Inevitability Of The Gods

“Western society, in turning away from Christian faith, has turned to other things. This process is commonly called secularization, but that conveys only the negative aspect. the word connotes the turning away from the worship of God while ignoring the fact that something is being turned to in its place. Even atheisms are usually idolatrous, as Neibuhr said, because they elevate some ‘principle of coherence’ to the central meaning of life and this is what then provides the focus of significance for that life.”

Herbert Schlossberg
Idols For Destruction — pg. 6

This observation by Schlossberg is a the stake through the heart of Westminster West Concordia Seminary (WWCS) radical two kingdom theology (R2kt). WWSC desires a secular, pluralistic, putatively non-religious culture but they advocate for that without realizing that the codification of a secular pluralistic putatively non-religious culture creates a religious culture where the god that has been elevated to provide the ‘principle of coherence’ is a god who will create a civil cult that insists that all the various gods of all those varying competing cults which are part of the pluralistic society must stay within the confines of their religious ghettos. With all the gods (including the God of the Bible) restricted to their religious ghettos what happens is that the putatively common realm will be guided by a god that goes about wearing the garb of non-existence. In other words when we seek to sanitize the public square of God, or when we pretend that the public square can be ruled by ‘no-God’ because it is a common realm, what transpires is that the god who rules the public secular square is a god who escapes notice by his adherents insisting that the god that is ruling doesn’t really exist and will argue that the way things are in the culture is ‘just the way things are supposed to be.’

B-16 & ‘W’ — A Conversation On The Interplay Of Faith & Reason

“The (Pope’s) trip begins in Washington, and the White House has announced that the pope and the president will “continue their dialogue on the interplay of faith and reason.”

Announcement concerning the upcoming Papal visit to America

Pope Benedict XVI — “Tell me Mr. President how do you understand the interplay of faith and reason?”

President Bush — “Well, all I know is that I am the decider. I mean — I know that I decide… er, uh, rather I decide that I know.”

Pope Benedict XVI — “I see. Well, Mr. President do you decide on the basis of faith or reason or some combination thereof.”

President Bush — “I was a ‘C’ student at Yale, and only crawled out of the bottle when I was in my 30’s. In my 40’s I ran a baseball team. Following that I parlayed my name recognition, my father’s connections, and my recently established sobriety into the Texas Gubernatorial Mansion. What do I know of either faith or reason?”

Pope Benedict XVI — “I thought we were going to talk about the interplay of faith and reason.”

President Bush — “That’s boring. Hey, I’ve got an idea, I’ll call up Karl Rove and the three of us can talk about Machiavellian manipulation. Now, there’s a conversation to which I can contribute.”

Pope Benedict XVI — “But Mr. President I thought you said ‘that Jesus was your favorite political philosopher.’ Certainly you must have some thoughts on the interplay of faith and reason.”

President Bush — “Ok, Ok, already…, anybody ever told you that when you latch on to something you’re like a dog with a bone? When I said that ‘Jesus was my favorite political philosopher,’ I had faith that statement would manipulate the reason of the religious right. That is the closest to faith and reason interplay that I get B-16. Hey, want a shot of Wild Turkey?”

Pope Benedict XVI — “No thank you. I’ve already hit the sacramental wine to hard today.”

They Just Don’t Get It

“I think it’s reasonable that we know where and if our children are being educated, whether it’s in a public school, private school, or at home,” said (Rep. Joan) Bauer (Dem. – Lansing), who co-sponsored the bill. Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, and Rep. Mike Simpson, D-Liberty Township, are also co-sponsors.”

Quote From The Lansing State Journal

Would someone mind telling Ms. Bauer that the children of clan McAtee are not her children. Please, can someone get through the heads of these people that the children in the state of Michigan to not belong to the state of Michigan and so should not be referenced by state representatives as ‘our children.’

Second, while you are speaking to this woman (Bauer) could you tell her that nobody in government schools are being educated. The purpose of government ‘schooling’ is not to educate but rather to make ‘good’ citizens and to create people with a slave mentality. Since Ms. Bauer desires to know if children are being educated, I can tell her authoritatively, that all children in the government schools, are not being educated.

Third, notice all the co-sponsors are Democrats. Keep in mind that the Democrats are in the pocket of the Michigan Educational Association teachers union.

Fourth, almost everyone across the political spectrum will tell you that government schools are disasters. In light of that reality, what difference does it make if children learn to be ignorant by going to government schools or if they learn to be ignorant by being truant between the ages of 5-18?

These people drive me nuts.

Airline Cancellations — More then meets the eye?

I worked 15 years for a major airline.

In the 15 years I worked in American Airports I never witnessed the large scale routine cancellations for ‘mechanical purposes’ that the Majors are currently undergoing. Keep in mind also that ‘mechanical problems’ is standard language in the industry for ‘the customer doesn’t know any better so just tell them it is a mechanical problem that is the reason for the delay or the cancellation even though the reason really lies elsewhere.’

My Spidey senses are tingling and they are telling me that these cancellations that the Majors have been experiencing aren’t about mechanical problems or inspection irregularities (though these do happen — though not with this kind of regularity) but are more likely about the Feds looking for something.

Go ahead….

Call me suspicious … but keep in mind that I worked in the industry for 15 years.

Theodore Beza On Faithfulness By Dissent

“(Beza) now made the traditional distinction between tyrants who usurped their office and legitimate authorities who became tyrannical. Usurpers were to be resisted fervently, ideally by the authorized lower magistrates. But if these magistrates failed, even private persons, following the example of the ancient McAtee’s (oops — make that Maccabees), could lead the resistance if God opened a way to them. Legitimate authorities who became tyrannical, however, could be resisted only by the lower magistrates, such as the electoral princes in the Holy Roman Empire or the Estates-General in the kingdom of France. Private persons could and should disobey unjust orders and laws, or flee the jurisdiction. But they could not fight or resist on their own. ‘[We] do not cease to beg our brothers to arm themselves only with patience, until God comes to their aid, either in another way, or by raising up a [new] prince.’

These early reflections were ‘an embryonic justification for democratic revolution’ writes Robert Kingdon. Bez’s argument in a nutshell was this: the political office was ‘ordained by God and represents God in the world.’ But the political officers who occupy that office depend for their authority upon ‘the public consent of the citizens.’ When the political officer no longer respect his office and no longer represents God in the world, ‘public consent’ can give way to ‘public dissent.’ When this dissent is expressed properly through the lower magistrates, the political officer loses his authority and must be resisted, and if necessary forcibly removed from office.

John Witte, Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights — pg. 104-105

Now the question that commands our attention is whether our current situation here in these United States is a situation where tyrants have usurped their office or whether it is a case of legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical. Actually, I think this could be argued both ways. The former argument would reason that we have tyrants who have usurped their office because they are in violation of their oath to the Constitution. This violation of their oath to the constitution would de-legitimize any claim they might have to being legitimate authorities. On the other hand one could argue that they are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical if only because they were lawfully elected to their positions. My instinct is to go with the former argumentation thus allowing more freedom for the individual to resist the tyranny but for the sake of discretion and prudence, I will, at this point, side with the latter argument that our current usurpers are legitimate authorities who have become tyrannical and who can only be resisted in the context of lesser magistrates. I think when we are considering a topic such as ‘faithfulness by public dissent’ we should be err on the side of caution.

The implication of this is that, we as Christians, should be earnestly petitioning God that He would be gracious to raise up lesser magistrates in order to lead His people against the tyranny that we are currently under in these United States. The second implication of this is that if God should raise up lesser magistrates to oppose the current tyranny that we are under it would be disobedience to God to not support these lesser magistrates with oaths of fealty and deeds of valor. If God should be pleased to raise up what some would characterize as ‘lesser magistrates’ to lead against what some would characterize as ‘greater magistrates’ we would need to return to the motto that ‘obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.’

Until such a time as God changes the equation here we must give Him no rest in making known our desire of magistrates who would rule consistent with His Word. Also, we must be willing to bear all that is levied against us by wicked rulers as God’s just judgment against us for being complicit in arriving at this point where the foundations of righteousness are being decimated.

In the end though we must note this…

Given the right conditions Reformed doctrine requires faithfulness by dissent or to put it another way, should God provide the right conditions a lack of civil disobedience would be disobedience to God.