The Dangers Of Unharnessed Libertarianism

There is a sense among some Christians that movement Libertarianism provides a Christian response to various strands of the Marxism we currently face. (Cultural Marxism, Fabianism, Corporatism, Fascism, etc..) R. J. Rushdoony was under no illusion to that end. While Rushdoony advocated a form of Libertarianism it was always Libertarianism in a decidedly Christian and Theonomic social order. In other words, RJR despoiled the Libertarian Egyptians but he despoiled them while making the Libertarians serve the Christian worldview vision.

Repeatedly Rushdoony reminded us of Max Stirner who was one of the greatest foils to Karl Marx. Stirner was a kind of extreme prototypical Libertarian. He was Ayn Rand before Ayn Rand was Ayn Rand. Stirner was an Egoist, which means that he considered self-interest to be the root cause of an individual’s every action, even when he or she is apparently doing “altruistic” actions. This principle is the radii of all movement Libertarianism.

The centrality of the sovereign individual is seen throughout Stirner’s writing. A few examples will suffice,

“I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 162].

Even love is an example of selfishness, “because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me.” [Ibid., p. 291]

He urges others to follow him and “take courage now to really make yourselves the central point and the main thing altogether.”

As for other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual: “For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use.” [Ibid., pp. 296-7]

Obviously this hyper individualism of Stirner — this emphasis of the many (individual by individual) over the one (collective) — was not something that Marx could countenance. Rushdoony notes of the collision of Stirner and Marx,

“The most vehement book written by Karl Marx was against Max Stirner; because Max Stirner pushed this idea to its logical conclusion, the meaninglessness of all things and therefore the legitimacy of all acts. He is the man who accused the atheists of his day of being closet Christians because they didn’t practice incest and other perversions, and Marx recognized that Stirner was right. But if Stirner were allowed to establish his thinking and successfully convert men to his position, there could be no socialist order. So he wrote a two-volume diatribe against Stirner.”

and elsewhere,

“Max Stirner was a logical, a consistent, atheist and an anarchist. And Max Stirner said in his book The Ego and His Own, that atheism required one to disbelieve in the validity of any law, because since there is no God there is no truth, no right, no wrong, no good, no evil, no sovereignty in the world, except man doing what he pleases. And in his book he turned on the atheists and the liberals of his day. He accused them of being closet Christians and he said ‘how many of you are ready to practice incest with your daughter, sister, or mother? Until you are, and if what I say horrifies you, you are simply manifesting the fact that you are a closet Christian. You are talking about not believing in God but you are believing in all his rules, you are still under theology rather than autonomy, And if you are still obeying your civil magistrate, your civil government, you’re still believing there is some validity to any law other than the biology of your own being.’”

Stirner absolutized Marx but he absolutized Marx in the indivdiualistic Libertarian direction.

Because of this Rushdoony saw that movement Libertarianism was but the opposite side of the coin to movement Marxism. Rushdoony saw that Libertarianism gone to seed was merely Marxism come into its own for the individual. Consistent Libertarianism was merely Marxism for the individual.

Now some will try to save movement Libertarianism by appealing to the “Non aggression principle.” They would contend we Christians can support Libertarianism as long as we apply the “non aggression principle.” The problem here though is that we must have some standard for what counts for “aggression.” And if we take what the Scripture, as God’s Law Word, teaches as God’s standard for aggression then we will find ourselves, as Christians, advocating for penalties that the movement Libertarians would insist fall under the rubric of the Non aggression principle.

This explains why the Christian dance with libertarianism needs to be thought through. Yes, there are aspects of Lbertarianism that Biblical Christians whole-heartedly embrace but those aspects are only embraced in the context of a bible informed Christian social order.

McAtee Contra Emergent Hugh Halter and Trinity Church Lansing Michigan Preaching

I don’t know who Hugh Halter is. Frankly, I would have been content to have never been pointed to his ramblings. However, a member of the Church I serve brought my attention to his ministry because Mr. Halter had spoke at the Evangelical Mega Church in Lansing Michigan. I listened to the sermon he preached there on 21 July 2013 and while there are areas to take exception (The Church is bigoted, and homophobic) with in the sermon there are more exceptions to take in Mr Halter’s blog post below.

http://hughhalter.com/blog/2012/08/08/hugh-bakes-a-cake-would-jesus-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-wedding

This post is really quite confusing as it presents some truths in the context of half truths and some ideas that are not truth.

I thought I would dissect portions of Mr. Halter’s post in order to locate some of the fallacies.

Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?

by Hugh Halter

Last week, the national news posted a story about a bakery owner who chose not to bake a cake for a wedding between two gay men. It probably got some attention because it appeared to be similar to the well-publicized Chick-fil-a story. The stories were quite different in nuance, but nonetheless brought up very serious and real questions every Christ follower should take seriously.

I posted this question above and had over 3500 onlookers and a truckload of great responses within a few hours. I’ve tried to synthesize many of the responses down to a few simple thoughts that I hope will be helpful for those serious about incarnating their lives into the real world around us.

First, thanks for your respectful tone. Even though the Christian responses were a 50/50 split on the question, there were some great perspectives on both sides and I hope we all learned a few things.

Second, I know that many who read this will not be Christian in orientation. So forgive the “internal doc” tone. I am trying to speak to our own Christian tribe about how we view sin and people in the world. In Jesus’ time and obviously now, people often use the word, “sinner” in a derogatory way to label people that weren’t “in the know” or who didn’t live based on the same set of religious/moral/theological convictions that the establishment did. In Jesus’s time it was the Jewish religious system based on the Law of Moses, and today, it continues in many tribes of Christianity. For the sake of the argument, I’ll keep using the word “sinner” as it has been incorrectly applied, in hopes that we can at least agree that we all share the same problem. We’re all jacked by sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) It is not true that “in Jesus’s time the establishment lived according to the Law of Moses.” In point of fact one of the realities of Jesus ministry was to constantly correct the establishment on how they had twisted the Law of Moses to mean what it did not mean. They did not live according to the law of Moses and that is one reason why Jesus constantly turned on the religious establishment. The problem of the religious establishment during Jesus day was not that they lived according to the law of Moses but rather it was that they didn’t live according to the law of Moses and then insisted that they were. And worse yet they were condemning people as “sinners” when those whom they condemned as sinners didn’t live according to their mutated version of Moses. So, Mr Halter is in error here and this error is significant as we will tease out more later.

2.) This is so true that Jesus treats the religious establishment as “sinners,” during His ministry. Are we to fault Jesus because He treated some people who were sinners as sinners?

And what was the difference between those Jesus treated as sinners and those who were ascribed with the title of “sinners” by the religious establishment? Well, one difference that we see in Scripture is that those who were ascribed with the title of “sinner” recognized they were sinners while those of the religious establishment refused to recognize themselves as “sinners.” Jesus could eat with sinners and publicans because they recognized themselves for what they were.

3.) Jesus is not opposed to Christians, who recognize their own sin, holding up God’s law as a standard for all people. St. Paul was a sinner yet he has choice words for certain sinners. St. Jude and St. John do as well. So, it is true, that we are all “jacked by sin,” but merely because we are all “jacked by sin,” that does not mean that we who are jacked by sin, who are saved by grace alone, are not to hold up God’s standard among men.

Mr. Halter continues,

I must also be honest with you and say that I, have to submit my wisdom under the wisdom of the revealed scripture in regards to all facets of life. I don’t understand everything, like everything, and will have a long list of questions to reel off when I see God, but I believe that He did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.

However…

This article isn’t about trying to convince people of my view on this. This article is to address how any of us, of any persuasion sexually, theologically, or religiously, should treat each other. Especially how Christians should treat people that don’t believe what they believe. I will submit that anything that doesn’t reflect the original design of God is sin and that list is long. And if we for sake of argument can say that homosexuality is a sin, I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Mr. Halter is on the record of saying that Homosexuality is sin. Of course he won’t say that, except to make reference to it “for the sake of argument.” Mr. Halter opts instead to say, “I believe God did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.” Of course if that is true then it also means (though Mr. Halter would never ever say this either) that sexuality outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage is damned by God.

2.) Now in his sermon Mr. Halter suggests that all sins are equal, but here he says that some sins are not equal. In his sermon Mr. Halter emphasizes the necessity to overlook sins and not be judgmental regarding sins but here we see full judgmentalism. Does Mr. Halter have any idea how badly he is going to make people feel who have not treated the gay lesbian community the way he thinks the bible teaches that they should be treated. Obviously for Mr. Halter his non judgmentalism and overlooking of sin only applies to not being judgmental of the sins that he does not want to be judgmental of.

3.) When Mr. Halter says that the way the Christians have treated the sodomite community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and even greater offense to God is he talking here about the great offense of Christian Bakers not to agree to bake a cake for a sodomite marriage? Is that the great offense that God is so displease with? Taking a stand to not sanction societal public square acceptance of sodomite marriage is an action that God is offended with? Really?

Mr. Halter continues,

“The question of whether or not Jesus (The corner bakery owner) would bake a cake for a gay wedding? is posed so that we can finally talk about the dignity of each person’s story and how the love of God can break into all of our brokenness so that his revealed will and blessing can touch us all.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Before the sinner can find relief he must discover that his dignity is rags before a Holy and Just God.

2.) We already know how the love of God can break into all our brokenness. The love of God can break into all our brokenness by preaching law and Gospel. The Law reminds us of how God condemns us for our sin. The Gospel tells us that there is one way to escape God’s just condemnation. If anybody comes to Christ not having their dignity broken by God’s law they have not known God’s Gospel.

3.) There really are Arminian overtones in Mr. Halter’s words.

Mr. Halter continues,

“For dealing with the cake situation or other “grey zones,” here are a few anchors I try to keep in mind.

1) We don’t have to Condone or Condemn. In so many situations we often think that we have to pick either a stance of condoning (which we assume happens if we fail to confront or form real friendships) or condemning (which we assume is a necessary response if we simply speak the truth and call people to account for their behavior. ) Some think you should just “LOVE” without truth, and some think you should just “TRUTH” em’ regardless of love. What you’ll find in the life of Jesus is that he doesn’t pick one or the other. He did neither.

Bret clarifies,

This is not true as Scripture testifies everywhere. When Jesus encountered the Pharisees he condemned them. He called Herod, “a fox.” This was not complimentary. He called the Syro-Phoenician a dog. You think she felt condemned with those words? Jesus condemned Peter by calling Peter “Satan” once. Jesus did not condone the Woman at the Well (John 4). In point of fact he put his finger on her sexual sins. Jesus did not condone the woman caught in adultery. He told her to “sin no more.” It is true that Jesus ate with “sinners and publicans,” but those “sinners and publicans” that Jesus ate with understood that they were sinners and publicans. I meet very very few people today who would admit that they fell into the category of “sinner and publican.”

So, when Mr. Halter says “Jesus neither condoned nor condemned sin” he just doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Halter continues,

In John 1:14 it says that Jesus came into the world in the form of a man and helped us to see the glory of God because he was full of Grace and Truth. As an example of what he hoped every Christian would be, he showed how grace (non-judgment) and healing, restorative words of truth can go together like peanut butter and jelly. He was the most non-judgmental person you would have ever met, yet people wanted to hear what he had to say about their broken lives and when he spoke, people did change and turn from sin. Jesus even said that he “did not come into the world to condemn but to save.” And he did exactly that. People around him didn’t feel condemned but they responded to his truth.

Bret clarifies,

Grace and truth in John 1:14 is a reference to the covenant keeping character of God in the Old Testament of whom it was often said was full of mercy and truth (cmp. Gen. 24:27, Ps. 25:10, Prov. 16:6). To say that Christ is full of grace and truth is to say that Christ is God. Grace here does not mean “non-judgment.”

Jesus was non-judgmental to people who understood and embraced the idea they were sinners. The woman who washed Jesus hair with tears understood she was a sinner. The woman with the blood issue that Jesus healed understood she was a sinner. The Syro-Phoenician woman admitted she was a “dog.” She understood she was a sinner. One problem with Mr. Halter is he wants to accept the sinner and their sins without them accepting God’s pronouncement that they are sinners. God will never accept people who do not accept they are sinners and we do people no favors by letting them believe that their sins are not condemned. In point of fact, the only way I can offer the Grace of God in Christ to anyone outside of Christ is to expose their sin. Praise God that he daily shows me my sins of selfishness, and pride that I might be reminded that they are only buried in Christ.

Mr. Halter continues,

He regularly ate with the worst of the worst. Clearly, many would have pulled him aside and said, “Jesus, by eating with them, you realize that you are causing them to feel a false sense of acceptance by you, don’t you think it more wise to avoid letting them feel accepted so that they might come to their senses and stop doing what they are doing?”

In one such dialogue, he said, “I didn’t come for the healthy but the sick.” In that statement, he was saying, “to help the sick you have to be with the sick and by being with them in their sickness, I’m not actually making them more sick, but creating a pathway to pull help them out.”

Bret clarifies,

Jesus regularly ate with the worst of the worst who understood that they were the worst of the worst. They had been condemned their whole lives by people who were just as guilty of the sins that they were condemning the sinners and publicans for involving themselves in. Instead of offering to the worst of the worst a merit system that they could never fulfill Jesus spoke to these sinners, who acknowledged their sins, of a God who would not pile on them more requirements (as the Pharisees did) but instead who would offer forgiveness and rest to those who acknowledged themselves to be burdened and heavy laden.

It would be a terrible injustice to those who rebel against God to give them a false sense of acceptance. God is a judge to all those who rebel against God’s tender mercy. We do those who are in high rebellion against God no favors by suggesting that God is ok with their rebellion. In the same way we do no favor to those who are burdened with their sins to not tell them that the way to be released of their burden of sin is to trust Christ alone who has reconciled a justly angry God to sinners who embrace and acknowledge their sin.

From reading and listening to Mr. Halter I get the sense that he wants the Church to act as if sin is a minor inconvenience. I get the sense that Mr. Halter has never considered the Holiness and Justness of God. I get the sense that Mr. Halter thinks that God salvifically loves everyone. I have no authority or warrant to tell the Baker outside of Christ that God loves him with a salvific love, just as I have no authority or warrant to tell the sodomite couple that God loves them with a salvific love. I can tell them both that God commands all men everywhere to repent. I can tell them that can have rest from the burden of their sins if they will trust Christ. But I can not tell them, for I have not authority or warrant to tell them, that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives.

Now, I quite agree with Mr. Halter that we have to be with the sick in order to offer a solution. That is one reason why I am writing this. I am seeking to be with the sick and what I am finding is that Mr. Halter is one of the sick. I am seeking to provide a way out for him. In point of fact one of the best places to be with the sick these days is to be with the sick people in the emergent movement.

Mr. Halter continues,

“In other words, being present with people in the mess of their lives, being true friends, fully accepting, is the way of Jesus. It is neither condemning nor condoning to make a cake or be at a wedding of people that don’t believe what we believe… It is simply being a friend.

Bret clarifies,

What Mr. Halter misses here is the public side of this whole issue with the cake bakers and the sodomite wedding. The cake bakers understand that this is more than a personal issue. This is a public square issue. The LGBT crowd is seeking to mainstream sodomy. They are seeking to force upon those who disagree with the sin of sodomy, to accept sodomy in the public square as a legitimate belief expression. There is nothing wrong with a Christian Baker to say …”Because of my love to Christ and His revealed authority I can not do this.” Mr. Halter’s reasoning would fault the Christian incense maker for refusing Caesar to make incense that would be required to be pinched as worship unto Caesar. Mr. Halter would say to the incense maker,

“Come, come … by filling this order of incense you are not condoning worship of Caesar.”

However, the incense maker like the cake Baker would be creating a means by which worship of Caesar is seen as acceptable public square activity. Even so the cake baker is creating a means by which sodomite marriage is seen as an acceptable public square activity. Neither Caesar worship nor sodomite marriage is an acceptable public square activity.

Mr. Halter is in serious error.

One can be a friend by accepting an invitation to have a drink or a cup of coffee with the sodomite couple. One can be a friend by taking them to a ballgame or a decorating party but one must think about the implications upon the public square and the social order by doing anything that gives tacit approval to the social order restructuring itself in a anti-Christ direction.

I hope this is a case where Mr. Halter merely has not thought through his position.

Mr. Halter continues,

To those who say that baking a cake communicates support for a non-biblical defilement of the institution of marriage, I’d suggest that we defile the institution of marriage all the time. 50% of the heterosexual Christian marriages end by defiling the institution through divorce. And good percentages of those who don’t divorce defile the marriage daily as men cheat on their wives through pornography. None of it is God’s intended design! In Matthew 5:28 Jesus went further, “You who lust in your heart after a woman have committed adultery!” In other words, don’t think just because you were married in a traditional heterosexual union, that you’ve done the institution justice and have the right to judge the next wave of people who will fail my design.”

In line with Jesus argument with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11, Jesus would say to the non cake bakers, “You who have modeled a perfect marriage, go ahead and withhold the cake, but if you have ever sinned against my design of marriage, you better start whipping up some frosting!”

Bret clarifies,

Mr. Halter’s argument here is that since we all sin in our marriages therefore we should have no public square standard for what marriage is. This is a specious way of reasoning. It is like saying that all because everybody in a lifeboat sins therefore we better not pay attention to those chaps in the lifeboat who are sinning by trying to dig through the bottom of the port side.

Also, Mr. Halter gets John 8:1-11 completely wrong. When Jesus said he did not condemn her, the word “condemn” there is a legal term referring to a sentence in a court. Jesus is saying that there was no evidence upon which to find her guilty. The fact that she was a sinner is seen in Jesus admonition to her to “go and sin no more.” A judgmental bon voyage if there ever was one.

The Cake Makers are not in a legal court setting as the woman caught in adultery seemed to be. The sodomites were not in danger of being stoned to death by the cake makers. Mr. Halters reasoning is nothing but stupid.

Mr. Halter continues,

Look, God doesn’t need us to stick up for his created order of heterosexual marriage. The institution of marriage is set not because we do it correctly. It’s set because God created it and marriage will always be his idea. If we don’t stick up for the sanctity of life, life is still sacred because God says so. He’s a big boy and knows that this beautiful union that he intended between men and woman is going to be fraught with brokenness in almost every situation and so baking a cake is not the issue, but not baking the cake would most certainly create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus must have known that advocating for ‘sinner’s doesn’t make them feel better about their sin. It actually opens their heart to someday turn from their sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) God doesn’t need us to stand up for His righteousness and His righteous standards? Is Halter kidding?

2.) Halter again suggests that the best way to do evangelism is by ignoring sin. Curious evangelism.

3.) If everyone goes around murdering everyone should we not try to stop the murder rampage because even if murder is legalized, murder will still be murder according to God’s definition?

4.) I think Halter is afraid of being hated for the sake of Christ and the Kingdom. At least that is what it begins to look like. Don’t mention the sin of sinners to sinners because that would create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus can only hope to influence sinners? Think about it.

Mr. Halter continues,

2) There is no sliding scale of sin

Bret observes,

That is not what Mr. Halter said earlier. Earlier, Mr. Halter said,

“I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.”

Notice the earlier sliding scale of sin.

How Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community is even an greater offense then the act of sodomy.

Hmmm … Interesting.

Mr. Halter continues,

“When I picture this bakery owner trying to decide whether or not he should bake a cake for a gay wedding, I have to ask, what his reasoning or motives are based on. In other words, why did he say NO? I can only think of three reasons.

First, he could have thought that by baking the cake, these men would be pulled deeper into sin so if he made a cake he would be contributing to their ungodly union and sinful lifestyle. Clearly this isn’t the issue and if he baked the cake, these two men would not be more gay or do more gay things? The cake is just a cake! So that can’t be it.

So maybe, as a Christian business owner, he believes that he should represent God in who and how he gives his services away? He might think that since God is clearly against homosexuality, I must display God’s view of sin and never give my services or products to people who are sinning in this way. But consider the hypocrisy if he really sticks to this consistently.

Since gluttony is listed as a sin twice as many times as homosexuality is listed, then he would have to deny giving a scrumptious buttery croissant to anyone that looks to be overweight. And pastors who buy this guy’s donuts should therefore also not serve donuts every week at church, or create two lines and force the more sturdy lot into the glutton free, fat free line. To not do this would be to help people sin, right?

Bret clarifies,

Halter again is entering into the “since we are all sinners therefore we cannot take any stands against any sins” argument. What Halter fails to realize is that there are not glutton societies around forcing upon our social order the official embrace of gluttony as a positive good that all must accept.

Yet, this is what the LGBT crowd is seeking to do. They are seeking to overturn what little remnants remain of Christianity in our current social order.

Of course by Halter’s reasoning Christian Bakers should be required, in keeping with their Christian testimony, to bake cakes for parties that celebrate pedestry or pedophilia or necrophilia. After all, why should anyone ever defend God’s righteous cause. God’s a big boy. He can defend himself. Besides, we wouldn’t want pedophiles or necrophiliacs to feel judged right Hugh? Why, baking a cake for a necrophilia party might be just the way to get necrophiliacs saved right Hugh?

Halter continues to drone on and perhaps I will return to finish off the rest but it is the case that it is yet more of Halter’s psycho agitprop, gobbledygook, half truths, and total misreading of Scripture.

Apologetics Into The Vacuum

Dear XXXXX

Translated — Dear (fill in name here)

It is a form letter. It is a form, “kind of, but not really apology” letter. There is probably one of these laying on the table of many many other readers around the county at this very moment.

“Thank you so much for your recent communication in which you express concern re “The Gonfalon” publishing of two controversial articles. We appreciate very much your response and receive it in the spirit of helpful and constructive reflection on the best way to conduct our conversations on such topics.”

Translated — We have to say something to the complainers that will make them think that their letters add some kind of impact so we’ll use words like “appreciate,” “helpful,” and “constructive.”

Note the Psychological tone here. Soft words. Disarming.

Note also one is never told in the whole letter, “We were wrong,” or, “Please forgive us,” or, “we are sorry for our error against you,” or, “We ask you to forgive us for promoting positions that violate our club charter and our club membership vows to defend the club charter.”

“We want to assure you that we hear you. It had been our intention, from the outset, to answer the opinions expressed in these recent articles. For example, in the September issue we have Dr. Perry Crook, a well-known NWO biologist, challenge Sellout’s assumptions re “Abiogenesis.” And my September editorial will address the issue raised by Dr. Alfred Kinsey. We have also reserved space in future issues of the magazine to publish further responses on these topics.”

Translated — We are going to make it all better by having some good works balance out our bad works. Does anyone believe that the good articles will be as strongly “traditional,” as the bad articles were strongly “Cultural Marxist?”

Note — Does anyone really believe that Hefner is going to repudiate Kinsey, root, branch and twig? We shall see. Further, I doubt Crook’s article will completely repudiate all notions of Macro Hypo Maturation that include the necessity to re-read our origins.

In the end the seed planted by these two articles that were published will remain firmly planted. The take-away, at best, will be …“You can be a evolutionist like Sellout and be a member of our club, or have the views that everyone in the club had prior to 1850, like Crook and be in the club.” Similarly, what is communicated is, “One can advocate fornication like Kinsey did in his article and be in the club, and one can be a sexual traditionalist and be in the club. All of these options are valid options. The club is big enough for every contradiction.” Hence, the Cultural Marxists win because the club charter and membership vows are seen as irrelevant.

On this paragraph we have to say also that the Editor, in our opinion, reveals that he is either incompetent or dissimulating. The reason we advance such a theory is that the Editor is telling us that in an article written in April there was a design to print a answering article in the September issue … and this without even announcing with the publication of the April article that there would be a forthcoming article to provide “balance.” If the Editor here is not dissimulating it proves he is incompetent, and if he is not incompetent it strongly suggests he is dissimulating. It stretches credulity for one to believe that the Editor is not either incompetent or dissimulating.

“Upon reflection, we realize that that’s too late and also that our selection of these articles did not help us to frame the discussion well. Although we believe such concerns may and should be raised if, as in these cases, they are being expressed widely among our club members, they should be raised (and answered) in a more constructive way that does not leave our readers wondering and concerned about the direction of the magazine.”

Translation — We got caught pushing the envelope to hard and to fast. That was not wise of us. Better to continue with our Fabian incremental approach.

Note — What discussion were they trying to frame? Were they trying to frame a discussion on whether or not our founding document is true? Were they trying to frame a discussion on the necessity to embrace modernity in all its glory? Just what discussion were they trying to frame?

How do they know these concerns are being raised among club members? Did they take a poll? Was their impression that these concerns existed from random conversations? Is their evidence for these concerns anecdotal?

Do they believe that if, for example, the desire to sleep with one’s dead Mother (Necrophilia and Incest) were a concern to some club members they therefore could write articles advocating for having sex with one’s dead Mother?

“In short, as editor I should have done better and I have learned from your response and the responses of others. Again, my sincere thanks for expressing your concerns. I pray that they will help us to serve you and our readership better in framing these conversations.”

Translation — More required groveling. “Are you satisfied yet?”

The Articles and the Editor’s response is a classic case example of how Marxist dialectics work. The Marxist keep shoving in the bayonet until they meet resistance whereupon they withdraw ever so slightly only to recoup their strength for the next bayonet charge. The Gonfalon is the hammer of the dialectic. It hammers so far and when the nail (readership) finally resists a blow, it recoups for awhile in order to marshal their strength for the next hammer blow.

I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends — # IV

Joshua Butcher is a young friend of mine who is finishing up his Ph.d dissertation while teaching in a Private School in Florida. In this entry he examines the distinctions between God’s grace to His elect and the God’s spiritual gift he distributes among His people. Along the way he accentuates the idea that all that we are in terms of our Character and personality is the result of God’s grace being prior to our choices. We become who we are because we can’t help but become who we become.

I was quite impressed with Joshua’s essay and I though my readers might be encouraged by it as well since it speaks so excellently of our Sovereign and Benevolent Father.

Luther on “grace” and “gift”; with a homily on electing love

Between grace and gift there is this difference. Grace means properly God’s favor, or the good-will God bears us, by which He is disposed to give us Christ and to pour into us the Holy Ghost, with His gifts. This is clear from chapter 5 [of Romans], where He speaks of “the grace and gift in Christ.” The gifts and the Spirit increase in us every day, though they are not yet perfect, and there remain in us the evil lust and sin that war against the Spirit, as Paul says in Romans 7 and Galatians 5, and the quarrel between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is foretold in Genesis 3. Nevertheless, grace does so much that we are accounted wholly righteous before God. For His grace is not divided or broken up, as are the gifts, but it takes us entirely into favor, for the sake of Christ our Intercessor and Mediator, and because of that the gifts are begun in us.

What follows is one part appreciation for Luther’s quote, and many parts tangential appreciation for something a bit different.

Martin Luther provides a helpful distinction between grace, defined as God’s favor, and gift, which is an expression (but not the entire expression) of that same favor. An analogous distinction could be made between Law, defined as God’s order, and precept, which is the expression (but not the entire expression) of God’s order.

Apart from being an excellent distinction between grace and gift, Luther’s quotation provokes an interesting question: How is it that God’s grace–the electing grace of which Luther speaks here–how is it that this grace is distributed equally and universally to all saints, whereas God’s gifts are distributed unequally and particularly? The answer, I think, exhibits the harmony of unity and diversity, of the One and the Many. Grace is the unifying principle, the One Thing that binds all of God’s redemptive activity toward Creation; and gift is the distributive principle, the Many Things that declare in innumerable ways the multi-faceted, varied character of God’s redemptive activity toward Creation. The summary term for all of these details concerning grace and gift is Electing Love.

We have access to God’s gifts by God’s grace, and our access to God’s grace is through our union with Christ, who is Himself the Elect Son of God, and the Elect Man of God, from before the foundation of the world.

There is a sense in which there are only two individuals considered in the decree of predestination and election. There is the First Man, Adam, in whom the decree of reprobation is represented (whether or not the individual man, Adam, is elect or reprobate; since Adam’s own representation need not remain in himself, though it remains in those who follow from him by natural generation), and the Last Man, Christ, in whom the decree of redemption is represented (whether or not the individual man, Christ, requires redemption, since his own representative status does not depend upon–indeed, rather would be destroyed by–his own possession of the condition of sin).

Now it is quite true that every human being has been decreed unto reprobation or redemption, individually. However, one of the key issues that people have with election is that it occurs apart from any individual’s own contribution (we might say, his own merit). How is it, it is asked, that any one person should be redeemed or reprobated apart from consideration of his or her own choices, which make up his or her identity? Must not the individual be free from any compulsion, so that, by one’s own choosing, he or she may love the God who gave His Son to redeem man from sin?

The unquestioned assumption in the question is that one’s own identity is something determined by one’s own choices. This is the Existentialist philosophy of “Existence precedes Essence,” or “I am what I do,” or “I am that I choose.” Rather, we should recognize that an individual’s choices are a result of his or her identity, not a cause of it. An empirical examination does not seem to justify this claim, since we often discover that who we thought we were is different than what we think as a result of some choice or action. “I never though I could do X” seems to support the idea that my choices determine what I am. However, our identity is not made up of our self-knowledge, for, as the Apostle John declares, “we do not yet know what we will be” (1 Jn. 3:2). That our choices reveal to us an identity that heretofore was unknown does not prove that choice determines identity, but rather it shows the limitations of human knowledge. We may know ourselves truly, yet not completely–our identity is being shaped, but not by our choices.

What then shapes our individual identities, of which our choices are but partial revelations?

God’s omnipotence entails that no power, indeed, not even the power of an individual human will, is constituted or made effectual apart from God’s will. What I choose, what you choose, what anyone chooses according to the liberty of our highest affection, depends upon the exertion of God’s power entirely. What I choose on the basis of, that is, my identity, rests entirely upon the favorable or disfavorable willing of God. God wills unto one’s good, or one’s ill, and the choices one makes reveal to himself and the world whether he or she has God’s favor or not (though the full revelation of individuals is obscured in large part until the consummation of the Age and the Return of the Son in Judgment).

On what basis then does God constitute Those Favored and Those Unfavored?

Since it is God’s will that constitutes these two groups, there is no higher standard to which God could appeal, no standard upon which He could examine whether to choose X for reprobation and Y for redemption. Since no individual human will can act upon from God prior determination of that will, it is by God’s will alone that any subsequent will, wills. Therefore God’s will alone factors in the equation. The choice, for God, is arbitrary without being capricious. That is, God is free to choose without doing injustice in however He chooses.

Despite the arbitrary nature of God’s constituting the reprobate and the redeemed, there is another factor that liberates God from the charge of injustice, or even of unmitigated self-interest. The decree to elect and reprobate is not undirected, but has its end in the honoring of the Eternally Begotten Son. The Eternal Father desires to offer His Eternal Son an inheritance, therefore He elects unto the Son a people for Him to provide for, protect, and to glorify into His own image, just as the Eternal Son is the image of the Eternal Father. The Father is reproducing in giving His Son an inheritance what the Son will reproduce in His that inheritance–an honorable, glorifying imitation, which is the essence of divine love, which is the Holy Spirit (so much more could be said to unravel this seamless garment!).

The glorification of the Son, and consequently of the Father, is such that there must be an Enemy; an Enemy who possesses his own people to become an unholy imitation of his blasphemous nature. Such unholy anti-love is but the antithesis, the contrastive highlighting, of Divine Love. The darker the shadow of Satanic opposition, the brighter the light of the Son’s glorification.

The failure to appreciate the beauty of election is not due to any lack of aesthetic sensibility or faculty of recognition–for in nature, in artistic imitation, the use and appreciation for contrast is so universal as to be an unmistakable principle of beauty, even when it is not considered the sum and whole. No painter can achieve plays of light apart from contrasts in darkness. No musician can achieve the heights of a major tone apart from the lows of a minor. There can be no “is” without there also being an “is not.”

No, the rejection of God’s electing love (which include reprobation) stems from the universal recognition of one’s own status as one of the condemned. Each convict rails against the Just Judge, not because the convict can ultimately deny the justice of the verdict, or the power of the Judge to execute the sentence, but rather from the convict’s own dissatisfaction that he, the convict, cannot be, himself, the Judge. That motive characterizes the “old man,” “the flesh,” the child of darkness, the Satanic being–a motive that can only accuse the Maker of All Things of not doing everything according to the command of the Made.

But to those who have been constituted in Christ, and have been realized as such in history (i.e. the Spirit of adoption has testified to their spirit that they are indeed, sons of God with the Son), there is all of joy and marvel at the beauty of God’s electing Love–that He would include such lowly and dependent creatures in the glorification of the Most Exalted and Eternal Son! Had God wanted to, it would have been enough for Him to have allowed all humanity to enjoy the few years of pleasure on this most magnificent orb of joyous beauty–even that much would be more than we deserve as His enemies. Yet even the joys of earth were not enough an expression of the Love of Our Great God, who was neither so mean nor so impoverished as to keep even the most self-debasing and rebellious of His creatures from participating, after their own creaturely fashion, in the Divine nature.

Christian, what can you but do than exclaim, “Marvelous! Wonderful! All Too High and Lofty Design! O, Beauty and Love Immeasurable Great! Worthy, Worthy, O Most Worthy God; Holy Father, Holy Son, and Holy Spirit! Amen!”

Quotes on Social Engineering Achieved via Television, Government Schools, and Pharmacology

Man’s conquest of [human nature] means simply the rule of the Conditioners over the conditioned human material, the world of post-humanity which, some knowingly and some unknowingly, nearly all men in all nations are at present labouring to produce.

-C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, (London: HarperCollins, 1999) p. 46

…[T]he man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please.

Ibid, -Lewis, p. 37

If the system succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. …industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits [of human nature] by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

-Theodore Kaczynski, Industrial Society & Its Future, (Filiquarian Publishing) pp. 68-69

…[N]ew technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology… [S]uppose a… treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures… Something like this seems to have happened already… [M]ass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent.

-Kaczynski, p. 71

Our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.

-Kaczynski, pp. 70-71

Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction?… Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.

-Kaczynski, p. 65

Now let us consider another kind of drug — still undiscovered, but probably just around the corner — a drug capable of making people happy in situations where they would normally feel miserable. Such a drug would be a blessing, but a blessing fraught with grave political dangers. By making a harmless chemical euphoric freely available, a dictator could reconcile an entire population to a state of affairs to which self-respecting human beings ought not to be reconciled…

-Aldous Huxley, cited in Jim Keith, Mind Control, World Control, (Kempton: Adventures Unlimited Press, 1997) p. 95

There will be in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing… a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies.

-Huxley, cited in Keith, p. 95

The twenty-first century… will be the era of the World Controllers… The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship education will really work — with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.

-Huxley, cited in Keith, pp. 95-96

[Education] is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child’s development.

-Kaczynski, p. 66

What if there is no “problem” with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things, not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right?… Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?

[In 1934,] Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years… Cubberley… had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: “Our schools are … factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned…. And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

[Schools are] laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands.

We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults.

-John Taylor Gatto, “Against School”

If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?

-Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the godfather of consumerism

Two institutions at present control our children’s lives – television and schooling, in that order. Both of these reduce the real world of wisdom, fortitude, temperance, and justice to a never-ending, non-stopping abstraction. In centuries past the time of a child and adolescent would be occupied in real work, real charity, real adventures, and the realistic search for mentors who might teach what you really wanted to learn. A great deal of time was spent in community pursuits, practicing affection, meeting and studying every level of the community, learning how to make a home, and dozens of other tasks necessary to become a whole man or woman.

-John Taylor Gatto, “Why Schools Don’t Educate”