Category: Uncategorized

Hebrews 10:25, KJV: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”

The Church from its earliest inception has been a people who have physically gathered for Worship.

Whether gathered during the time of the Tabernacle during the special feasts times of the year as recorded in Leviticus 23 or whether gathered at the Temple God’s people worship as a gathered people.

These things come to mind as I pour out my soul: how I walked with the multitude, leading the procession to the house of God, with shouts of joy and praise.Psalm 42:4

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD.”

Psalm 122:1A Song of Ascents. Of David.

When we get to the NT we see the gathered Church at Synagogues and then after the Resurrection the body of Christ becomes a gathered people regularly worshiping the risen Christ.

Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

I Cor. 11:7In the following instructions I have no praise to offer, because your gatherings do more harm than good.

And of course the Hebrews passage this morning underscores this habit of gathered worship by reminding its audience the importance of gathered worship.

The Scripture taken as a whole, communicates part of what it means to be the Church is to be a people who are gathered by Jesus who gather regularly to devote ourselves to the preached doctrine, to receive the sacraments, and to encourage and exhort each other unto love and good works.

A Church that seeks to be a Church without being gathered is a oxymoron.

Our Reformed Divines understood this,

The Westminster Larger Catechism speaks in such a way about Worship that it is hard to believe they would have counted non-gathered “worship” as Worship.Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?

A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the Sacraments; Church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

So, while the Christian is to be a man or woman whose whole life is characterized as Worship, the Christian is also known as the person who regularly gathers for Worship. 1st Century Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the import of gathered worship,

“When ye frequently, and in numbers meet together, the powers of Satan are overthrown, and his mischief is neutralized by your like mindedness in the faith.”

18 centuries later Albert Barnes played the same theme,

“Christians should regard it as a sacred duty to meet together for the worship of God … with all who bear the Christian name, with all who expect to make advances in piety and religious knowledge, it should be regarded as a sacred duty to assemble together for public worship. Religion is social; and our graces are to be strengthened and invigorated by waiting together on the Lord. There is an obvious propriety that people should assemble together for the worship of the Most High, and no Christian can hope that his graces will grow, or that he can perform his duty to his Maker, without uniting thus with those who love the service of God.”

Albert Barnes

Doubtless the Apostles had in mind the gathering of the Church as a true fellowship of Christians. There is no point in assembling together in assemblies where the assembly has become merely a diluted and pale reflection of the larger anti-Christ culture. There is no point in assembling in a place that has the word “Church” on the sign or doesn’t have the word on a sign but clearly advertises themselves as a Church when the people gathering are indistinct from the culture around them, where the clergy are one part hipster, one part Rogerian psychologist, one part Ad-man and no part theologian. There is no point assembling when the liturgy is merely a cheap knock off of some bad “boy band” concert where the groupies swoon at tatted Pastor McCool as he leads the praise and worship time. No point in assembling when the liturgy is as vertical as a dead cat on the highway.

This is one qualification we must give to Hebrews 10:25. Dead Churches require no allegiance and indeed the gathering of yourselves together in these types of night-clubs is absolute sin. You’re better served sleep in on Sunday morning.

Now lets turn to the forsaking of assembling together when in the midst of a public health crisis.

If churches are darkened in the face of sickness and death, only TV talking heads, media pundits, and public health officials will speak to our anxieties and fears. This reinforces the secular proposition: Life in this world is the only thing that matters.The docility of our Christian leaders in the cessation of public worship is stunning. It suggests that they more than half of what the secular talking heads are telling them when they tell them that “life in this world is the only thing that matters,” and “you only go around once in life grab all the gusto you can.”

Shuttering our Churches and so canceling the gathered worship service of God and His Christ is not a great deal different than removing the statuary of our heroes from the public square or changing out the names of places named after our heroes and wise-men. To shut down orthodox Christian worship services of the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Christ, as a matter of habit or routine, even in the face of plague and pestilence is to weaken the faith and to alter who we are and what we confess. To be sure, prudence may dictate an occasional cancellation – even for a period of time – but to create a culture of worship cancellation is to diminish the Christian faith and to forfeit our confidence in the God whom we confesses rules over all.

Church can’t be done online…. not for a long and sustained period of time. We are the body of Christ together as we meet as a covenant community in real space and in real time. We are the body of Christ as we exhort on another face to face, hear each other’s stories of God’s faithfulness, pray for one another, and bear each other’s burdens. To reduce worship to what happens virtually online, is to suggest that the tactile presence of one another with each other is irrelevant for the fellowship of the saints and the communion of the body of Christ.

We need to be careful that this pestilence doesn’t diminish who we are in our covenant collective identity as the militant Church … the Church as the Army of God who continues to battle for the crown Right of King and heavenly country.

Look what the visible Church has done in the face of a shadow pestilence. We have fled like so many mice before a shadow cat. Compare our current actions to the Church during the time of the 3rd century Roman Emperor Diocletian. Diocletian rendered the 3rd century version of an Executive Order for Christians to cease and desist from gathered worship. Diocletian’s order was routinely disregarded and flouted by many Christians who chose the promise of martyrdom for the privilege of gathering to Worship the thrice Holy God. If Diocletian could only see how easy it was for Gov. Wretched Whitmer to successfully shutter churches he would be dizzied.

The early Church was persecuted because it refused to pinch incense to Caesar and here we are two millennium later repeatedly kissing the ring of Caesar as seen in our closing down over a modestly more dangerous expression of influenza compared to what we see annually. The clergy across the nation has done to our people what Popes used to do to whole Kingdoms who refused to be brought under their thumbs. When Kingdoms went their own way during Medieval-ism the Popes would bring down the hammer of the Interdict against the whole Kingdom. The Clergy were forbidden to give the Mass. Refused to solemnize Marriages. Forbidden to baptize children. Forbidden to give last rights or hear confession. Forbidden to give a Christian burial to the dead. This was what it meant to be under the Interdict and when leveled the Pope would not lift it until the King repented of whatever offense that brought Interdict.

“The interdict of 1208 decreed that no services were to be held in the parish churches. The Mass was allowed in monasteries—but only behind closed doors. Infants could not be baptized except at home or in the church porch; the dead could not be buried in consecrated ground; the living could not receive Holy Communion except at the point of death; church bells were silent” (David Edwards, Christian England: Its Story to the Reformation, 130).

And this is what the Church has done to itself. It has put itself under the Ban because the State has told it to. I ask you Saints … is this sane? Is this God-pleasing?

Where is the desperation to hear the Word broken among God’s banned saints? Where is the longing for the Sacraments broken and distributed? Shall these be ended all because a State that has a long and distinguished record of lying tells the Church of Jesus Christ to shutter?

All of this belies how we are the lesser children of greater Fathers. Our greater Fathers, once realizing that there was no danger would not have put up with being refused the Preached Word or the Sacrament distributed. Our Greater Fathers would not have tolerated or trusted Magistrates who had a long record of lying. Our Greater Fathers would not have prioritized Science so-called over Theology.

Listen to another account of our Greater Fathers,

In 303 a minority among the church in Abitinae in North Africa at the time of the persecution unleashed by Emperor Domitian refused to cease gathering. On the verge of his surprise abdication, this ruler, who would rank among the greatest of the Caesars had he not unleashed massive persecution upon the Church, issued a decree on 24 February 303 ordering the churches across the empire to cease and desist from public worship and to hand over the Scriptures and the sacred vessels to the civil authorities. Bishop Fundanus of Abitinae succumbed to pressure, committed apostasy, and surrendered the Scriptures. A plucky minority of his flock remained within their baptismal grace and continued (clandestinely, they thought) to meet for the regular Sunday Eucharist under the leadership of the priest Saturninus. A group of 49 were caught as it were in flagrante delicto as they assembled for their chaste sacramental union with Christ, brought under arrest to Carthage, tortured, put on trial and swiftly executed on 12 February 304. Saturninus’ four children, including his infant son, stood steadfast in loyalty to Christ, sharing the martyr’s crown with their father. When asked by the interrogating judge why they had defied Diocletian’s orders, one of the 49 martyrs of Abitinae gave a reply that rings through all subsequent centuries of the Church, delivering a powerful message not least to our own time and place: “Sine dominicis non possumus—Without the Eucharist/Divine Service we can’t get by.” The prevailing attitude among professing Christians in North America and Western Europe at this time appears to be a lukewarm “Sine dominicis bene possumus—We can get by quite easily without the Eucharist.”

It is time to gather again Saints. Time to respect and honor the truthful Word of God more than the lying Word of either stupid or lying Magistrates. Time to remember that we are not to live by lies. It is past time now to remember again that Christians should rightly oppose any Governmental power that prevents the placarding of Christ crucified and the administration of the sacraments as based on either bogus science or outright lies.A “virtual” technocratic Christianity is a defective Christianity, a specter of the Church instituted by Christ as an assembly of people that needs must surface and gather in the public arena for the purpose of Worship.

Gathering a bunch of cars so that we can privately worship Drive in theater style is not gathered worship. Indeed, one thing the Reformation warred against was private Masses and when we gather around the internet or radio we are back to a type of private mass.

But here is a point I would want to emphasize, does the advent of Christianity — does the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ — does it fundamentally change what civil government is supposed to do in this world? And I would say “no.” And I think Kuyper would say “no” as well. And Romans 13 looks very similar to the Noahic covenant for example. That governments have always and continued to be responsible for doing justice, for punishing the wrong doer and praising the good. Now of course this needs lots of working out. But I would say that basic functioning of civil government is not fundamentally changed by Christianity. And that is why I say it shouldn’t be “redeemed.” Christians … ought to be better at promoting justice within civil government but civil government remains a creation / common grace ordinance from God… it doesn’t mean we are fundamentally changing the nature of the institutions themselves or that the institutions remain something other than penultimate or provisional.

Dr. David Van Drunnen
Conversation / Interview with Dr. Robert Godfrey

(1. & 2.) DVD is correct here that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ does not fundamentally changed what civil government is supposed to do in this world. Where DVD is incorrect is assuming that unbelievers who serve in civil government give two shakes about what civil government is supposed to do in this world. Has the man never read Machiavelli so as to know what the typical pagan magistrate understands his role as magistrate to be? DVD is just a tad younger than me. Where has he been for the 20th-21st century when considering pagan magistrates? So while the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ does not fundamentally change what civil government is supposed to do those realities fundamentally change magistrates who bow the knee to Christ so that they care about doing what they are supposed to do as magistrates.

(3.) DVD keeps banging that Noahic covenant drum. It is the lynch pin for his whole R2K program. If his interpretation of the Noahic covenant fails his whole innovative “theology” goes in the muck pile. I have dealt with DVD’s Biblical-theological error before. That analysis can be accessed here.

https://ironink.org/?p=8213&

(4.) Again, DVD is correct in describing that which governments are responsible. However, when is the last time DVD knows when Christ-hating magistrates actually brought forth justice as defined by God’s character as found in God’s Law? I can offer up 10,000’s of words giving instances where the government, instead of punishing the wrong doer and praising the good, punished the good and praised the wrong-doer. I suppose it is too much to hope that DVD has ever heard of anarcho-tyranny? And why do governments so typically act this way? It is simply because the magistrates who run them are Christ haters and care nothing for justice, or punishing the wrong doer, or praising the good. So, the problem with DVD’s construct is that the man seems to honestly believe that in his make-believe world the Christian magistrate and the non-Christian magistrate will act in the same fashion.

(6.) DVD seems to have a problem with “is” and “ought.” While we can agree that it ought to be the case that the basic functioning of civil government would not be fundamentally changed by Christianity we seem to be stuck over what actually is the case. The wicked magistrate ought to follow God’s law in adjudicating, but precisely because the wicked magistrate is wicked he does not nor even cares to follow God’s law in adjudicating. Only redemption can change the man so that he cares once again to rule as a Christian. Only when the pagan magistrate is converted he can then bring the “ought” and “is” together. However, this is not acceptable for DVD because he has it stuck in his head that the Christ-hating magistrate can rule in the same manner of the Christ-loving magistrate.

The irony here is the DVD is appealing to a time when unbelieving magistrates may well have come closer to ruling in a Christian manner precisely because that was the cultural ethos that was informing them. Because the implications of their Christ-hating was muted by living and ruling in CHRISTENDOM unbelieving magistrates were not as consistent in their Christ-hating as they might otherwise have been. Yet, DVD, both horrifyingly and amusingly enough, seems to think that the way to have Christ-hating magistrates who rule like Christ-loving magistrates is to tear down the notion of Christendom. This R2K thinking tends to make a sane man edge towards complete exasperation.

(7.) Of course “It” can’t be redeemed. However, men can be redeemed and when men are redeemed that Institutions wherein they handle the levers changes along with them. This isn’t rocket science.

(8.) DVD seems to think that these institutions are comprised as inanimate objects. Civil Governments are run by flesh and blood men, so while the institution as institution might not be redeemed the men and women who run the institutions and make them what they are certainly can be redeemed and when they are redeemed the institution is redeemed since the institution is nothing but the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs. It is true that the civil government does not handle the keys, and is not involved in Word and Sacrament and so in that sense it is a common grace Institution. However, where does scripture teach that common grace institutions can’t be Christian in their orientation, nature, and direction?

(9.) The Church is ultimate when as it pertains to the Keys and Word and Sacrament. The civil-social government is ultimate as it pertains to the sword and dispensing justice. The family is ultimate as it pertains to the rod and the catechizing and educating of the children. Each are ultimate is their own sphere but each and all are only penultimate as operating under the ultimate of God and His Kingdom.

But that is the problems isn’t it DVD? You with your R2K theology do not believe that the Kingdom can be found anywhere except in your ultimate institution of the Church. You identify the Church and the Kingdom as exactly synonymous and therefore everything else is only penultimate and can’t be brought over into the Kingdom of God and the new Jerusalem.

And while we are at it, we better say again for the person who is being exposed to your (R2K) problems for the first time. You have the theology you have because you hold the conviction that Christ won’t have victory in this world in time and space. Your R2K theology is all based upon that premise. You believe Christ can’t have victory in the political realm, the legal realm, the educational realm, the Arts realm, the family realm, the political realm, and so you have developed a theology where it is literally impossible for Christ to have victory in those jurisdictions.

I can only say to you what Luther said to Zwingli at Marburg.

“Your spirit and our spirit cannot go together. Indeed, it is quite obvious that we do not have the same spirit.”

“The family is grounded in God’s created work. It is re-affirmed in God’s common grace in the Noahic covenant. Marriage and family is just as legitimate in those terms for the unbeliever as it is for the believer. My own unbelieving neighbor is no more or no less married than I am because I am a believer. And I think the basic responsibilities of the family are also common in the sense of the mutual support of husband and wife. The procreating and the raising of children to be the next generation of those populating the earth. Those are common responsibilities that believers have with unbelievers. Of course we expect believers to understand those better but its not a unique responsibilities for believers.”

Dr. David Van Drunnen
Interview / Conversation with Dr. Robert Godfrey

1.) All because something is grounded in God’s creational work does not mean that it cannot be or is not taken up into His redemptive work. The Sabbath is an example. The Sabbath was established at Creation but clearly the Sabbath becomes a central part of God’s redemptive program. In the same way we see that while the family may indeed have been originally grounded in God’s creational work, like the Sabbath, the family now has a Redemptive impact. If this wasn’t true then how could St. Paul characterize Christian children as “Holy?” (I Cor. 7:14).

2.) Notice a move above that R2K is constantly guilty of. On one hand they insist that believers and unbelievers have in common many things (in the case above “Marriage and family”) but on the other hand they define the thing they have in common in a Christian fashion that is not necessarily owned as a definition by the non-Christian whom they have marriage and family in common. The believer and the unbeliever may indeed have marriage in common (maybe) but they certainly don’t necessarily have the marriage in common that Dr. Van Drunnen describes above. The unbeliever who is in a sodomite or lesbian marriage does not have marriage in common with the believer. The unbeliever who is in a polygamist or polyandry marriage does not have marriage in common with the unbeliever. The unbeliever who is a serial adulterer does not have marriage in common with the unbeliever. The man who routinely beats his wife and children is not in a marriage where there is mutual support of the man and his wife as Van Drunnen defines marriage as existing in the common kingdom.

The R2K fanboys are constantly doing this. They talk about what the believer and the unbeliever have in common and then they define that area which is common based upon Christian convictions. This habit really does end up destroying their whole argumentation because if the area in common between the believer and unbeliever really isn’t existing as common then can we really say that the believer and the unbeliever have these common areas in common?

What Dr. VanDrunnen (DVD) and the other R2K fanboys have done, in terms of their common kingdom concept, is that they have taken the common kingdom categories and they have defined them with Biblical parameters. Yes, the believer and unbeliever have monogamous marriage in common — a marriage that fits the description as given by DVD above but only because the unbeliever is acting inconsistently with his own worldview. If the believer and the unbeliever have things in common it is only because of the fortuitous inconsistency of the unbeliever to live consistently with his presuppositions. It is not because the unbeliever and believer have these naturally in common. Let Dr. Van Drunnen go back to the Utopian project that was New Harmony Indiana in the 19th century where the men had all women in common and the let him tell me that the believer and unbeliever have marriage in common.

3.) It is true that marriage is not a unique responsibility for the believer, but it is also true the Christian marriage is a unique responsibility for the believer. As stated in #2 DVD and the R2K fanboys presuppose a Christian worldview and then argue that the unbeliever has in common everything except the Church and so is responsible to carry those common things out in a mutual manner with the non-Christian as if God’s sanctificational reality makes no difference between believer and unbeliever.

All this of this because DVD says that he is trying to avoid the polarization that comes with a non R2K approach to Christian theology. One is forced to ask, “Whatever happened to the Christian doctrine of the antithesis?” When I hear DVD moan about polarization what I hear is that the Christian is supposed to be just like the non-Christian in his marriage, in his politics, in his education, etc. We are living in a time where more polarization needs to exist as between Christian and non-Christian as the non-Christian lives increasingly consistent with his Christ hating presuppositions.

R2K as a “theology” is Roundup as sprayed on the visible Church. I have no doubt the R2K fanboys have the best of intentions. I also have no doubt that those good intentions pave the road to hell. They need to either repent or be cast out of the Reformed Church.

“I am talking about the Communism of Leon Trotsky that is based upon hatred for Christianity. Remember that Communism and Christianity can never live in the same atmosphere. Communism is older than Christianity. It is the curse of the ages. It hounded and persecuted the Savior during His earthly ministry, inspired His crucifixion, derided His dying agony, and then gambled for His garments at the foot of the cross; and has spent more than 1900 years trying to destroy Christianity and everything based on Christian principles. The alien minded communistic enemies of Christianity and their stooges are trying to get control of the press of this country… They are trying to take over the radio. Listen to their lying broadcasts in broken English and you can almost smell them. They are now trying to take over the Motion Picture industry, and howl to high heaven when our Committee on un-American Activities propose to investigate them. They want to spread their un-American propaganda, as well as their loathsome, lying, immoral, anti-Christian filth before the eyes of your children in every community in America.”

John Rankin (D) — Mississippi US Congressman
Chairman — House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)
Speech on the floor of the US Congress — 1945

Was Rankin correct?

1.) Communism does indeed hate Christianity.

Communism embraces a Atheistic-Materialistic Worldview wherein the State is God and in the State man lives and moves and has his being.

2.) Communism and Christianity indeed can’t live in the same atmosphere.

Wherever either of these exist in their purer forms they will always push out the other. Christianity, when it is faithful will destroy Communism and Communism where it is faithful will destroy Christianity. Neither will allow the presence of the other for where the other is allowed to exist it threatens the very existence of the other.

3.) Communism was largely and disproportionately populated by the descendants of that Edomite / Khazar tribe who persecuted Christ.

This is not disputable though it is typically a PC sin to notice this fact.

4.) Communists did get control and retain control of our press.

From yester-years Edward R. Murrow, to Walter Cronkite to today’s Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon our Lugenpresse is controlled either by closet Communists or fellow travelers. The Worldview of the Lugenpresse is Atheistic-Materialism.

5.) Communists did take over motion pictures and have retained control.

“Of all the Arts, for us the cinema is the most important.”

Vladimir Lenin

The Hollywood 10 really existed and were merely the tip of the iceberg of the Communist problem in Hollywood. When you view a Hollywood film you should just assume that you will be being served up some kind of Marxist egalitarian atheistic materialistic pablum.

The following linked video provides explicit connections between Communism and Hollywood. Do not view this video if four letter words trouble you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOtinTlx7yo&fbclid=IwAR0OL0lHfh8BJyLKjLjO5TKH0VP9pABfMfKJrjtGHbxEmxR89xEzKcwJtBQ

6.) Communists have corrupted our children.

The Government schools as Institutions catechize our children in to the atheistic-Materialistic worldview.

“As we should finally admit, from Berkeley to Yale to Mizzou, it is on our campuses where generations of cadres have received their Marxian indoctrination under permanent cover of ‘bright college years,’ football games, and cap and gown. Over the past century, these cadres became the indispensable legions of ideological victory in a ‘Cold War’ most Americans still insist they won.”

Diana West
The Red Thread

I have seen this as a Pastor and I have seen this in my extended family. I have seen 18 year olds head off to Colleges… even ones who advertise themselves as Conservative ones and what happens in the course of 2-4 years is that these young adults are transmogrified into the replacement leftist and proletariat class whose role is to march through the existing Institutions in order to revolutionize what little remains of our Christian social order.

As a parent or Cousin, or Brother or I would warn that sending young adults to University may not be wise, but, I, as a troglodyte knuckle dragging Christian minister what could I possibly know ? So, with excitement little Johnny and Suzy would be shipped off to school just to return in very little time with colored hair, nose rings, and in violent opposition to Thanksgiving Day, Christmas and Western Civilization in general. I’ve seen young people who I had catechized develop a “I know that Christianity is a myth” mindset which they learned from their Professors at their Conservative or Christian University.

I also saw it with my own eyes up close. When my oldest finished high school we allowed her to attend a local community college while serving as a Nanny – Au pair of a solid local Christian family. Not long after her starting I’m getting grilled inquiring how Christian the Puritans really were. Question were being raised about how just the social-order was that the Puritans built.

Finally, I decided that I had to attend the class wherein all this was coming from. I showed up to discover a Professor who could not have been more than 30. It wasn’t long before he was teeing off on the Puritans. I sat their clenching my jaw and curling my toes at his continued misrepresentations of the Puritan society. Finally, at the end of the class hour it was my turn. I didn’t have time to unravel everything he had said but I gave him a list of about 10 books he needed to read. I told him that he had grossly misrepresented the Puritans and I gave him chapter and verse on how that was so. I told him that the Puritans had very little to do with whatever it was he was teaching. I remember distinctly speaking to him about how he had completely gotten wrong how the Puritans understood Christianity. I also asked him if he realized that “the Puritans” constituted many streams that emptied into the same river so that it wasn’t always advantageous to speak about the “Puritans” without getting more specific. I didn’t let him get a word in edgewise for 10 minutes and then class was past over and the students were itching to get away.

A few weeks later he stopped my daughter and told her that he had looked up some of the sources I had given him and further told her I was right when it came to my sources.

Now the above could read like a “I told him” account but what I want it to be an account of is that the University is no place for God’s and our covenant seed. Certainly there may be exceptions where University might work, but on the whole the University (especially the Christian University) is not a place where parents want to place their children who are hungry for truth. 18 – 22 y/o are not equipped to go mano vs. mano with a well studied Collegiate liberal professor (tautology) when it comes to the field that the pagan Professor has “mastered.”

In another instance I had a young person who had been one of my best catechism students tell me that they had a major paper assigned requiring the students to explain what central question that had to be answered in order to pursue truth. This student wrote a paper that advocated an answer that he had learned from me over the years in Catechism. The answer to that question is and remains that the central question that has to be answered in order to pursue truth was the question of God’s existence. This Professor at this Conservative college told him that was not the right answer and graded his paper poorly for offering that answer. My young protege was crest fallen and was wrongly disappointed in me when they should have been disappointed with addlepated professor. The left had succeeded in picking off another young Christian altering the trajectory of their Christianity so that their Christianity ended up soft and squishy as they in turn became an academic.

Years ago, I went toe to toe with a Christian Minister Professor who now teaches at my Alma Mater. I do not believe, given the man’s views, that he was even Christian. We had a long and involved conversation that made me determined that I would do everything I could do to make sure no parent I knew would EVER send their children to sit under the tutelage of the heretic whom had come across my conversational path. Most Academic Ph. D’s I know (and I know a few) who are teaching young adults scare me to death. If I had a magic wand I’d make sure they never got near young skulls full of mush.

I could give other examples even more extreme.

Allow me one further observation on the consequences of what we are speaking of here. It is not only the students who have their faith shipwrecked. My observation has been that a result of this phenomenon I have recorded here it is often the case that not only is the student lost but so are their parents. I have seen repeatedly that a child, while at University, who is ideologically and theologically unraveled in terms of their Christianity end up pulling their parents to the left along with them. Parents so love their children that they end up being radicalized in a Marxist direction along with their child so that they don’t lose their relationship with their child. What I have seen is that parents will give up long held convictions, which were a consequence of their Christian faith in order that they won’t forever have to live in tension with their precious Johnny or Suzy. They would rather alienate Jesus then alienate their children.