrocketed. Drug trafficking has leaped exponentially. The pressure on the social safety net (hospitals and schools) is ripping the social safety net in half. If Arizona wanted to continue as a cohesively functioning state with a modicum amount of social stability something had to be done.

Now obviously the charge has arisen that Latinos are going to experience “profiling.” And it is no doubt true that to a certain degree they will. But profiling, whether we like it or not as its place. For example, if a rash of middle-aged white Bald guys start blowing up airplanes, strapping suicide bombs to themselves to blow up market places, and writing “how to” books on how to destroy the West or if suddenly millions of middle-aged bald white guys from Canada become illegal immigrants, it would make perfect sense to start profiling middle aged white bald guys. Further to make it personal, I want everyone one to know that I will not be offended if authorities begin to profile middle aged white Bald guys like me.

Unlike LaRaza, our President and the members of the Pravda media in their little girl shrill reactions concerning racist Americans, if the day ever comes when middle aged white bald guys are drowning the country in illegal immigration with the problems that illegal Latino immigration are bringing I will understand if people’s first reaction to me as a middle aged white bald guy is one of guarded caution. I will understand if responsible parents tell their children to avoid middle aged bald white men. Further, I will not consider you a “BALDIST” if you avoid me.

It simply is the case that profiling is absolutely necessary as a tool to restore social stability. It may be unfortunate but the anger really ought to pointed not at white America who only desires social stability, but it should be pointed at the government that allowed us to get to the place where we have 12-20 million illegal immigrants in our country. If we are in the position where we have to profile it is only because the government failed to do (provide for the general welfare and protect the common defense) what it is supposed to be doing.