Made In Manhattan

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

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

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

Criticisms

MD soon moves to this line,

A.)

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

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

B.) MD later compliments Christians by noting that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D.) The Section on Religious liberty

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

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

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

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

E.)

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

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

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

The Thanksgiving Of Jesus

Matthew 11:25-30 is set in the context where it is recorded how Jesus has been rejected despite the impressive character of John The Baptist’s witness. Both the religious leaders and certain communities had rejected Jesus and that despite the miracles wrought by Jesus in those cities.

In the midst of this rejection Jesus offers up Thanksgiving.

I.) Jesus’ Gives Thanksgiving For The Father’s Giving & Hiding Of Revelation

This is a fulfillment of passages like Psalm 19:7

Hidden (ness) of Revelation — The Thanksgiving offered up for the Hidden(ness) of the revelation should be understood as a Thanksgiving that God’s revelatory word was in control of God. Christ is giving thanks here that it is the Father’s job to make Himself known and that that knowing can not be gained by the proud and arrogant.

When Jesus thanks the Father that the the truths of the Gospel are hidden from the “wise” and “prudent” we should understand that those people were “wise” and “prudent” in their own eyes. They were, as we might say today, the “Elites” or the “wizards of smart,” which is not to say that they weren’t wise in some measure but only that they were “to smart by half,” as the proverb goes.

One point to take here is that the Thanksgiving of Jesus is not a blanket warning against wisdom or intelligence but only wisdom and prudence that has a certain arrogant and snobbish quality about it, for even in the matter of wisdom God resists the proud by gives grace to the humble.

Revealed(ness) of Revelation — Jesus’ Thanksgiving for God’s revelation has a flavor of astonishment about it. Early Church Father Chrysostom put it this way,

“What wise men knew not was known to babes”

Once again the implicit recommendation in all this is not a warning against being wise or prudent but rather being wise in our own eyes. The “Babes” referred to in this passage were likely those that had not been rigorously schooled in Oral Law as the “wise and prudent” had.

If we were to put this in 21st century terms it would have been the ministers and Doctors of the Church whom Jesus was hidden from and the laymen to whom he is revealed … and such remains often the way things are.

In any case the passage in question clearly sets forth that understanding of God’s Word is not so much a matter of intellectual pursuit as it is a matter of God making himself known. Jesus Thanksgiving here reminds us again why we are Reformed.

It is God who opens the eyes of the blind and shuts the eyes of the seeing. Here is a statement regarding God’s sovereignty. What causes one man to embrace Christ and another man to reject Christ? Ultimately only God’s good pleasure.

It is only those whom God has set apart to see who will see. Here is a statement regarding election. Why does one man embrace Christ and another man reject Christ? Ultimately only because one has been set apart to salvation while the other has been passed by.

Those who are set apart to see will see. Here is a statement regarding irresistible grace. Why will one come of his own free will while the other won’t? Ultimately only because God loosens the dead will to become free to pursue him while the other one’s will is left where it desires to be.

All of this reminds us that we have no reason to boast. Our salvation is completely Christ dependent. What good do we have that we have not gained from another? None.

But let us press on here and ask the Text “what ‘things’ is it that have been hidden from the wise and revealed to babes.”

The context here tells us the “things” that are being spoken off are the words and miraculous works of Jesus (cmp. Mt. 11:20-24). What has been missed is that the Kingdom of God is present in the person and ministry of Jesus. This is what has been missed by the “wise and prudent” and embraced by babes.

II.)Jesus’ Thanksgiving For Being Known, Knower, & Revealer Of The Father

This next statement reveals the co-extensive nature of the work of Salvation between Father and the Son.

First we should understand that the mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son is for the benefit of the elect. It is because there is this intra-trinitarian knowing of the Father and Son that we can now know the Father. Note that the way we know the Father is by knowing the Son.

We are not far from the similar truth communicated in John 1:18, 14:9 here.

Second, understand that because of the nature of the Trinity it is the case that when we know the Son and the Son knows us we not only know the Father but we are known by the Father. There is the sense of a great communion of the Trinity that we are taken up into by our salvation. We become not only knowers of God but also those who are known by God.

The Father is that which is revealed, The Son is the Revelation and the Spirit is the one who does the revealing.

Palintology

The American Pravda media are having a meltdown over Sarah Palin the likes I’ve not ever seen since they destroyed the career of Dan Quayle. From the cover of Newsweek that clearly was seeking to trivialize Palin to David Brooks to Bob Schieffer to Chris Matthews the Fascist media are coming unglued over Palin. It has gotten so bad that one of the major media cable shows had a roving reporter attack a 13 year old Palin fan for not knowing why she supported Palin.

I’ve been turning this over in my head trying to understand why the media markets are turning inside out over Palin. Here is what I’ve come up with so far.

Race (Tribal thing)

At the link above at the 45 second mark Chris Matthews picks up on the racial aspect of Palin’s appeal. Matthews observes that the attendance to Palin’s book signing was “monochromatic.” In the mindset of elitist media figures if a political figure has appeal only to white people then there is certainly something wrong with that person. They don’t take the time to ask’ “why does Sarah Palin predominately attract white people?”

If they asked that question the answer would quickly be seen, by looking at election results, that the reason that people of color don’t turn out for Sarah Palin’s book signing tour is that they consistently vote for cultural Marixsts. Palin clearly isn’t a cultural Marxist, therefore very few non-white people attend.

This reality that people of color are voting for cultural Marxists in overwhelming majorities is something that people largely refuse to consider since such a consideration is not politically correct. What has happened is that minorities have, in Cultural Marxism (neo-Marxism if you prefer) largely filled the role that was filled by the proletariat (working class) in classical Marxism. Minorities are being used, the same way the proletariat was used in classical Marxism, to advance the agenda of the Marxist elite — a Marxist elite that includes major white media personalities like Chris Matthews. Sarah Palin is the anti-thesis of both the Marxist elite and of their rank and file and as such neither people of color, nor the white neo-Marxist elite class are interested in her.

So, perhaps in some sense, Matthews is right that Palin’s success is a Tribal thing but this Tribal thing can’t be explained merely by skin color apart from examining why the Tribes are separating the way they are.

Christianity

This is really part of the mix above. One can hardly talk about race without at the same time talking about culture and one can’t talk about race or culture w/o talking about Faith. The reason that this is so is that culture is race (mentioned above) and faith (mentioned here) incarnated.

Some will disagree with this by noting that culture is only theology (faith) incarnated but I believe if one suggests that culture is only theology incarnated one implies that men are a blank slate that don’t come to cultural animation without theology being written on that blank slate. Clearly, our ethnicity along with our theology inclines us to incarnate our culture in a certain distinct way. No one would expect Reformed Hutu Christians to create the same culture as Reformed Japanese Christians. They both would be incarnating their theology into a culture but their cultures would remain distinct because their ethnicity is part of what their Reformed Christian theology would be poured over.

Anyway, Palin’s attraction to white people is an attraction that can be accounted for by the residual effects of the Christian faith that many white American are still influenced by. The major media hates the Christian faith that Sarah Palin, fortunately or unfortunately, (I think unfortunately) has come to represent. Palin believes in God and worse yet to the neo-Marxist media elite she believes in Jesus. Palin is pro-life. Palin has some sort of inkling of Federalism. Palin is seen as pro-family (though for the life of me I don’t know why). All of these are consistent with a Christian world view.

Try to see this in terms of the anti-thesis. Palin is the cultural Marxist anti-Christ, and the media must destroy her.

Now, it bedevils me to no end that Palin is becoming the poster child for Christianity in the public square. From what I’ve gleaned from her background her Christianity is of the Pentecostal variety. I’m not very comfortable with the thought of a President getting a “word from the Lord” about rather she should nuke Iran.

Charisma

Palin has what all politicians desire and that is charisma. There has not been a political figure with the Charisma of Palin since Jack Kennedy. Not even Ronald Reagan had her charisma. She has a presence that defies explanation. A great deal could change between now and 2012 but if Palin’s Charisma holds until then no other Republican should waste his time running against Palin.

This is not to say that I think Palin is the most qualified Republican, though she certainly is as qualified as B. Hussein Obama to be President. There are several Republicans I would prefer over her. I could never vote for Sarah Palin. It is only to say that if her native ability to connect with middle America remains the way it currently is the nomination is hers to lose.

I observe the Palin phenomenon with a strange attachment. On the one hand I say to myself, “anybody who the major media hates this badly must be a good thing,” while on the other hand I say to myself, “whether she succeeds or fails she will largely define Christianity in the political square and I’m convinced that is a bad thing.”

Ask The Pastor — Can You Clarify The Military Issue For Me

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

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

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

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

Is that ideological agenda consistent with my Christian theology?

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

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

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

Neal Sam wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Couple Thoughts On Current Events

American Show Trial

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

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

Political Correctness Is Our Cultural Bane

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

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

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

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