Category: Culture

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.

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.

“Shhh…. Don’t Mention That He Is A Arab Muslim”

The guy who shot up Fort Hood yesterday is a Arab and is a member of the Islamic faith — a well known “religion of peace.” However, please note that even though we’ve now been told that he was shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great”), there still hasn’t been anybody questioning the wisdom of allowing Muslims into the US military or even into US society. If one wonders about the brutality of a Islamified Western culture I encourage them to go take a walk into certain sections of London or Paris. Ask Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh about Islamic brutality in the West. Ask Salmon Rushdie about Islamic brutality in the West. Ask Aasiya Hassan of the Buffalo New York area about Islamic brutality in the West.

Because of the West’s mad desire for ethnocide, seen in its embrace of multiculturalism, Europe will be an Islamic continent by the end of this century. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the “religion of peace” shooter at Fort Hood, is a warning to America and that warning is, “Muslims will not fit into Western culture.” Now, this is obvious to anybody who has half a stroke impaired brain in their head but the multiculturalist leftists are so bound and determined to sanitize the Christian influence of the West and of America that they will go to any lengths, including blinding themselves about the nature of Islam, in order to completely and irreversibly de-Christianize the West. Actually, if such a thing as poetic justice existed both the Maj. Nidal Malik Hasans of the West and the John Kerry’s of the West would be given Arizona and be told to “be fruitful and multiply, if you can.” The leftists and the Muslims certainly deserve one another.

For those not in the know, “Allauh Akbar” is what members of the “religion of peace” often shout just before they blow themselves up, along with a host of their enemies. It is what the members of the “religion of peace” shout when they read the Koran as it tells them to kill the infidel. It is what they say after eating their after dinner mints.

There might be another explanation for why Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan slipped his noodle. It seems the poor man got a double whammy for life. Not only was he a Muslim (his first life whammy) but he also was a shrink by trade. Personally, if I had to guess between a Muslim and a Shrink as to who was more demented I would be hard pressed to reach a conclusion. I can’t imagine any living soul combining those two dementia’s into one living being.

“Well, You Are Forced To Have Car Insurance Aren’t You?”

Back in his State of the Union Address President Obama gave us an analogy between the prospects of a mandated by the Federal Government health care and a mandated by the State auto insurance.

“Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can’t be achieved, That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

Just recently the Senator who filled Obama’s Senate seat said in response to a question,

CNSNews.com: “So, in general, if a person doesn’t want health insurance, do you think they should be required by the government to actually have to get it?”

Senator Burris: “Under state law, we have every one required to have automobile insurance. Now, think about that. And so under this here, we’re providing in the legislation where every one would be able to acquire health insurance. If they don’t get it, then that would–certainly they’re trying to provide some type of a provision for them in case they’re sick so that they will be covered and they won’t be a burden on the system. So, that’s the same thing proportionally to automobile insurance. I mean, it’s comparable.”

Now, pushing this analogy between required auto insurance and required health insurance is only one of a host of reasons why I think these people shouldn’t be leading a live in facility for the mentally challenged let alone leading this country. People like Obama and Burris put the capital “S” in STUPID.

The analogy doesn’t work,

1.) It is not true that every one has to have auto insurance. Only people who have the privilege of owning and driving automobiles have to have auto insurance.

2.) Therefore for the Obama/Burris analogy to fit, the reasoning must be that only people who have the privilege of owning and moving around in their bodies have to have health insurance. Do they really want to make a comparison between the mandate to have auto insurance if you drive a car and the mandate to have health insurance if you breathe? Is the state really saying that, “just as we won’t allow you to drive a car around if you will not get auto insurance, so we will not allow you to live if you will not get health insurance?” Or similarly, “just as if we catch you driving a car without auto insurance we will severely penalize you by taking away your privilege to drive, so if we catch you walking around without life insurance we will severely penalize you by taking away your privilege to be alive?”

I don’t care what Ivy League school these people were “educated” in, they are all as dumb or dumber than a box of Barbara Boxers.

A Horse Is A Horse, Of Course, Of Course …

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_re_us/us_horse_molester

This guy is serving jail time for getting to cozy with a horse on more than one occasion. The article says the perp is being jailed for “abuse to the creature.” So, what passes for abuse to a horse is not abuse in the slightest when the same “coziness” is pursued by two men.

But perhaps the difference is, is that two men can give consent to their mutual abuse while poor Sugar (the name of the horse that is being assaulted) can’t give consent, even though she is 21 years old.

I’m not sure, given the legal logic that is used today, why this guy is being jailed. He didn’t hurt anyone. It’s just people’s opinion that his sexual preference is aberrant, and besides, where are all the calls for the compassion and understanding we must have for this man?