Category: Culture

Carl Trueman over at Reformation 21 has written an interesting article on the what appears to be an ever increasing matriculation towards the Reformed faith. I recommend reading the article.

However there are some things I don’t get about Dr. Trueman.

First, in the past he has written unkindly about home schoolers and homeschooling. Dr. Trueman refers to this movement mentioned in his article as revival and it might well be that it is revival but I will guarantee that it will be shallow, short lived and ineffectual if it is not accompanied by parents who understand what Christian education is and who thus pursue with all vigor.

Second, Dr. Trueman has, in the past, had some unflattering (actually “mean” would be a better word) words about Dr. R. J. Rushdoony and those who have an appreciation for the man and his work. In the article mentioned above Trueman waxes eloquent on how Dr. Albert Mohler has rescued Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville and yet Trueman has condemned Rushdoony who has done more to rescue Christian education at the secondary level than anybody in the last 100 years. Now I don’t believe in paper saints and the point is not that Rushdoony is beyond criticism but I should think if one is going to do criticism it should be well rounded. Trueman’s criticism of Rushdoony has been anything but well rounded.

Third, in the article above Trueman has this to say about the bubbling revival,

“It is also exciting to realize that this new zeal for solid theology does not always have to be combined with an uptight social and political conservatism that longs for the enlightened days of Genghis Khan’s domestic and foreign policies (hey, he was kind to his grandchildren…..) and the kind of women’s fashions made popular by Little House on the Prairie.

Given the false things that Trueman has said in the past on some issues I would dearly love to know what the man meant by the above blockquoted statement. What does Dr. Trueman consider to be “uptight social and political conservatism?” Where is Dr. Trueman finding the Reformed church being flooded by “women’s fashions made popular by Little House on the Prairie?” (Personally I always thought that Caroline looked kind of hot in those top of the neck to the bottom of the toe dresses.) Now if the “Genghis Khan domestic and foreign policies” that Trueman refers to are things like the Patriot Act or the new Cabinet post of Deutschland Security or the invasion of a country that didn’t have weapons of mass destruction I am right there with him. But I don’t know if he means that so it would be interesting for him to tease out exactly what he means. Dr. Trueman can you elaborate on your statement above and please speak clearly into the microphone so we all can hear you.

Another thing I don’t get is the infatuation I often see with all things Baptist by many Credo Reformed people. One can see it in this article by Trueman. Are Baptists — even Reformed Baptists — wrong? Sure, Reformed Baptist might be better then thorough-going Arminians but have our Credo-Reformed people given up on critiquing them? Does one get to a point in the Reformed Universe where pointed criticisms of Reformed Baptist are considered gauche and in bad taste?

Trueman makes some great points about the problem with Reformed people attending non Reformed Churches. One thing that Dr. Trueman doesn’t note though is how difficult it is for people to find a Reformed Church that is Reformed. The reason that Reformed people might be attending these non Reformed Churches, viewing them as Mission fields, is that there is nothing Reformed within a reasonable distance. It is possible that Dr. Trueman, holed up in his ivory tower, may not realize how bad it is outside of Philadelphia, Escondido, Grand Rapids or other Mecca points of the Reformed Faith. Still, his advice should be carefully heeded by people if there is a Reformed Church for them to attend in the area in which they live that is genuinely Reformed. Labels on the sign don’t get an automatic pass.

Trueman’s criticism of the personality cult is spot on. It is true for mega ministries, even of the orthodox Reformed variety, that people should “follow the money,” and ask if their favorite minister has gone from grinding out the grain to being a Rock Star.

The way that Truman reasons about “sociological phenomena” is curious. I think I know what he is getting at but it almost sounds like he is suggesting that sociology is a independent realm apart from theological influence that can give us insight into people’s social habits. If you read the article and don’t understand what I mean don’t worry about it. My radar might be wired to tightly.

Finally I have to know…

Is Dr. Trueman any relation to Harry? Did Margaret have a love child? Inquiring minds want to know.

In a speech in Zanesville Ohio, Barack Hussein Obama continued to court the evangelical vote by promising increased cooperation from the federal government for faith based initiatives.

Obama noted how he came to realize that he could sit in Church and pray all he wanted he “wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work.” Obama didn’t speak to the question of how it was possible to do “The Lord’s work” with money stolen from the taxpayer in confiscatory taxation and neither did he mention what the Lord would say about a policy that hooks people on the narcotic of government aid thus making them government addicts wedded to supporting big statist government in hopes of continuing to receive their “fix” from the State.

In his speech Obama mentioned several organizations that provide faith based assistance. Obama lauded them for their work but he didn’t mention the danger in these groups taking money from the state. He neglected to mention that “he who take the Kings coin is the kings man.” He didn’t mention the danger of these faith based organizations getting hooked on government aid and what that addiction might mean in way of compromise when the State comes along with directives to the organization if it wants to retain its cash flow from the State.

Obama mentioned that he believed that “change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up” but he didn’t explain how that belief is consistent with his non wavering support of Big government which is a classic “change comes from the top down” kind of belief.

In perhaps the most telling quote of the speech Obama said,

That’s why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today – from saving our planet to ending poverty – are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

The reason that this quote is so important is that it begs the question of who is the captain directing “all hands on deck.” This quote seems to imply that faith based organizations are going to be drafted by the Federal Government to aid its attempt to solve what it perceives to be the world’s problem. Government won’t be solving these things alone, but rather Government will enlist the aid of faith based organizations to help it solve these problems together, much as the Government enlists the aid of the private citizen to “help” fund their nanny state projects.

Obama went on to cite how the previous two administration have paved the way to absorbing faith based organizations into the maw of the Leviathan State. He also promised that he would streamline the process to get government aid to faith based organizations so that smaller organizations could more easily get at and suckle from the teat of the State. Obama insisted in his plan that faith based organizations who take advantage of the money that the state has stolen in confiscatory taxation will not be allowed to proselytize (evangelize) people nor will they be allowed not to discriminate against people for religious reasons. Clearly, this means that Christian faith based organizations will not be able to fire people whose beliefs are completely contradictory to their beliefs.

Obama’s plans clearly allow the possibility for gaming the system. Crafty “religionists” could put up front organizations in order to satisfy the requirement for Federal Aid and then funnel that money in different directions allowing a pittance of that money to keep the front organization running.

Obama also proposed using the faith based monies for education mentioning the liberal and socialist “Children’s defense fund” by name. The problem with these schools is the same problem that exists in public schools and that is they are religious committed to Religious Humanism.

Obama mentioned other programs with which his support for “Faith based organizations” could assist. What the reader needs to realize is that all of this is geared for churches or organizations that have bought into the lie of humanist based socialism. What aid to faith based organizations is, is merely a parallel movement to do for “religious organizations” what has been done for “public schools.” A faith based organization that is epistemologically self consciously Christian would never want one dime of this money because they would realize that to take the money is to support the whole socialist apparatus that supports it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CreativeMinority

It’s not even two minutes long.

According to the America mythology a cruel people once enslaved a noble race of men. Over time this noble but mistreated race of men persevered and by herculean effort, despite incredible opposition and against all odds this noble race reclaimed their nobility. Inch by inch this distinguished sable race of men advanced against all the evil machinations that a cruel majority race could contrive. Eventually, one of the noble race reached the pinnacle of achievement by being nominated to be President of these United States. A member of the noble race would be the standard bearer for the socialist party.

So on one hand we are all proud that a Black man could actually be elected as President. We are proud because it putatively shows how far we have come inasmuch as a man from a noble people — a people who did not have any rights and were subjugated by a cruel barbaric people — is now on the cusp of being elected to President. We are proud because this ennobles all of us. It ennobles the barbaric race because they have grown past their barbarity towards the noble race of men they once enslaved. It ennobles the already noble race even more because it reveals how great they really are to have come so far.

And yet on the other hand this very man, who has had projected upon him the role of poster child for of how far America has come, treats a different constituency in this country far worse then his people were ever treated. This Black man from this noble race denies life and liberty to the unborn. When Obama was an Illinois state legislature in 2002, he voted against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. The bill was designed to extend the same medical care to babies who happen to survive an abortion attempt as is enjoyed by all babies born alive under duress. In other words Obama’s vote was a vote in favor of leaving babies who had survived abortion gasping for life, squiggling and crying in pain. Obama’s vote was a vote to legally forbid medical treatment to those babies. More then that it was a bill requiring that medical treatment not be given. When a similar bill came before the US Senate not even NARAL, the pro-abortion organization, was in favor of it.

Come on people… this barbarity makes the treatments of slaves in earlier US history look like floods of mercy. This support for hacking, burning, and torturing the unborn and then voting to leave them in their agony if born alive completely overturns the whole myth about a noble race. A noble race which has overcome oppression doesn’t act this way towards a different people contending for their own liberty.

Is this the way a man acts who comes from a people who have themselves overcome tyranny and oppression? Is this the way a man acts who is supposed to be the living embodiment of how far we’ve come as a nation? Is it progress to elect a man from an oppressed people who oppresses another people — the unborn — in ways far more severe then his people were ever oppressed?

Yes indeed… Look how far we’ve come.

Barack Obama’s campaign theme has been “Change.” This sing-song of change has already mesmerized large portions of the electorate. If you read people write about Obama or if you listen to people interviewed you begin to notice there is real belief on their part in the idea of change for the sake of change. They don’t ask what Obama’s change is from and to. They don’t ask just exactly what change Obama has in mind. They don’t care if the change that is being proposed is realistic or possible. They only want change.

Most Americans, not being able to remember the last episode of their favorite television sitcom, don’t remember that this is not the first time that change has been a campaign theme. Jimmy Carter, in 1976 ran a campaign theme of change. America had just been through Watergate and Vietnam and Carter, a political neophyte, ran as an someone outside the beltway who could bring real change to Washington D.C. Again in 1992 Clinton & Gore ran on a change campaign promising to bring generational change to Washington D. C. Even as far back as 1952 in the Eisenhower campaign the idea of “change” was prevalent.

Now some of this is natural and inevitable. One way to move the party out of power into power is by accentuating the differences and calling for change. The problem though, is that in recent campaigns you don’t really get an explanation of the differences on a policy by policy basis but rather instead what one gets is an appeal to change that is based on change for changes sake. Since 1976 the appeal of change has been been on a more visceral, emotive and personal level. Change is now more about somebody’s charisma then it is about the policies by which they would govern.

This kind of change — a change for change sake — is the kind of change that one would expect of a people who are governed by an existentialist World and life view. For the existentialist the central motif is the idea of becoming or of always being in process. An existentialist world and life view thus automatically recoils against continuity and the status quo since existentialism is itself about always changing, always becoming, always remaking ones-self. Is it the case that Obama, with his campaign theme of “change” has tapped into the mother vein of American self-consciousness? Has he become the existenialist candidate for a existentialist people.

This cry for change is also reminiscent because in it we may hear echoes of pagan religion where the pursuit of chaos was seen as the means of social regeneration. This was a theme that R. J. Rushdoony mentioned frequently in his writings. An embrace of change merely for the sake of change as that is pursued by a functionally existentialist people communicates the irrational belief that order and social regeneration can arrive by the means of chaos. What else can a support for change merely for the sake of change be but a pursuit of the chaotic?

Also when we consider that to support change merely for the sake of change, with no ability to rationally articulate whey change is being supported is a prime example of existentialism where an irrational faith in irrational faith is all the reason one needs to have in order to believe in anything. If the American electorate, or any large portion of it, is going to vote for Obama merely on the “gut instinct” that the change he represents would be “good” then we must conclude that that portion of the electorate are functional existentialists.

Now, this is not to argue that change is always bad. A hard bitten allegiance to the status quo and to old paths represents its own set of unique problems. Change has its place, but there is a difference between notions of Biblical change and notions of pagan change. I see very little in the messianic attraction to Obama’s call for “change” that is representative of Biblical notions of “change.” What I see instead is a existentialist people prepared to vote for a existentialist candidate for existentialist reasons.