Category: Culture

“That welfare states tend to arise only in conditions of ethnic homogeneity is a new version of a very old problem. ‘A State cannot be constituted from any chance body of persons, or in any chance period of time,’ wrote Aristotle. ‘Most of the states which have admitted persons of another stock, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by sedition.’ What Aristotle calls sedition we, in a more relativistic age, would call dissent. Immigrants don’t have the same prejudices as natives. They have what we would call ‘fresh ways of doing things.’ That can make them valuable in a competitive society. But welfare is supposed to be a refuge from competitive modern society. It is a realm of society in which dissent, eccentricity, and doing one’s own thing are not prized — as any American who remembers the uproar in the 1980’s over ‘welfare queens’ buying vodka with their food stamps will grant…. If welfare recipients do not share the broader society’s values, then the broader society will turn against welfare.”

Christopher Caldwell
Reflections on the Revolution in Europe — pg. 58-59

The remarkable thing about combining welfare with vast legal and illegal immigration is that the consequence is that the indigenous peoples end up subsidizing their own destruction. The pursuit of such policy is in reality just a version of ethnocide and culturalcide as the massive redistribution of wealth which welfare insures enriches the newcomers at the expense of the established citizenry.

Caldwell writes that “if welfare recipients do not share the broader society’s values, the the broader society will turn against welfare, but this is only true if the leadership of the broader society is willing to govern consistent with majority opinion. As it stands now what is happening is an attempt, through the current health care proposal, at the welfarification of the entire society. If that happens then society will never turn against welfare.

Recently a group of representatives from various groups considered to be historically Christian came out with a manifesto called the Manhattan Declaration. The Declaration, as such Declarations are want to do, has created a buzz in the Christian community. I have read the Manhattan Declaration (henceforth MD) and it is a document, in my estimation, that is concerned with the deterioration and the destructive pursuit of Christendom in America. The MD focuses on three specific areas of life, religious liberty, and marriage.

Having read the document, I also took the time to read Albert Mohler’s reasons for signing the document, as well as James White’s, John MacArthur’s, and R. C. Sproul Jr.’s reason for not signing the document. I even took the time to read Andrew Sandlin’s criticism of MacArthur’s reasoning. Having read all that I’m ready to have a go at the Manhattan Declaration.

I will offer some criticisms thus explaining why I could not sign the document, though I wholeheartedly agree with the necessity to defend the idea of Christ’s Lordship and authority over civil-social institutions. Further, even though I could not sign this document I would be more than happy to work hand in hand with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Communists, Muslims, Hindus, and followers of the Stay-puff Marshmallow Man as well as any and all others who would subscribe to what is being pursued in this document in a matter of co-belligerence. However, I would be telling them the whole time they must repent, confess their sins, and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

Criticisms

MD soon moves to this line,

A.)

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.

There is a great deal of presumption that is loaded into that opening pronoun. Since “We” collectivizes the Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical into one big pot one begins to wonder if the different members of the “We” have put aside their historic differences on what makes a Christian a Christian. The Drafting committee of the MD might have made the manifesto easier to sign for those of us who want to uphold Christendom if they had instead said, We, as those who are the inheritors and now defenders of a Christian Ethic, have gathered … As it stands the document assumes far to much common ground that doesn’t really exist between Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical distinct faith communities.

B.) MD later compliments Christians by noting that,

And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement.

It should be noted that there were likewise many Christian women who stood against the woman’s suffrage movement. They stood against the woman’s suffrage movement because they understood that such a position was not in keeping with historic Christendom. The reader can access this link for one such impassioned and well reasoned trope.

http://external.oneonta.edu/cooper/susan/suffrage.html

It is passing strange that a document that is a defense in favor of traditional Christian ethics has in it a reference to the glories of woman’s suffrage, for the accomplishment of woman’s suffrage was a great success in the early assault on Christian civilization. Susan Fenimore Cooper, in the link previously cited nailed the problem exactly when she wrote,

“An adventurous party among us, weary of the old paths, is now eagerly proclaiming theories and doctrines entirely novel on this important subject. The Emancipation of Women is the name chosen by its advocates for this movement. They reject the idea of all subordination, even in the mildest form, with utter scorn. They claim for woman absolute social and political equality with man. And they seek to secure these points by conferring on the whole sex the right of the elective franchise, female suffrage being the first step in the unwieldy revolutions they aim at bringing about. These views are no longer confined to a small sect. They challenge our attention at every turn. We meet them in society; we read them in the public prints; we hear of them in grave legislative assemblies, in the Congress of the Republic, in the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain. The time has come when it is necessary that all sensible and conscientious men and women should make up their minds clearly on a subject bearing upon the future condition of the entire race.”

Cooper understood, as seen in the emboldened portion above, that Female suffrage that the draft committee of the MD so boast in was but the beginning salvo in the attempt to dismantle Christendom of which the MD laments.

Consistent with this one of the things I find disturbing about the MD is the number of women signatories. This alone shows the egalitarian emphasis, which has led to the very issues the document seems to decry (and which some of the signatories who are on the Biblical Council for Manhood and Womanhood ought to find troubling).

I would go so far as to say that the egalitarian emphasis that bleeds through this document eviscerates everything that the MD is trying to accomplish. It is a poison pill.

C.) “We have compassion for those (homosexuals) so disposed (to their illicit vices); we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity.”

There is a great deal of talk in the MD about the inherent dignity of humans and most of it is couched in language that ascribes that inherent dignity to being image bearers of God. But there are a few places where that isn’t articulated and this is one of them. It should be clearly said that the only being who has inherent dignity is God. Any dignity that humans have is derivative dignity that comes from being it being assigned to them by God. (Hat Tip R. C. Sproul Sr.)

D.) The Section on Religious liberty

This section seems to assume that a society and culture can be successfully built upon a idea of religious liberty that allows all religions to be equally valued and allowed. Let it be observed that no culture has ever been successfully built or maintained where all religions are equally predominate and where no one religion has preeminence. Such a belief would result in utter societal chaos.

For a proper understanding of religious liberty I offer these two links,

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=the_difference_between_toleration_aamp_r&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=a_christocratic_nation_w_o_an_establishe&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

E.)

“There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself.

I find it odd that the drafters of the MD cited Martin Luther King as an example. Martin Luther King was no more a Christian than Mahatma Gandhi. Is it possible for someone to write from an explicitly Christian perspective who denied the fundamentals of the Christian faith?

Overall the document has some stellar points and solid reasoning. However these weaknesses, especially the first two, prohibit me from signing the document.

Even more than opposing Christians sending their children to government schools, opposing Christians signing up for military service is a position that will earn one a great amount of hostility. Even after explaining that by getting in bed with the military one is in league with those who desire to implement either a national socialist Marxist vision of Empire America upon the world (Republican) or a international socialist Marxist vision on America (Democrat)people begin to bend down to pick up the nearest large rock they can find in order to stone the person making the case.

I think that people react with such hostility is because this is an issue that forces one to choose if they are Christian first or American first, and that typically isn’t a choice that grass root American Christians have had to make in such a overt manner. I have personally seen this hostility by being kicked off a members only website called “Calvie Compatriots” that was limited to Reformed people who were pretty sound on their theology. My wife and I had been members for years but when I started questioning the wisdom of serving in the US military I was instantly booted. Similarly, I have been shunned by local people and even “told off” by one lady who knew my position.

I understand that people who sign up have the best intentions. I believe that such people have great zeal, courage, and integrity. I know great sacrifices are made. Having said that Scripture warns us about a zeal that is not according to knowledge. Likewise, courage can be had even in a wrong cause. The quality of a sacrifice is only as good as its objective content and not its subjective intent. My position isn’t that signing up for the military makes one a bad person. My position is that Christians in the military or who are contemplating joining the military haven’t thought things through. They haven’t thought through questions like,

What ideological agenda am I supporting by serving in the US military?

Is that ideological agenda consistent with my Christian theology?

Does my service in the military, with its support of the US government stand in any relation to the fact that America kills 1.3 million babies annually?

Does my service in the military, with its support of the US government, stand in any relation to the US governments attempt to destroy America by forcing upon it a multi-cultural globalistic agenda?

Anyway, this introduction provides a context for a set of questions somebody sent me on my previous post on Military service.

Neal Sam wrote,

Please clarify for me some things. I am currently in the military and am struggling with this same question. I am searching and praying that God would show me the answer to this controversial question (which is obvious by the previous posts). My heart is truly to do his will and until recently I felt that I was in Gods will. I am not saying that I am not in his will now its just that this question is argued in both directions very well and I would like someone elses opinion on this matter.

These are some verses and views that I have. Please tell me your opinion of these views. (Without ripping it apart)

From what I have gathered over my time in the military that there are mixed feelings about whether a Christian should serve in the military. Some people believe that Christians shouldn’t be in the military because you are carrying out the orders of a nation whose views are not biblically based. Also that God commands us not to kill (murder).

Thank you for your questions Neal. I will try to answer them w/o “ripping them or you apart.”

First, it needs to be made clear that the whole notion that Christians should be pacifists is anabaptist and as such not warranted. Scripture teaches that the magistrate is to wield the sword and if the sword is to be wielded it ought to be by a Christian magistrate who exercises it in justice according to God’s standards. There is nothing inherently unbiblical about being a soldier anymore there is anything inherently unbiblical in being a teacher. The only time issues arise for Christians are when they are a soldier enforcing unjust laws or when they are a teacher teaching things that aren’t true. So, I am not advocating pacifism in the least and indeed I am quite opposed to pacifistic theology.

Second, God’s command to not murder is qualified by God’s command that justice be exercised. God’s word proscribes when the sword is to be used in capital crimes and a long Christian tradition of “just war theory” speaks to when and how the sword is to be used in defense or in international affairs.

“I believe God can use anyone anywhere at anytime.”

This is absolutely true but all because God can use anyone anywhere at anytime that doesn’t mean that we volunteer to be on death row in order to be used there or that we voluntarily sign up to manage a bordello or a crack-house so we can be used there or that we volunteer to go into a military that is being run by anti-Christs in order to be used there.

Romans 13:1 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Proverbs 21:1 “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” If God is directing the king and I am to obey the authorities placed above me then how can I not be used for his will as a SF soldier? Psalms 144:1 “Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.”

The truth of God’s sovereignty must never be used in order to escape our responsibility. Scripture teaches that our responsibility is to hate that which is evil and to cling that which is good. Scripture warns consistently to avoid evil doers and the US government, with its Marxist inclination is one of the biggest evil doers going. (See Proverbs 1:8-19, 4:14-17).

As it relates to “obeying authorities” we must keep in mind that, in the words of Rev. James R. Wilson that “God has not ordained ‘the powers that be’ to punish evil, and then neither defined the evil, nor settled the punishment.” Obedience to authority is never absolute. Only authority to God is absolute. We can not escape our responsibility for doing evil all because it was at the bidding of our “authority.”

Neal, are you familiar that one of the mottoes of the American Revolution was “obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God?”

Finally, as it pertains to obedience we are responsible to God’s revealed Word and not to His eternal unknown decrees. It is true that Joesph Stalin was God’s judgment appointment against Russia but that didn’t mean that Christians shouldn’t have resisted Stalin when it was wise to do so.

“I have always had a heart for the helpless and the weak. God has called people to help the weak and the oppressed. Some people do that by being a missionary and spreading the gospel. I feel I am called to help those people that missionaries may not be able to reach. I am using the Army as a means of doing that.”

I am not going to call into question that you do indeed help the helpless and the weak. No doubt there are times when your calling as a solider allows you to do that. I am arguing when seen from the macro scale the US military in support of the US government is doing much more harm than good, though I don’t doubt there are times when on a micro scale good is done.

The motto for the Special Forces is “De Oppresso Liber”, which means To Liberate the Oppressed. Psalms 82:3-4 say “Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless, maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy, deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” God has called us to help out our neighbors to defend the helpless. SF soldier and all members of the military risk their lives to protect the rights of those who are being oppressed by rulers of other nations. They do this so that everyone may have freedom. I see this as being honoring to God.”

Let’s continue to look at things from a Macro scale Neal. No doubt during WW II the US military liberated many oppressed. Yet, despite that the end result was to put millions and millions of people under the oppression and darkness of the Iron curtain of communism. Some have even contended that in 300 years the only thing WW II will be remembered for is that it turned Communism into a international power. Under that Iron curtain millions and millions of people were killed by their governments. Were more people oppressed as a result of US policy that both created Communist Russia (WWI) and turned it into a international power (WWII) than were liberated and freed?

So, again, I’m willing to concede that on a micro scale much good is done and oppressed people are liberated but on a macro scale often even more are put into bondage.

Another question I would ask is, “Who will liberate the oppressed unborn millions who will die in abortuaries throughout America?” Where are those liberators?

“I once heard a story from a friend of mine who served with me in Iraq. I’m know he got it from somewhere and I’m not sure where but I remember it quite well. The story went something like this. There are three types of people. Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs. Sheep are people who have no capacity for violence but are a healthy productive citizen. Wolves are people who have a capacity for violence and no empathy for their fellow citizens. The wolves feed on the sheep without mercy. Then there are sheepdogs. Sheepdogs are people who have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for their fellow citizens. The sheepdog is a warrior and a hero. The sheep think the sheepdog is weird because he is always sniffing the ground, barking at things that he hears, and wanting the righteous battle. The sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is constantly reminding the sheep that there are wolves in the land. They gripe and complain about the sheepdog when he keeps them from going astray. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go baa. Until the wolf shows up, then the entire flock is looking for the sheepdog and trying desperately to hide behind the one lonely sheepdog. The difference between the sheep and the sheepdog is this. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. I believe that I am a sheepdog and I will do whatever it takes to protect the sheep and help the Sheppard.

Please shed some light on this dilemma I am facing.”

Neal, I am the Sheepdog and Christians who are annoyed with me, including some US military personnel are the Sheep. I’m howling out danger and Christians are telling me to shut up and are annoyed with me. Quite w/o a weapon I am crying out the danger of Christians lending their strength to empower a pagan state and its agenda. Apart from camouflage I am standing up and howling out that the US government is seeking to rebuild the Tower of Babel. Without hand to hand combat training I am barring my teeth at a US government that would enslave us all by its Marxist policies.

You want to be a Sheepdog? Try going on patrol with me.

American Show Trial

The decision by the man sitting in the President’s Chair along with his Attorney General to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in a civilian court is sure to be a show trial but it is a show trial with a twist. In a show trial the guilty verdict of the defendant is a given, even before the trial starts. Normally, the purpose of a show trial is to dazzle the watching public with the righteousness of the prosecuting State against the backdrop of the clearly wicked defendants. However, in this coming show trial, the twist will be found in the fact that the purpose will be to dazzle the watching public with the sins of America against the defendants. Now, Khalid Sheik Mohammad will clearly be found guilty. That is a given. However, on the way to the guilty verdict the Defense doubtless will bring in as evidence things like information extracting methods used, and the character of America foreign policy as a causative agent for the actions of Khalid Sheik Mohammad. This fits with the Obama agenda to cripple the America intelligence apparatus, while at the same time earning him kudos from the international left for his willingness to humble America. This action is consistent with Obama’s constant habit of apologizing for America.

None of these observations are meant to imply that this country doesn’t have plenty of repenting to do. However, the repenting Obama wants to do is the kind of repenting that includes becoming Marxists in order to show how sorry we are.

Political Correctness Is Our Cultural Bane

One begins to get the sense that if the shooter at Ft. Hood went on National Television and admitted that he acted as and is a Muslim Terrorist our cultural elite would still insist that we must not rush to judgment on whether or not the Ft. Hood shooting was an example of domestic terrorism.

It is my conviction that the reason that the elites refuse to name Nidal Malik Hasan as a Muslim Terrorist is that it threatens the whole multicultural agenda. If Islam cannot fit into the multicultural melange then the whole notion that we can build a culture where all cultures are taken to be equal suddenly becomes suspect. Further, the idea that a country can be crafted simply by the assent to a few abstract truths begins to be seen as vacuous as it genuinely is.

A culture that desired to take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously would start unashamedly scrutinizing and profiling the Muslim community that lives in their midst. To many Americans this sounds harsh but what is more harsh; profiling the Muslim community or 13 dead American soldiers?

The refusal to take the threat of Islam seriously … indeed the insistence that Muslims should be treated as a politically correct protected victim class is going to get more people killed.

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.